One of the most impassioned calls to crush the Democrats in next week's midterm elections comes from Kevin DuJan, a Democrat of more than three decades that has seen the monster his party had become.
Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama took the mask off the Democrat Party…and the Leftist gorgon that lurked beneath is something America-loving, middleclass, Jacksonian/Clintonian Democrats want nothing to do with.
As part of your "Reverse Operation Chaos", you really need to emphasize something the media just won't talk about — and that's the simple fact that even if you called yourself a Democrat for 32 years, the way I did, because everyone you grew up with and everyone in your family was a Democrat, that in 2010 it's time to ask yourselves what that really means.
Do you want to be in a party that calls people racists for stepping out of line and voicing opposition to the socialist lurch of the current administration?
Do you condone voter fraud and the shameless, undemocratic tactics employed by Democrats?
Do you wish to associate with the likes of ACORN, the SEIU, the Black Panthers, and all the other thugs, goons, and degenerates the Obama campaign and White House employ as the DNC's muscle on the ground?
It is crystal clear that being a patriotic American who loves this country is intellectually incompatible with being a Democrat. If you love America and want it to prosper, the Democrat Party is at absolute odds with everything we need for a thriving, successful economy.
I seriously suggest you read the entire entry, which takes the form of an open letter to Rush Limbaugh from the leader of what was one of the most prominent Hillary Clinton-supporting blogs in the 2008 primaries, HillBuzz.
Clinton Democrats learned first-hand the thuggish Alinsky tactics of the socialist "progressive" left. The Clinton-supporting Democrats of 2008 are largely what we would consider moderate to conservative Democrats, and they are being targeted for extinction by the radical left. Progressives can brook no dissent. Philosophically, dissent is impermissible, and as time goes on, the remaining Democrats are being squeezed towards representing ever more radical positions by the Marxists and socialists currently leading the Party.
It is this radical view—this fundamental misunderstanding of humanity and an arrogant presumption that enough force-fed government can somehow "perfect"mankind—that has infected what remains of the Democrat Party. It is this poisonous, quasi-religious fervor that was used to justify more than 100 million human beings being murdered in the name of progress in the last century alone, and the reason that the generation that now guides today's radicals coolly rationalized the deaths of 25 million Americans in concentration camps for the good of "their" country.
We've gotten so used to demonizing our opponents via hyperbole and brazen untruths that we seem numbed to the real threats to our way of life. We seem to have convinced ourselves that our nation's leaders can't also be our greatest enemies, despite the bloody battlefields and mass graves that have resulted, and which have been repeated time and again throughout the long history of humanity when self-styled "elites" determine that they, and they alone, know what is best for the citizens.
We should not wait for representative democracy to be plowed under by the evils of socialism and the racialism of a President that was mentored by communists, murderous terrorists, and radical racial separatists.
Nothing good has come as the result of the progressive domination of our current government. The regime has dramatically intruded into the private sector, awarded itself powers the Founders never intended, has massively increased the nation's debt, and undermines out individual liberties... all quite by design.
I'm quite sure that those on the left can rationalize and justify every constitutional infringement, every direct action, every harassment, even broken campaign office window, every false flag operation and every case of voter fraud, convinced that their actions are for the good of us all.
They don't mean to be evil. They think they are doing us a favor with every shuffling step towards totalitarianism. But that is how evil works in the real world. This is an evil that even lifelong Democrats like Kevin DuJan now recognize must be eradicated for the sake of the Republic. Progressive liberalism is a cancer, and it will try to infect this election as it seeks to spread over and envelope the nation.
We've already seen evidence of possible voter fraud in Florida, Utah, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, all calculated to help incumbent Democrats loyal to the radical progressive movement fronted by Barack Obama.
Vigilance is necessary. Complacency is deadly. They will try to steal this election if they can to minimize their losses and keep their most devoted acolytes. Watch them carefully.
And make sure you vote for the good of the Republic, not the arrogance of the elites.
1
The possible voter fraud has reared it's ugly head here in Clark County Nevada with voter's go the polls and finding Pre-checked Democrat party Candidates. Not just a couple but hundred's so far. But the word is already out to CAREFULY check and double check your ballot's. Seem's some hotly contested local race's are involved also. You can never be to careful these day's!
Posted by: Jvh at October 28, 2010 02:53 PM (uaicc)
2
I voted yesterday. Candidate by candidate. Not all who call themselves Republicans are worthy either. I voted for NO Democrats.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at October 28, 2010 04:05 PM (brIiu)
3
Bit of a history lesson for you here: Hillbuzz is run by PUMAs. They voted for McCain last time after their queen lost the primary. There's no news in the fact that they still don't like Obama.
Posted by: Not Likely at October 28, 2010 06:40 PM (rkfje)
4
I sure as hell hope this goes well Tuesday. I have actually explained to my ten year old son that daddy might have to go off to fight in the second American Civil War. My kids and their friends really do call each other "liberals" as an insult. I have even heard "oh yeah, you probably voted for Obama" during arguments in the yard, and I live in CT!
Posted by: David C Johnson at October 28, 2010 07:54 PM (3t1kM)
I kind of, almost, nearly, feel sorry for the "America-loving, middleclass, Jacksonian/Clintonian Democrats." Except not really. They embraced progressive liberalism beginning with Woodrow Wilson. They have only themselves to blame for what their party has become.
Posted by: Random Thoughts at October 29, 2010 02:11 AM (WwIUf)
6
Better watch out, Mr. Johnson. There's a bunch of "Law Enforcement" types wandering around here who will ridicule your comment about Civil War. They don't see ANYTHING which might make that appropriate...
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 29, 2010 07:39 PM (0iz12)
Paul Supporter Claims MoveOn.Org Activist Was a Threat
Let me use small words and short sentences so that the brain trust at firedoglake can't possibly twist this: the Rand Paul supporter that put his foot on a professional left wing activist outside the Paul-Conway debate was wrong to do so. Lauren Valle, the activist attempting to push her way through the crowd to get to Paul, had already been subdued and was on the ground.
Police have summoned Tim Profitt to appear before a judge to face an assault charge after a scuffle was caught on tape outside the KET Studios in Lexington before Jack Conway and Rand Paul's debate Monday night.
Today, Profitt says he fears for his safety and has received numerous death threats after others have watched the incident on tape. He says his actions were misunderstood.
"I feared for his safety," Profitt explained.
In the video, it appears to some that 23-year-old Lauren Valle is wrestled down to the ground by Rand Paul Supporters and then stomped on.
But to Tim Profitt, the the situation is much different. He says what the video doesn't show is Valle's aggressive behavior. Profitt says she rushed Paul's car three different times; each time refusing to stop.
He says at the time, he didn't know what she was trying to do.
"We thought she was a danger; we didn't know what she was doing."
Profitt explained that he used his foot to try and keep her down because he can't bend over because of back problems. He also says police were alerted to watch her before Paul arrived because people in the crown recognized her as someone who may try and pull a stunt.
Anyone with a basic grasp of history knows that American leftists love to use women to do their dirty work. Obama friend and mentor Bill Ayers used women in his terrorist cell to plant bombs; his then-girlfriend was killed when killed in a Greenwich Village townhouse explosion when the bombs she was constructing to attack a dance at a nearby army base prematurely detonated. His wife, Bernadine Dohrn, is still the primary suspect in the bombing death of a California police officer.
And who could forget Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme (part of the Manson Family that Dohrn so admired she created forked finger salute in their honor celebrating Sharon Tate's murder) and her attempt to assassinate the President, or a similar attempt on President Ford's life by leftist Sara Jane Moore?
Erratic individuals, acting aggressively and attempting to push their way through the crowd can easily be viewed as a physical threat to a political candidate. I therefore find it quite plausible that the scenario at the Paul/Conway debate was such that Paul supporters thought subduing Valle was a rational response to a perceived threat.
Once she was down, however, and ceased to be a threat, it was wrong for Profitt to step on her shoulder in an attempt to pin her down. Others had the situation in hand.
Do his actions rise to the level of assault? I'll leave that for the legal system to determine.
I can tell you that any rational viewing of the videotape clearly shows he did not "stomp" on Valle's head, as the irrational members of the community-based reality trumpeted throughout the leftist blogosphere. He foot was clearly on her shoulder and back, and if he touched her head at all, it was incidental.
1
Viewing the tape, it does appear to me that the woman on the ground was kicked in the head. As to the intentions of the man with the foot, we can only speculate.
It really raises a larger question - when does someone have a right to engage in crowd control activities and limit the freedom of others? If you are on a sidewalk somewhere and I don't like how you locate yourself, when am I generally entitled to use force to limit your movement? If I think that you are going to ask someone for an autograph or photo, or ask them a tough question, am I entitled to grab you and move you against your will? Twist your arm and push you to the ground?
There are some right wing videographers who follow liberal politicians, introduced themselves (sometimes under false pretenses), then ask them rather forward, embarrassing questions. Is the use of force against these activists appropriate? We need a uniform standard of conduct.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 27, 2010 10:47 AM (Nceuf)
2
thank you for putting this into perspective. Yet, no matter how small your words are or how short you make your sentences, you will no doubt still be vilified by those coming along after the fact - comes with the territory I guess.
Yes, it was WRONG for Mr. Proffitt to put his foot on her shoulder - can I say this any plainer (or can you?) --
but, as you correctly pointed out - it was hardly a stomp - and, as far as I can tell, nobody bit her finger off. Apparently she felt well enough to go on Keith Olberman's show last night. With a few years of additional practice, Mr. Proffit might yet have the potential of joining the big leagues and becoming a SEIU enforcer at a leftist rally. But he is clearly not ready for prime time just yet given his weak performance Monday night.
Will anybody sponsor a fundraiser for his legal expenses like the NAACP did for the goons who assaulted Ken Gladney?
Yet, this could have easily been the outcome or much, much worse:
"On the morning of September 5, 1975, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme went to Sacramento's Capitol Park (reportedly to plead with President Gerald Ford about the plight of the California redwoods) dressed in a nun-like red robe and armed with a M1911A1.45 Colt semi-automatic pistol that she pointed at Ford. The pistol's magazine was loaded with four rounds, but none were in the firing chamber. She was immediately restrained by Larry Buendorf, a Secret Service agent."
It is EASY now for all the pundits and Monday-morning, armchair quarterbacks to specify what Mr. Proffit did WRONG. Is it only AFTER a gun is fired that concerned bystanders should get involved? Is it OK then?
Posted by: NocoLax at October 27, 2010 10:53 AM (7pIIr)
3
What about protesters that openly carry weapons? That seems to be rather popular these days in certain Republican and Tea Party circles. Are other members of the public entitled to knock these people to the ground from behind and disarm them if they think that they are 1) hostile in their tone and possibly a threat, and 2) getting too close to a candidate?
Posted by: Jonathan at October 27, 2010 11:06 AM (Nceuf)
4
If they are lunging toward the candidate and raising their weapon at the same time, then hell yes.
Posted by: nocoLax at October 27, 2010 11:16 AM (7pIIr)
5
And what if someone was alarmed by an armed person's twitching eye, and the way that they were positioning themself around the edge of a crowd, some distance from the candidate (but still within range)? Maybe the person had allergies that caused their eye to itch, maybe they simply didn't want to be in the middle of a crowd. Why wait until they raise their rifle - at that point, there would be less than a second to act. Much better to take them out as soon as a suspicious mind labels them a potential threat, don't you agree?
If you want to pro-actively knock down liberals based on 'what-if' scenarios in your head, you must admit that liberals are entitled to pro-actively knock down people that (according to their perception) MIGHT be a threat. You cannot demand that the other side limit themselves and avoid acting until the threat is clear and undeniable - to do so would be to play the role of armchair quarterback and impose a double standard.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 27, 2010 11:38 AM (Nceuf)
As I recall, Al Frankin (now Senator Frankin) did something similar doing far greater damage. I don't recall him spending any jail time for it. I guess it matters which party you are in.
Posted by: Professor Hale at October 27, 2010 12:40 PM (PDTch)
7
I say the same here as I tell any boy or woman. If you are going to go out acting as big as a man you must expect to be treated as a man. That includes getting your butt (or head) kicked and possibly loosing your life. It may not be the right thing but reality has no sense of right or wrong it just is. Boo-hoo. Welcome to grown-up land. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at October 27, 2010 12:48 PM (brIiu)
8
And, as it has been noted, the Dems seem to like sending out their women to do their dirty work - then complain and go crying to the media when they get treated like anybody else - boohoo! boohoo!
Yes, Mr. Proffit should NOT have stepped on that woman's shoulder - and it was similarly wrong for her to lunge at the candidate while wearing a disguise - but no one went to the hospital, no one had their finger bitten off, and in the end everyone went home - the woman was well enough to be giving TV interviews immediately thereafter and was smiling throughout. I don't even think her hairdo was mussed up. The SEIU boys would be ashamed to have left a tea partier in such good condition. Time for everyone to apologize for their actions in the heat of the moment and to move on.
Posted by: MtnGote at October 27, 2010 01:22 PM (JO3Pe)
9
Jonathan the difference between the left and the right is that libs will continue to stoop lower and more violent and clime that they are doing it for the cause and that it is justified but when some on the right stands up or defined them selves from the left we are violent racist by the left and the MSM
Posted by: Rich at October 27, 2010 01:30 PM (siQqy)
10
Odin - would you accept the idea that goals of lowering taxes or limiting government have nothing to do with right or wrong? Shouldn't you just grow up, be a man and accept things the way they are?? Or is there a moral framework worth discussing?
You are right, anon - the court may raise questions of excessive force against Profitt since at that point, the woman was on the ground, subdued and not really a threat.
Professor Hale, your recollection of the Franken event seems a little skewed:
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2010/03/29/sen-franken-unhinged/
That example of Franken allegedly coming 'unhinged' did not involve anything that could be described as more likely to cause physical damage - while a staffer did at times put a hand on the the blogger's shoulder, there is also footage of the blogger putting a hand on the Senator ... none of which was violent.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 27, 2010 01:45 PM (Nceuf)
I have seen plenty of stooping, lying and violence on the part of both sides of the political spectrum. I don't think that political aims can be used to justify improper means by either side. I think people should put aside partisan cheerleading and try to get to a code of conduct that applies to everyone.
Will both sides try to spin this event for their partisan purposes? Yes. Am I trying to do that? No. I am trying to raise questions about the legitimate actions of political activists (on the left and right) and where the line is. I am trying to raise questions about when it is right to use force against someone that 'may' be a threat.
Posted by: Jonathan at October 27, 2010 01:55 PM (Nceuf)
12
I don't feel sorry for her at all...She wanted to be a martyr. did she think she could not be a martyr without pain. Real human physiological pain. Hell she just got overcome by a guy with a bad back...and now the initial media input is she got stomped? Quite the lie.
If she wants to get stomped; there is a street or two in London she can go to where the Muslims are doing all kinds of stomping, and the girls just get raped and beaten. after all it is no sin to a Muslim to rape someone like her.
Posted by: ron at October 27, 2010 02:18 PM (IsLsg)
13
Having seen a video that is not as widely circulated as the video of the takedown, I am now of the opinion that the woman probably acted in a way that did violate the norms of personal space and raised questions about her intentions. She cannot be held blameless in the event. Whether assaulting her when she was restrained on the ground was justified is a very different question.
I refer to the second video on this page, which appears to shows her trying to thrust a sign in the open window of Paul's vehicle.
This video was taken at a different angle. It sure looks like a shoulder stomp instead of a head stomp, to me (both are bad, but I'm just saying......).
Posted by: Craig at October 27, 2010 07:09 PM (wjyW5)
16
It's funny how returning to the fundamental values of the US Constitution is the big theme with the Tea Party candidates and their supporters this election cycle, yet not when it comes to Ms. Valle's First Amendment right to free speech and to peacefully assemble.
Posted by: Madone at October 27, 2010 11:12 PM (EdaDz)
17
From viewing the videos I question the "head-stomp" meme, but I also see clearly that Pezzano grabbed her breast. I can see overreaction and excessive violence, but I cannot see any justification for sexual assault. Also, I cannot see why no one is mentioning this issue. If a woman is a threat, does that give me the right to feel her up?
Posted by: Uzza at October 28, 2010 01:53 AM (O2VIj)
18
I am really looking forward to the pundits this weekend, especially since we've had a couple of days to review all the tapes. Doesn't anyone remember in the run up to the health care not debate how those SEIU goons were roughing people up, punching them and restricting their First Amendment rights. I am probably a lot older than most of you here in that I remember a lot of what has happened in this country, in the last half of the 20th century, and a lot has gone on, assignation wise. In 1963 I was in the Army when Kennedy was shot in Dallas and I remember what happened in the fallout of that. I spent about a week sitting on a runway with all my basic loads and a parachute, waiting for the go order for Cuba. I was lucky it didn't happen. I remember Robert Kennedy being shot, Martin Luther King and George C. Wallace, Presidents Ford and Reagan also (Ford wasn't shot, just shot at). So this is not some place where some leftist punkess can just charge into a group, given the way this election is shaping up and not expect any retribution for it. This stomping on the head business must have been started by the left and picked up by the pundits at Fox (O'reilly and others). I believe the demoncrapts will try to steal all the close elections and go along way toward stealing the easy ones also. I've said enough and if I was a little long winded, I apologise and ask forgivness _ _ _ NOT.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at October 28, 2010 03:14 AM (8kQ8M)
Posted by: Professor Hale at October 28, 2010 08:47 AM (PDTch)
21
Jonathan, Wrong event. Before he was a Senator and a few years after he stopped being funny Frankin was at a Howard Dean rally in 2004. He did a wresting takedown on a heckler. It is hard to tell what happened to the hecker. He was taken forcably from the room and later reports talk about how awesome Frankin was for taking action.
Posted by: Professor Hale at October 28, 2010 08:51 AM (PDTch)
22
Today, Profitt says he fears for his safety and has received numerous death threats after others have watched the incident on tape.
And we see the secular American Taliban at work here. This poor sod now will receive all the pent-up rage of the leftists for having their agenda rejected by the American public.
As for his so-called crime, it would be surprising if he received anything more than a light tap for a quickly corrected error--no stomping involved. Certainly much less than if the Secret Service or the police had to take this agitator down for her aggressive actions toward a senate candidate.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 28, 2010 11:49 AM (MZd0C)
23
Sorry for the multiple posts. Comment screening was telling me my comments were rejected the first two times.
Posted by: Professor Hale at October 28, 2010 01:01 PM (m7EhJ)
24
While Jono & the rest of the 0bamite contingent around here rambles on about allergies and twitching eyes, here's some reality-based commentary on the incident from another blog. Some good photos of the provocateur's stunt, too, as opposed to ignorant left wingers playing concern troll.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at October 28, 2010 11:18 PM (3NUvZ)
25
"And, as it has been noted, the Dems seem to like sending out their women to do their dirty work..."
MtnGote at October 27, 2010 01:22 PM
Has it not been proven also that DemWoMen have higher levels of testosterone and bigger balls than most of the men on that side of the political spectrum?
Posted by: jcrue at October 29, 2010 12:23 PM (7SOYO)
26
jonathan,
Note that the assult on the woman was news. That is because news presents unique events.I have rarely heard of conservatives attacking anyone. I am sure you can surf the net and come up with something. But the fact is that liberals/progressives/communist have been using violence for many years, particularly the unions. In fact, that is why we oppose card check as the unions will do violence against those that do not vote the party line. Threats of violence is what Barney Frank used to cajole the bankers into taking bad debtors and thus precipating the mortgage crisis. He threaten to bring the execs to congress and publish their homes. The list could go on and on.
When I first heard of this incident I was concerned, but after review feel that nothing happened. As to sexual assult, the woman is a typical of Americans, big, fat, and nothing but breast (also obviously stupid), you can't grab anything else but her fat breast.
We are very close to civil war. One isolate incident of this nature is only a blip compared to what might be coming.
Posted by: David at October 29, 2010 06:43 PM (6PXjA)
So she got a few tickets. What’s the big deal? I refer, of course, to Samantha Sterner, Erik Scott’s girlfriend and arguably the most important witness in the upcoming civil trial regarding the metro police shooting of Scott on July 10, 2010. In Update 7 (the archive with all Erik Scott related posts and is available here.) I wrote of the fact that Sterner had recently received two traffic citations and several friends had been followed by the police for such distances that mere coincidence was not a credible explanation. The common factor was that all of the vehicles involved displayed a red, white and blue Erik Scott memorial ribbon on their rear surfaces.
Since that post, Sterner has received a third ticket. Bill Scott’s more detailed account of these recent developments can be found here. In brief, Sterner has received three tickets, two by Henderson officers, one by a Metro officer near her workplace, and as I mentioned in Update 7, others have been harassed--there is no other word for it--as well. So what’s the big deal? Lots of people get tickets, right?
1
I have allways respected the police and take all police on thier individual merits like anyone else.
that hasnt changed for me.
but, I am completely filled with loathing for any cops or agancy if they dishonor themselves.
the moment they cross the line from sheepdog to wolf, they have lost all respect from me.
all signs point towards too many wolves instead of sheepdogs in the vegas ranks.
another thought on the allmost pridefull way one commenter here described the shooting of vicky weaver between the eyes,
if you can admire that, I think you are in the process of changing from a sheepdog to a wolf.
and for another poster, if you can not only dismiss all off mikeM's analisys as fantasy you also need to start looking in the mirror and take a moral inventory.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 02:01 AM (60WiD)
As we discussed via email, my thoughts and opinions on the tickets and other harrassment exactly mirror yours. Not only with regard to the officers but also the roles of the line supervisors and commanders in the situation. I swear that I am totally baffled that this type of behavior could be tolerated in any professional law enforcement agency, particularly one which is in the spotlight and facing a civil case like the MLVPD is. As we both agreed, this is NOT coincidence.
Not being familiar with the geography of the area, I do have one question. Is Henderson part of the Metro area or do they have a separate stand alone department? (I do know that some of the smaller communities in the county have assigned officers from metro, but don't know if Henderson is one of them.)
Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 03:54 AM (kiwYh)
My alarm bells ring even harder knowing that ALL of the tickets Ms. Sterner has received are arguably of the "chickenshit" variety (we use the same terminology here). When I get one of those for approval, I usually have a chat with the officer to find out why he felt it was necessary to go there. Often as not I will end up voiding the ticket.
Like you, I am acutely aware that traffic stops are often the only contact that the average person has with law enforcement in the guise of enforcing the law, and it is critical to get it right. I ride my officers about the amount of time that they hold people when writing tickets. Ten minutes or less should be rule of thumb. I had one officer who routinely held people up to thirty minutes to get a ticket written and as a result generated a large number of complaints. A couple of written reprimands finally got it through to him, that no matter how curteous he was, after thirty minutes, everbody reaches a point of exasperation. I always consider it a point of pride to be thanked at the conclusion of a traffic stop, particularly one in which I issue one or more tickets.
This is just more evidence of a serious problem within the MLVPD and I am stunned that they don't even seem to see anything wrong with it. Like you I see it as possible witness intimidation.
rumcrook,
I wonder if in fact that commenter isn't just some internet troll who likes to get people revved up. Every cop I know thought the FBI shooter in the Randy Weaver case should have been tried for first degree murder.
Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 04:19 AM (kiwYh)
4
Me again. Just exactly what do YOU think the probability of ANY of your 6 recommendations will be followed by ANY of those involved?
And let me assure you that THIS modus operandi is FAR MORE prevalent in the "Law Enforcement" community than you would even CARE to imaging. Because THEY CAN.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 09:33 AM (qvyOB)
5
I would strongly suggest that Miss Sterner lawyer up if she hasn't done so yet - and keep his number on her cell phone speed dial. Punch it every time she gets stopped. This is an escalating situation that will probably end in her being "accidently" shot during a "routine" traffic stop.
Remember even parnoids have REAL enemies...
Posted by: emdfl at October 27, 2010 11:03 AM (ajlR3)
6
And I'll go even further. While the INITIAL action may have only been a terrible mistake, and the INITIAL coverup only been the action of a FEW officers, at this point the ENTIRE MLVPD is involved in this corruption. Because by now that is CLEARLY what it is. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is dishonoring their oath of office. THERE IS NO EXCLUSION in that oath for "unless it makes my boss unhappy" nor "unless it could cost me my pension" nor even "unless my fellow officers will refuse to back me up when I need help." And the old Sergeant Schultz "I see nothing!" doesn't cut it either. ANY department which has descended to such depths is nothing more than Thugs with Guns. Las Vegas USED to be run by the Mafia. THEY were FAR MORE honorable than the putrid stench of evil that currently passes themselves off as "Law Enforcement" in that city. The stench is overwhelming.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 11:18 AM (XNJxd)
Posted by: Federale at October 27, 2010 12:01 PM (NAlbk)
9
"There are no known facts relating to time, people or any other variable that would invalidate it..." except the testimony of the witness of the shooting who say Scott drew a pistol and pointed at Mosher. Even Sterner testified at the inquest that Scott drew his weapon, but she said it was to give up the weapon.
There is no controversy, because there are no facts that are in dispute. Especially the fact that Scott was hopped up on drugs at the time he was shot.
Occam's Razor actually says the simplest explanation is the most likely and the the facts clearly show that Scott drew his weapon and pointed it at Mosher, who then fired.
All else is irrelevant. Traffic tickets, the Public Administrator entering Scott's condo, the Ruger, etc. Irrelevant.
Scott was out of his mind with prescription drugs and carrying a gun. He decided, undoubtedly in a drug induced haze, refuse to leave Costco when asked. He, again, in a drug induced haze, then drew his weapon when challenged by a police officer acting within the law, and was shot.
This is a case of suicide by cop. Sad, tragic, but all of it the fault of Scott, when he decided to abuse prescription pain killers and carry a gun at the same time.
Posted by: Federale at October 27, 2010 12:10 PM (NAlbk)
10
And for Montie, I would posit that Federale and Buck are FAR MORE representative of "Law Enforcement" in this country than the group you hang with. While "Every cop I know thought the FBI shooter in the Randy Weaver case should have been tried for first degree murder." may be YOUR experience, the lying sewage that routinely refuse to honor their oath are FAR MORE the norm than what you think. The stench is overwhelming.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 12:40 PM (XNJxd)
11
I live in a small town and my experience may not be the norm for those in large metropolitan areas I used to work for the newspaper and had extensive contact with the police, both supervisors and street officers. I was once even stopped and arrested for legally purchasing a legal vehicle. At all times I have seen the police interaction with the public being in the best traditions as MikeM has explained them.
As for my arrest for purchasing a legal vehicle it was because I hadn't removed the previous owners tags while driving it to town. I bought the car from my father-in-law who lived seven miles outside the city I live in. I was driving it back to town when I was stopped because the tags were outdated. When the officer stopped me I said I had just bought the car and he said, "That's a shame, if it were still your father-in-law's I could just give you a ticket but since they are his tags and it's now your car I have to arrest you for borrowed or stolen tags."
He was polite at all times and I rode in the front of the police car to the station unrestrained. At trial the judge threw out the charge of borrowed or stolen tags.
I still see the officer around but now he's a detective and doesn't do traffic duty anymore. I joke with him about the incident and have had several laughs over the arrest. And yes, I thanked him at the end.
For those who have had a negative outcome with their interactions with police I would bet an objective witness to the incidents would observe the ones complaining the loudest about the police are the ones treating the police the worst.
Posted by: NevadaSteve at October 27, 2010 01:04 PM (x/ANA)
Exactly what interaction on a nationwide level have you had with the police that give you the experience to make such a sweeping indictment?
How many negative interactions have you personally experienced, and did you come at them with the same attitude from the git-go that you display here?
I've been a cop for 25 years and worked in departments large and small. I HAVE run into the occasional bad cop, and even experienced corruption that was endemic to a good portion of an entire department, but worked hard to curtail the careers of the "criminals with badges" that I found there.
But, the vast majority of people in the police profession are good people dedicated to doing the right thing. Since the police are drawn from the population at large there will always be those who abuse the power entrusted to them. Most departments will try to rid themselves of those types when discovered. Occasionally, it goes undiscovered or spreads like a cancer to the point that good cops are fearful to act against it and it takes a major effort or outside intervention to correct, but that is not the norm.
I'm sorry for the experience that you may have had that has made you so bitter toward law enforcement, but I would ask that you not try to paint all of us with the same brush.
Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 01:40 PM (kiwYh)
It's not so much that I think that the shooting may not have been justified from the point of view of the involved officers. There is a lot of testimony and evidence that points to just that. In the same circumstances, with the same information provided to me, I may have been put in the position to have fired those shots.
It's just that the actions you dismiss so offhandedly give the APPEARANCE of corruption or incompetence, leading to doubts in the minds of many as to the veracity of the police regarding the WHOLE INCIDENT.
The only MLVPD officer that I am actually familiar with is Officer Robert Hindi, and he is a consummate professional in every possible way. However, that does not mean that corruption and/or incompetence does not permeate much of the department as many of the things Mike has discussed would seem to indicate.
If anything, it would seem that MLVPD suffers from a dirth of competent leadeship from from line supervisors to the sheriff, because the things Mike has revealed should not be tolerated, and if the information circulating among the public is incorrect, the department should be working hard to correct all the bad info and misconceptions.
Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 02:00 PM (kiwYh)
Correct. A "Terry Stop" is not an arrest. It is an "investigative detention" based on an officer's reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed, or is about to commit a crime.
It may lead to an arrest or it may not. But, technically any detention by an officer from which the person being detained is not free to simply walk away from is an "arrest" however short that "arrest" might be.
It's just a parsing of terminology to allow us to do our jobs in a reasonable fashion.
Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 02:07 PM (kiwYh)
Start here:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
and recognize those are only REPORTED instances of "Law Enforcement" at their finest. Do note that they DID have the Eric Scott killing, but that NONE of the subsequent conduct has appeared therein. Then note just HOW MUCH of fine actions by other "Law Enforcement" like these ARE NEVER released to the public because, after all, "It's only a personnel matter." As I've said before, the stench is overwhelming.
But then, I'm just a nattering nabob of negativism. After all, MOST "Law Enforcement" scrupulously honor their oath of office, as they do all other oaths they take. That's why police reports and police testimony under oath are always the unvarnished truth. Like Joe Friday was alleged to say, "Just the facts, ma'am." As Pepperdine University has found:
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=34+Loy.+L.A.+L.+Rev.+767&key=8a06dcb2d24fdccad882610508e21e6b
And of course, you don't want to miss:
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=83+Ind.+L.J.+835&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=927ff9ec019ab85881a4142f0a8b48bd
You TRULY DO lead a sheltered life, don't you?
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 02:21 PM (XNJxd)
16
Mike M
Thanks once again. I would say you put it in a nutshell. The benifit of the doubt would be givin if the doubt was not accumulating like a snowball down a mountain side.
Posted by: Jvh at October 27, 2010 02:29 PM (uaicc)
I wonder, if it comes out that Erik Scott only had his cell phone in his hand if your tune would change. If the fireman under cross examination says he took the kimber out of Erik Scott's waistband. Would that really matter to you???
Posted by: Jvh at October 27, 2010 02:35 PM (uaicc)
Be careful, some on this site can't handle uncustomary opinions. You'll be stereotyped as a troll or, even worse, a truismer!
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 27, 2010 03:42 PM (Fw0L3)
20
Or more accurately as a pig, along with you, Mr. Turgidson! And just HOW MUCH do YOU bother to honor your oath of office? Would you bother to not force the people into the box cars that will take them so Work Can Make Them Free? Or is even that too much to expect of something so worthless as that oath?
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 05:12 PM (XNJxd)
21
yeah, I dislike people who carry out orders to shoot unarmed women between the eyes while holding babies, and people who admire that,
makes me a real intolerant guy....
I think most police are good and ethical poeple. but like I said before its not a job for everybody and if they cant do the job anymore without seeing everyone except other cops as scum of the earth its time to get out.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 05:40 PM (60WiD)
22
Montie,
To answer your earlier question Metro and Henderson have different departments, but Metro has authority over them. My residence is in Henderson, yet Metro patrols the area.
Excellent article on the last few posts as well as this one, thank you for keeping people informed. I find it troubling that none of this information is being made known to the public here in Las Vegas. Not one mention on the news of the Public Administrator breaking into the home and locking out Ms. Sterner. Not one word of her recieving 3 tickets in the past couple of weeks.
Federale you are an assclown seriously. I looked at your pathetic blog trying to mock people for even questioning the police. Reasoning with you is like reasoning with a robot. You just spam the same tired summed up version of how you interpreted witness testimony. Go ahead and just try to discredit some more on and on about
Posted by: willis in vegas at October 27, 2010 07:06 PM (fT8ar)
23
...medication in his system so nothing else matters. How much of the morphine was pumped into him in the ambulance? Now go ahead and discredit the girlfriend somehow maybe she kicked someones dog a few years back so she deserves to be locked out of her home the day metro killed her boyfriend and pulled over and ticketed every chance they get.
Posted by: willis in vegas at October 27, 2010 07:08 PM (fT8ar)
24
gee willis in vegas how dare you be so anti cop by proclaiming this women shouldnt be harrassed intimidated, and have the heavy hand of government lock her out of her own home out of spite, disregard malice and lawlessness.....
you probably are so anti cop you think its poor training if a man whos laying face down is continuelly shot in the back! how dare you question what happened that day. police are innfallable
and if you dont beleive that you obviously hate cops.../////////
Posted by: rumcrook at October 27, 2010 07:40 PM (60WiD)
25
@Federale also you are incorrect in how you are portraying bits and pieces of Ms. Sterners testimony. She clearly stated that he never drew his weapon and even expands on that stating that it was still tucked on the inside of his pants in the holster when he fell to ground. Go ahead and look it up on the local news 3 website they have the entire testimony she gave that was presented at the inquest recorded so you can hear for yourself. Pull your head out of your ass please.
Posted by: willis in vegas at October 27, 2010 08:27 PM (fT8ar)
Vicki was armed, as always. She was well aware police were in the treeline as she was using the infant as a shield, while holding the door open for a wounded Kevin.
I take it all your knowledge of this event came from the DailyCosmunaut?
BTW, his name was Degan.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 27, 2010 10:29 PM (Fw0L3)
27
Buck, that's what one has come to expect from lying pig swill, just like the MLVPD's finest. The stench is overwhelming. Filthy. Maggot. Pigs.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 28, 2010 09:31 AM (EYAG+)
the reason they were on that property shooting and killing people was trumped up. they purposely lured weaver into breaking the law and had to practicaly brow beat him into it. he could have been arrested in any number of ways after that,
but no they decided this was thier oportunity to play commando.
they are and were immoral and lawless and thugs
the government agents decided this would be a shoot to kill adventure.
in fact many agencies want to play soldier instead of finding a smarter way to go about thier arrest as a civillian agency.
am I advocating allowing people who break the law to wonder off scott free? of course not.
but entrapping someone then killing his family is thuggery.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 28, 2010 11:51 AM (60WiD)
29
It is also unlikely because it would be tactically self-defeating. The handgun would be almost impossible to draw if necessary and would be prone to accidental discharge while being drawn.
and, for a more mundane reason to not carry a pistol in the same pocket as your blackberry--it is an excellent way to scratch the heck out of the screen.
MikeM,
Thank you for posting an eminently reasonable and fair examination of the current situation.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 28, 2010 12:02 PM (MZd0C)
Some of what you say is true, some of what you say is keyboard fallacious. USMS waited over a year for Randy to come down, and had been negotiating for his surrender through third parties and his attorney (which Randy stopped talking to six month into this, as his attorney was part of the great conspiracy). Had not Striker detected the surveillance team placing more cameras around the property, had not Sam and Kevin chased the team down the ridge off Randy's property and cornered them, setting this debacle in play, Randy still be up there home schooling Elisheba.
Many, many mistakes were made, mostly by our government law enforcement leaders. Letters to every federal agency that exist from neighbor Kinnison, that ex-special forces Randy was armed and manic didn't help. Potts changing the rules of engagement didn't help. Vicki's very strange letter to President Reagan didn't help. Randy and Vicki's apocalyptic obsessions didn't help. And, most of all, when FBI supervisor Danny Coulson re-evaluated the intelligence at hand during this situation and realized the FBI had greatly overestimated the Weaver's threat level, nobody agreed with him.
Ugly, but true. Some wish to change history to suit their agenda, but it is what it is, rumcrook.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 28, 2010 02:03 PM (Fw0L3)
Are you aware of the medications Mr. Scott was taking? By all accounts, they appear to be painkillers and muscle relaxants, which have the side effect of drowsiness. He might have a DUI waiting to happen, but that does not equal raging and threatening people in the store. It may have led to the shooting, but only by making Mr. Scott slower to react to police commands.
Also, ignoring actions after the initial shot is a foolish approach. The officers continued firing, did not handle the scene professionally, and apparently got someone to help them enter a home without a warrant. This, in my mind, is what turns a tragic case into a criminal one. Even assuming he drew a gun, their later actions are unwarranted.
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at October 28, 2010 03:02 PM (+j2L3)
32
Neither Federale nor Buck care in the least about what the facts of the case are. They both perjured themselves to get their badges, and have no honor whatsoever. Their ONLY loyalty is to their Brothers in Blue. NO cop can do ANY wrong in their eyes, unless said cop "rats out" one of the lying swill. While the Eric Scott shooting was plainly not first degree murder, it clearly was AT LEAST manslaughter. Since then, the corruption in the MLVPD and the entire legal system there has been so massive that NOBODY in that department has ANY credibility remaining. The entire department should be disbanded and their certificates revoked in such a way that NONE of them will ever be able to put on a badge again. But Federale and Buck don't see it that way. And Montie thinks they can't be representative of "Law Enforcement" as a whole. Hate to tell you, Montie, but you and your "good cop" buddies are the enablers for Federale, Buck, Lon, and the REST of that putrid stench of evil. By continually playing the Sergeant Schultz "I SEE NOTHING" routine, you make sure that the evil in "Law Enforcement"" continues. Which is why civil war is coming, and soon. Not to overthrow the government and start a new state based on Nazism or Marxism or Islam or Communism, but instead to bring this country back to its Constitutional state. A state which Horiuchi and Federale and Buck ABSOLUTELY despise. The stench is overwhelming.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 28, 2010 04:10 PM (EYAG+)
33 You never told us where you did your 'time', Mark.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 28, 2010 05:59 PM (Fw0L3)
it sounds like just a differently worded way from what I wrote to say it was badly mishandled.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 28, 2010 06:46 PM (60WiD)
35
Buck, by now both you and the rest of your pig buddies know VERY WELL I never did time or even was arrested. But as I said earlier, with the "honor" that you and they routinely show, I wouldn't expect that level of honesty from any of you. Enjoy!
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 28, 2010 07:24 PM (cj06/)
36
No one is in charge of your happiness but you, Mark.
Life is hard, strong people are routinely called on to make impossible decisions that may include inexplicable sacrifices. Then we have the self-righteous, pusillanimous weenies who cower behind a keyboard, where they can protest about how they would save us all if only they could have more stench anxiety pills.
If you expect to lead your "civil war" Mark, you will not remain morally pure. You will no longer be allowed to use harsh words to defend yourself and your 'perfect world', will forever be irrelevant. In addition Mark, take that bar of soap between your thighs and put it away for another time, as destiny is almost ready to call on YOU to lead us on that magic bus ride where EVERYBODY gets to sit in front.
That is all
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 29, 2010 12:59 PM (Fw0L3)
37
I will sure remain far more morally pure than the stench who consider their oath of office nothing more than a formality to be ignored as soon as the badge goes on. Black's Law Dictionary even has a descriptor for fine "Law Enforcement" like you - "testifying". Look it up. Over 50,000 references in Lexis-Nexis for your fine performances, along with your other fine Brothers in Blue. Rule of Law? Nothing but Thugs with Guns that make the Mafia look good in comparison. The stench is overwhelming.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 29, 2010 04:14 PM (0iz12)
38
I think the word you are looking for is "testilying." And yes, in virtually every civil case I have worked on where an officer testified, he lied (and I don't say that lightly -- these are instances where the testimony was directly refuted by documentation). In several cases, they even lied in situations where the truth would suit them better.
The only ones I haven't seen doing this in Texas are State Troopers, hence the "virtually". I used to include Texas Rangers in this... but then I had a Texas Ranger testify in a case, and that hope was shattered. (IANAL. Trial consultant. FYI.)
Posted by: Phelps at November 02, 2010 03:44 PM (QhXW0)
39
I was Prosecuting Attorneuy for decades. Cops tolerated me because I was on "their" side. But I never was one of them and we all knew it.
It's been my observation that cops spend so much time dealing with scumbags they begin to see only two classes of people: cops and perps. If you're not a cop, you're a perp. We may not know what specifically you've done yet; but you're a perp nonetheless and so are treated with suspicion.
Concealed carry citizens honestly believe they're on the side of law and order - the cops' side. But they're not cops so they can only be perps. Worse, they're armed perps, which are dangerous to cops. Cops rightly fear the danger posed by armed perps; therefore, they fear concealed carry citizens and try their damndest to disarm them.
Cops know that shooting a perp is commendable while shooting a cop is contemptable. Scott's trouble is that in the eyes of those officers, Scott, as concealed carry citizen, fell into the dangerous perp category. They reacted to him as they would any Most Wanted Felon, instantly and forcefully. It was only afterwards they realized the shitstorm that would fall upon them for shooting a person whom the public wouldn't view as a perp, but would view as being as good as (or possibly even better than) a cop.
That's when the coverup started, and snowballed, and by now can't be stopped by anything or anybody inside the Department lest everybody lose their badges, their pensions, possibly even their liberty.
It's never the crime that gets you, it's always the coverup. I never had to explain that to my cops - their seniors took care of it for me. Looks as if someone needs to do that here.
Great job of reporting and analyzing the facts. Keep it up.
.
Posted by: joe doakes at November 02, 2010 03:51 PM (w4eku)
40
As for the traffic stops, I completely agree: they should not be happening.
I told my cops to "stop all violators, write all misdemeanors." When you pull someone over for a minor offense, you get to check for license, insurance, registration, wants or warrants and whether they've been drinking.
If you find something serious, take 'em. But if it comes back clean, give the driver a verbal warning and send her on her way. She'll be grateful for not getting a ticket; you'll avoid peer scorn for a cheap pinch; the public will see you running the lights which will slow them down . . . everybody wins.
But the surest way to lose a case is for the defendant to tell the judge the officer recently has written half-a-dozen harassment tickets. Judges hate that. If you truly were busy copping, you'd have no time to single out this individual. There's only one reason for it - the officer is being a bully. Judges hate that.
That's what it looks like in this case. It's a sign the cops lack professionalism. If the judges don't step on it hard, it'll be proof the system is entirely corrupt, no less than it was in the Bugsy Siegel first came to town.
.
Posted by: joe doakes at November 02, 2010 04:14 PM (w4eku)
41
Montie - Are you there? I have no doubt that Buck and Federale will be back to call Phelps and joe doakes liars and ask where they did their "time". But it looks like Montie can't handle the truth...
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 02, 2010 04:16 PM (p4o5I)
42
My bet is that the judges WILL NOT step on it at all, and that Las Vegas was FAR better off under the Mafia than with the "Law Enforcement" and "Legal System" that they have today.
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 02, 2010 08:05 PM (p4o5I)
43
Thank you Mike for continuing to connect the dots. Thank you Confederate Yankee for following this case. Some of us in the forum may need to be more cautious and polite with some of our words. Just because someone disagrees with your view does not mean that they are evil or stupid. Our Savior warned, "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by they words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (The Bible, Matthew 12:36-37)
Posted by: DisabledVeteran at November 05, 2010 12:38 AM (MN0g3)
44
When the option is civil war if the Rule of Law in line with the governmental limits imposed by the Constitution is not re-established, I would hope that God would be somewhat understanding. We are not far from open warfare. And the Eric Scott case may end up being the tipping point.
Posted by: Mark Matis at November 05, 2010 11:47 AM (v2feC)
Mr. Obama is at it again. Only last week we learned that we're all too fearful and stupid to understand evidence and argument and science, and that we're going to be engaged in "hand to hand combat" with Democrats after the election. But Mr. Obama redeemed himself on Monday by inviting Republicans along on the Obama Magic Bus, with one proviso: We have to ride in the back.
Hope, change, progress, lunatic racial slurs...it's a brave new world.
1
Hand to hand? Would it were true! That would imply their immanent doom. Alas, while their extinction is assured it shall be a slow and costly decline.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at October 26, 2010 09:53 AM (brIiu)
2
For some reason this comment really got to me. Not that I can listen to the jerk without getting mad anyhow. This guy has never had a moment of discrimination, yet he presumes to use a very polarizing phrase such as this. Then the big media does nothing. Imagine a white politician saying the same thing. The sooner this jerk is out of office, the better.
Posted by: David at October 26, 2010 11:36 AM (dccG2)
3
He was addressing Michael Steele. It was no gaffe.
Posted by: brando at October 26, 2010 03:22 PM (IPGju)
"inviting Republicans along on the Obama Magic Bus, with one proviso: We have to ride in the back."
What he actually said:
As he does frequently, Obama compared the economy to taking over a car that veered into a ditch. As Democrats have tried to push the car out of the ditch, Republicans, he said, were “fanning themselves, sippin’ on a Slurpee” and kicking dirt in their faces.
“Now we get the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder, saying ‘We want the keys back,’” Obama said to cheers. “You can’t have the key back — you don’t know how to drive,” Obama said to hoots, hollers and hurrahs. “You can ride with us if you want, but you’ve got to sit in the backseat. We’re going to put middle-class America in the front seat.”
-nice work
Posted by: Halleck at October 26, 2010 04:01 PM (3kupO)
We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.“
The quote CY was referring to, Halleck.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 26, 2010 04:12 PM (Srqoz)
6
Oh, you're right then, we should put the middle class families in the back.
Republican fee fees should get to ride up front so they can jerk the wheel and steer the car back into the ditch.
Good plan.
Posted by: Halleck at October 26, 2010 04:33 PM (3kupO)
7
Halleck,
First, I saw the speech. He definitely made a statement that could be construed as a racial slur.
Next, you seem to be confused. The issue is no longer Republican versus Democrat. To make a reference to the Republican party in the manner that you did shows that you have no understanding of the issues and the principals. Both the Dems and Rep. are really the same party. People have come to realize this and thus the birth of the Tea Party. The correct concept would be conservative vs liberal/Communist/progressive. We feel that both parites are responsible for the mess that we are in. Your next statement will likely be something to do with Bush. Before you get there let me reassure you that Bush was not a conservative. The only thing Bush had going for him was that he was not Gore or Kerry (thank God). But Bush was just as much a progressive as any of the other nuts in DC.
The intent of the conservatives is to elect anyone that will forward our agenda. Currently the Republicans seem to have some of our agenda on their platform. But many of them will have to go as they are Bush clones. Also, I don't think you understand that this is not a little game of my party won or is better than yours. People that I know are getting to the point that they want to bring out the guns. If we don't get change soon, then expect a violent reaction.
Posted by: David at October 26, 2010 07:48 PM (ZgM5r)
8
Ok David, I'll call your bluff. Let's have armed insurrection and treason and let's see how far that gets the Tea Party.
Posted by: Nuge at October 26, 2010 11:05 PM (BuOHs)
9
Please explain to me why the ALL of the "Tea Party" candidates ran in REPUBLICAN primaries then.
As for your mall ninja shtick, nothing would lend the tea party more credibility than violence.
Posted by: Halleck at October 27, 2010 01:26 AM (3kupO)
10
You guys don't get it. Or maybe you do, and you're purposefully distorting the message. Either way, you're way off base.
Neither political party exsists for the good of the people as a whole, but rather they exsist only to perpetuate themselves. The Republicans and Democrats purposefully keep us divided and polarized in order to control us and plunder our beloved nation. They each paint the supporters of the "other party" as lazy or greedy, meanwhile they increase their power and the country's deficit.
No sane person wants violence. Americans are a peaceable people and we want nothing more than the freedoms our Declaration of Independance and Constitution promise. But a growing number of Americans feel that the ballot box is failing us. They feel helpless against the political machine, and think that our options are running thin.
The TEA party may be our last peaceable option. The TEA party supporters seek to hold ALL politicians accountable to the people - upper, lower and middle class. Right now it supports mainly Republicans because the majority of incumbants are Democrats, but its message to Republicans is, "you're on thin ice".
If the TEA party fails in its original goals by being marginalized by the Democrat party OR hijacked by the Republican party, then the whole political system has failed. Then what option does a peaceable people have left?
Posted by: Walt at October 27, 2010 06:27 AM (puT5W)
11
Walt,
Don't get upset by those guys. It is the end of the first 9 weeks of school and when the kids finish studying, they seem to seek out this blog. Just a bunch of immature high school kids trying to get a something going.
Posted by: David at October 27, 2010 09:45 AM (dccG2)
12
"There ain't no good guys. There ain't no bad guys. There's only you and and me, and we just disagree."
Posted by: gc_wall at October 27, 2010 12:08 PM (J9e8e)
13
Good plan.
Posted by Halleck at October 26, 2010 04:33 PM
So, in response to showing that you were mistaken you blithely move on to your real point.
classy. just classy.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 28, 2010 03:54 PM (MZd0C)
Rand Paul Support Stomped Outside Paul/Conway Debate
The media and leftist blogosphere are all over the story of a moveon.org supporter that attempted to approach Rand Paul while wearing an obvious disguise. The young lady was assaulted, and charges should be pressed against her assailants.
At the same time, at the same rally, a Democrat supporting Jack Conway viciously stomped on the foot of a Rand Paul supporter who had recently gone through foot surgery, tearing open the incision.
The simple fact is that supporters on both sides acted like animals outside this debate, and it is disgusting to watch the media and leftist blogosphere provide such one-side coverage.
1
Typical right wing method of operating that I've seen used hundreds of times, rather than condemning the actual act, dig deep in history to find an unrelated equivalent or in this case "blame both sides" so proving that two wrongs make a right.
It's called "Tu quoque" and it's a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Posted by: David at October 26, 2010 03:58 PM (zrRaA)
2
Preventing someone attempting to lunge or force their way to a senatorial candidate was stopped. No assault committed. As for stomped, who will you believe; Democrats or your own lying eyes?
Posted by: iconoclast at October 26, 2010 04:15 PM (Srqoz)
Condemning both actions--even though one was not assault--is not justifying one wrong with another. But intentionally misconstruing CY's comment is predictable and easily ignored.
Posted by: iconoclast at October 26, 2010 04:17 PM (Srqoz)
5
She wanted to give the *uckwad an award. Ungrateful, I'd say.
Posted by: yobo at October 26, 2010 06:22 PM (vOaHi)
6
Authorities can't confirm who did the alleged stomping of the well-known lefty agitator. Could have been her own fellow travelers staging their own attempt at a "Kristallnacht". Fake, but real and all that, by our leftist friends! Funny how the perps were all so conveniently clad in Rand Paul gear and simply melted away into the crowd.
I'm smelling leftist rats at work here!
Posted by: Earl T at October 27, 2010 12:07 AM (QPZAf)
7
At this point, given the left's demonstrated predilection for plants and agents provacateurs, I'd say there's a strong chance the Rand Paul assault was a nice bit of lefty street theater.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 27, 2010 04:02 AM (QQ9sc)
8
David, I'll call you your logical fallacy, and raise you with provoking a disproportionate response being the textbook intent of a terrorist attack.
Posted by: Phelps at October 27, 2010 09:32 PM (jhIJh)
9
She wanted to give the *uckwad an award. Ungrateful, I'd say.
Posted by yobo at October 26, 2010 06:22 PM
Given examples like this, how can anyone say the Left is full of imbeciles?
Posted by: iconoclast at October 28, 2010 12:04 PM (MZd0C)
An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly lied to federal immigration and FBI agents and submitted false federal documents to the Department of Homeland Security to cover up her illegal seven-year marriage to a Lebanese national who was the subject of an Oklahoma City Joint Terror Task Force investigation, FoxNews.com has learned.
Diana Tejada, Reid's Hispanic Press Secretary, admitted to receiving payment for "some of her expenses" in exchange for fraudulently marrying Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini in 2003, strictly so he could obtain permanent U.S. residency, according to court documents.
She only fraudulently married him, so I guess the headline saying that this Democrat was in bed with terrorists is something of a cheap shot. I should have said that she was simply will to take money from a terrorism suspect in order to hide her willingness to take payments to compromise national security.
Tejada—a mouthpeice for La Raza as well&mdash:was only released from Reid's campaign last week, apparently when the Senate Majority Leader was alerted that Fox News was going to expose her and embarrass the campaign.
North Carolina May Add Governors' Wing to Central Prison
Or at least they may need to consider it, if both the current and former governors are as corrupt as some suspect:
Governor Beverly Perdue made her first public appearance Monday following Friday afternoon's announcement that federal investigators are probing her 2008 election campaign.
At a gathering of municipal government leaders Monday morning, she knew she'd face questions, but had little to say.
"It's an ongoing investigation. It would really be inappropriate for me to make any comment on this at all. I hope to be able to do that later, but right now I can't say anything," she told ABC11.
The State Board of Elections fined Perdue's campaign $30,000 in August for failing to report in a timely fashion private flights. A majority of the board found no deliberate effort to break the law.
And North Carolina's State Bureau of Investigation was already investigating Perdue after Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby said he had lingering questions about her campaign's airplane flights...
[snip]
While the feds aren't talking about the investigation, some speculate it may reach back to their ongoing investigation of former governor Mike Easley.
Ruffin Poole, a former top level aide to Easley, pleaded guilty in April to income tax evasion in a plea deal with federal prosecutors that included his cooperation.
The income tax charge was related to money Poole made from an investment with Lanny Wilson - one of the backers of a Carteret County development where Easley bought a lot at a heavily discounted price.
Now, North Carolina political watchdog Joe Sinsheimer speculates the feds could be focused on Perdue's relationship with Wilson - who was her campaign finance chairman.
North Carolina's Democrat Party has been murderously corrupt since Reconstruction, and so I don't expect either governor to do time. Their minions will take the fall, and the cycle will continue.
1
Perhaps the feds could add a governors' wink to some federal lock-up. Between Illinois and North Carolina we could almost fill up at least one floor.
Posted by: Spartan79 at October 25, 2010 10:11 PM (aR5oH)
I scanned through the news articles and blog entries posted on Memeorandum this morning and realized that I really don't have a lot to add to the painfully obvious.
Rabid liberals are still backing one of the most horrific human beings in Congress simply because he is a progressive. Another Democrat however, seems to be vying for the dishonor.
NPR is still getting flamed for their purge of Juan Williams.
Days from the midterm elections, Democrats are still making promises of sunshine and unicorns, even as 60 Minutes slips and admits that the real unemployment rate is so much worse than any leftist will admit. Republicans are still confidently predicting a November 2 route, while no doubt planning continues in the RNC to cut the assumed rise of the Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill. This will set up a nice split between the rising power of the fiscally-focused Tea Party and socially conservative Republicans in 2012, giving the trainwreck Democrats a chance of regaining power and re-electing Obama in 2012, at which point I think I'll buy a nice bunker somewhere.
Of course, I haven't had my coffee and it's Monday, so I could be wrong.
1
Personally, I am looking for a nice piece of farm land that will allow me to be more self-sufficients, along with providing clear fields of fire. My vision for my retired years didn't include farming, but I am afraid that is what it is coming to.
Posted by: Mike at October 25, 2010 03:07 PM (7nc0l)
The Erik Scott Case, Update 7: Competence vs. Coverup
Update 6 (The Confederate Yankee Erik Scott archive with all previous articles and updates can be found here) revealed the irregular, arguably illegal behavior of the Clark County Public Administrator’s Office and the Metro Police in searching Erik Scott’s home and taking property from it after he had been shot and killed by Metro officers. That, as well as the most complete theory of what actually happened posited to date, will be revisited and explained shortly. It will be worthwhile to visit Bill Scott’s most recent post on the Erik Scott Memorial site. That post may be found here.
But first, it may be useful to understand what should happen following an officer involved shooting. It’s not like TV where independent crime investigation units staffed by young, attractive, brilliant technician/cops are housed in state of the art, gleaming glass and steel facilities with only the best and most recent equipment, and where their stunning, microscopic discoveries lead to dramatic confessions during confrontations with suspects.
1
One sad thing is, if you theory is correct, the officers now have created or reinforced a web of corruption which will lead to more corruption.
Now, if an officer does something rogue, his colleagues have to look the other way. Otherwise, if brought up on charges, that officer might roll-over on the other cops.
Posted by: mockmook at October 23, 2010 01:51 PM (WZMt3)
What kind of odds do you give that this conspiracy (assuming it happened) will be exposed and lead to real consequences?
Posted by: mockmook at October 23, 2010 01:57 PM (WZMt3)
3
"Thorpe turned these items over to the police officer--identity unknown--accompanying him in the ambulance."
How is it that the officer riding in the ambulance is "unknown"? No need for him at the "inquiry"?
Posted by: Jeff at October 23, 2010 04:44 PM (tn10X)
4
According to Erik's father, his bloodstained carry license for the Ruger was found in his wallet. Yet Detective Carlos testified that he was not licensed to carry the Ruger. Very, very strange. Why introduce the additional element of a criminal offense when it can be so easily proven to be false?
This entire case stinks, and the stink will be emanating from a Federal courthouse soon as the civil trial begins. I suspect the Scotts will not settle for anything less than a thorough housecleaning of LVMPD.
Posted by: Paul Schmehl at October 23, 2010 06:32 PM (D13W4)
You have set forth a very convincing theory that I, to a certain extent, buy into. However, the vastness of the conspiracy you have outlined is breathtaking both in the number of police officers who would, of necessity, have to be involved, and in the fact that outside agencies and their personnel would have to knowingly be complicit in that conspiracy.
Those two things alone are hard to rectify. You are talking about not only line police officers and supervisors, but detectives and their supervisors, crime scene technicians and their supervisors, laboratory technicians and their supervisors, along with a certain number of highly placed police brass. Then you have to look at EMT personnel and their supervisors and of course the Deputy Public Administrator and perhaps the Public Administrator that he answers to. The Prosecutor's Office to include the Assistant Prosecutor(s) directly handling the case, any clerks involved in the case file prep, and of course the Prosecutor (or District Attorney in my state). Of course, this conspiracy would also include the Coroner's Office and any investigative and medical personnel involved in the case from that office.
The sheer number of people who would have to go along with this conspiracy is staggering. I cannot believe that there is not one person of conscience who takes their job seriously and to heart can be found in all those agencies within the Metro Las Vegas area who might have been involved in this case and saw something that made them go...hmmm.
Also, let's say for the sake of argument that Erik did in fact have his cell phone in his hand and that the officers were taken by suprise by suddenly finding that their "irrational man with a gun" that they were responding to Costco for, was only feet away, and that in the compressed time available to respond to so near a threat, saw something in the hand of their "man with a gun" and made the assumption that it was a gun.
Police have made this mistake time and again across the country and although they might suffer some serious personal issues in the aftermath, they have usually been found not guilty of criminal action when their shooting is examined in the light of what they knew at the time of the shooting and what they saw or thought they saw at the time of the shooting (the Amadou Diallo shooting by NYPD is a good example).
The officer's perception that the cell phone was a weapon and that they had only hundredths of a second to react would likely have cleared them, so what was to be gained by compounding the mistake with intentional deceit and conspiracy which if discovered, would destroy the lives and careers of a number of officers, and supervisors within the department along with involved parties of numerous other agencies?
The siren song of the theory that you have pontificated is strong though. Particularly in light of some of the actions by not only police personnel, but many others.
If your theory is correct, it would mean that either serious corruption or serious incompetence (if not both)is endemic to most if not all of the metro government of Las Vegas and that the corruption or incompetence is so deeply ingrained over such a long period of time as to be accepted as the normal way of doing business.
Like you, I hope and I pray that such is not the case. I look forward to your next installment and hope that you can obtain additional information that can shed more light on this horrible event.
Posted by: Montie at October 23, 2010 10:29 PM (nX+SQ)
6
Montie,
This is the status quo here in Vegas. The Sheriff Doug Gillespie was involed in a serious domestic incident and non of the responding officers had authoritie to arrest him, and the final report ended up as a welfare check call. Despite the existance of a 911 tape and other documented evidence,that conveniantly "disappeared". The DA, Dave Rogers was caught taking money from Mafia strip club owners in the infamous "G-Sting" FBI investigation. His ultimate disposition was it was only legitimate campaign contrabutions even though there were audio surveillance tapes from the FBI with the mafia men asking if he got the money. The City Counsel members involved, all got prison time. I believe that all this extra cover-up is do to the re-election bids of the Sheriff and DA, this next month. I think that a good investigation and admission of a mistake.Coupled with disiplinary action of the Officer's involved would have gone alot further than outright lies and cover-up, towards their re-elections. Instead thousands of Las Vegas citizens are outraged with this entire deal. It's not even a good cover-up, the vail is so thin my 16 yr. old son says"what were they thinking Dad". All this coupled with several other recent shooting's of unarmed suspects, one who's fertive movement was to put his hands up, and get shot in the face by a detective with an M4 rifle. All were justified by the inquest. We hear have had enough and I believe the votes will show that. If not, when this case comes to trial I hope a lot of cops do time for their parts in all of this. If none of this comes to pass, then the Metro police should be considered making a fertive movement when they touch their guns. I am in no way condoning violence against police officer's, but to be afraid of them is entirely reasonable, givin the current state of thing's here.
The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
Thanks once again Mike M. and you to Montie.
GOD HELP US ALL.
John
Posted by: Jvh at October 23, 2010 11:36 PM (uaicc)
7
Thanks Mike for some great analysis and may the good Lord bless you for taking the time to follow this! Many many very troubling questions. Hopefully a federal investigation is in progress already or will begin shortly. Many of the law enforcement officers where I live are pro-Second Amendment and pro-Civilian carry. They helped to reform our state's carry laws for the better. They also are much better trained and polite. Like many areas we are very dependent on tourism. An unprofessional police can badly hurt tourism and business. A professional police force can help tourism and business and make people feel both welcome and safe. This may be part of the reason poor Las Vegas has a 15% unemployment rate. Thank you for using the skills that you learned during your career to go over this in detail and taking the time to share your insights and findings. As a veteran, and also a West Point graduate, I would also like to commend you for speaking out on this tragedy. I pray that the truth will indeed come out in this matter speedily.
Posted by: ConcernedCitizen at October 23, 2010 11:43 PM (7DAWD)
8
Police have made this mistake time and again across the country and although they might suffer some serious personal issues in the aftermath, they have usually been found not guilty of criminal action when their shooting is examined in the light of what they knew at the time of the shooting and what they saw or thought they saw at the time of the shooting (the Amadou Diallo shooting by NYPD is a good example).
Montie, as a cop, you have to know this rule -- a criminal will lie even when the truth suits them better. They lied because they've already gone over and think like criminals now.
The behavior of the Metro Police suggests that they believe themselves to be unaccountable to the public. This is always a dangerous, destructive state of affairs. It causes Officers to believe themselves to be above the law, even a law unto themselves. If it goes on long enough, it allows the bad to outnumber, suppress and overpower the good among them. It leads to a police force that is distinguishable from criminals only in that the police wear identifiable uniforms. It breaks the bonds of trust between citizens and their police. It corrupts the corruptible and unfairly taints honest officers. It is the antithesis of, and dangerous to, democracy.
I would submit to you the notion that this has become the norm in departments in this country, and probity the exception.
Posted by: Phelps at October 24, 2010 01:50 AM (jhIJh)
9
Mike,
The blue card that you refer to is a firearms registration card for Clark County only, and is not a state requirement. Nevada requires that the CCW permit itself lists by make and model each semi-auto pistol that you have qualified to carry. This is how you can have a pistol with a blue card, but not be permitted to carry it.
Posted by: TomB at October 24, 2010 02:08 AM (U2BWW)
One question jumps out at me though. How do you eliminate the possibility that BOTH wallet and ruger might have been kept in the same front right pocket. This wasn't dealt with to my satisfaction in the original post.
Posted by: Slowjoe at October 24, 2010 09:07 PM (UaBMH)
11
Sloe Joe,
Erik Scott was a fitness buff, and wore clothes that would show of his physique, meaning some what tight fitting. It probably would be uncomfortable to have both in the same pocket. This is also probably the reason his shirt exposed his carry weapon to a costco employee when he was bent over.
Posted by: Jvh at October 25, 2010 12:33 AM (uaicc)
12
Whether one cares to hear it or not, I'm a former LEO and this stinks to high heaven.
The comment about police thinking like criminals is cogent. A fellow officer told me that, "You deal with the scum of the Earth every day. When you reach the point you think everyone is the scum of the Earth, it is time to get out." I did but I had an alternate profession. The problem is that with today's "professional" police departments, such people have invested so much time & money in training that changing courses is difficult if not impossible.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at October 25, 2010 12:43 PM (XADOl)
13
they deal with the scum of the earth every day, have started to act like the scum of the earth themselves and murdered a rightous man.
often there is no earthly justice for events such as these.
but there is a God and he will deal out a fate worse than physical death on these scum
Posted by: rumcrook at October 25, 2010 01:53 PM (60WiD)
After reading this a couple times a few points. Not to nit pick but Start, is actually Joshua Stark. You also didn't mention Officer's on the scene telling many people to get in their cars and go home, even though they told the Officer's they saw the whole incedent. Also Sam Sterner was ticketed once again, but by the neighboring police department for going with the flow of traffic,4 or 5 miles over the speed limit. Her total fines right now are $600.
Thanks again for all your updates I hope more are to come.
John
Posted by: Jvh at October 25, 2010 01:55 PM (uaicc)
15
The only problem with this paranoid fantasy is that several witnesses testified that they saw Scott draw the Kimber (still in the holster which shows how much the drugs in his system affected him) and point it at Mosher. Stupid is as stupid does. Point a gun at a cop and get shot. Who'd thunk that?
But this does make great fiction.
Posted by: Federale at October 25, 2010 03:16 PM (NAlbk)
16
Federale.
I still see you are sticking to your idiot tendancies. I thought maybe you had stepped off the curb in front of a bus because someone told you it wouldn't hurt.
Posted by: Jvh at October 25, 2010 03:31 PM (uaicc)
17
Hey, Jvh, see this from Scott's girlfiend's statement:
Sterner was called to testify Friday but did not show up. Her lawyer, Ross Goodman, told reporters that she was not properly subpoenaed, and suggested she wouldn't have testified anyway.
"Samantha is dying to come forward, but she's not going to do it in a one-sided forum," he said, referring to the inquest. Goodman has said the Scott family plans a civil suit against the police and Costco.
He and other critics of the inquest say it is unfair because only prosecutors and jurors can question witnesses. Family members and other interested parties can only submit written questions to the judge, who decides whether to ask them.
Without Sterner on the witness stand, prosecutors played the recording of her statement to police after the shooting. The self-described model and television hostess said she had known Scott for three years, and that he was acting normally that day. His interaction with employees was amicable, she said, even though she wasn't there to see it.
She said that as they walked toward the store's exit, she told Scott he was probably the reason for the evacuation, and that he seemed surprised.
They reached the exit door and Sterner said she saw an employee point Scott out to a uniformed police officer outside.
"He (Officer William Mosher) immediately draws his weapon and tells him to get on the ground," she said, adding that Scott put his hands up with the intention of disarming.
Sterner said she screamed at the officers that Scott was in the military and had a concealed weapons permit. She told them not to shoot, she said.
Scott raised his shirt to reveal the gun and had grabbed it to put it on the ground when the officer fired his pistol, she said.
Even she admits that Scott had the gun in his hand when he was shot. We know from her statement that Scott did not have a cell phone in his hand.
Don't try and let facts get in the way of your paranoid conspiracy theories.
So there is not need to find a second gun. There was no desparate search for a missing gun. The Kimber was there and Scott was also carrying the Ruger. There was no cell phone in his hand. There is nothing to this whole case.
Posted by: Federale at October 25, 2010 04:15 PM (NAlbk)
18
Are all these witnesses lying about seeing the Kimber?
Half a dozen shoppers testified that they saw Scott either pull his gun or reach for his waistband before the officers opened fire. Most said they heard only one officer giving commands. There has been some speculation that the three officers gave Scott conflicting commands that lead to confusion.
Annette Eatherton, who was shopping with her husband, said she saw Scott reach for his waist and then heard an officer say, "'Don't do that. Don't do that,' and he did it, and they shot him."
After the first shot, Eatherton said she saw a gun enclosed in a "gun rug" fall to the ground in front of Scott.
Her husband, Wentworth Eatherton, himself a former concealed weapons permit holder, gave a similar account and said he thinks Scott was probably trying to disarm, rather than draw his pistol and shoot. Still, he said, Scott should have followed the officer's commands.
"I really think he was just exasperated with the whole thing and wanted to hand them the gun which is where, I think, the mistake was made," Wentworth Eatherton said.
Shopper Barbara Fee testified that she and her 10-year-old granddaughter were sitting outside the exit door when they saw police confront Scott just feet away.
An officer yelled at Scott to get on the ground, but he reached for his hip, pulled a black object from his waist and aimed it at the officer, she said.
"I thought he was going to shoot the officer," she said. "Fortunately the officer was quicker."
Christopher Villareale testified that he watched the entire confrontation unfold after being one of the last shoppers to leave the store. He said he heard an officer order Scott to get on the ground and saw Scott lift his shirt and pull a handgun from his waistband.
"I honestly thought that civilians were going to get shot," Villareale said.
The officer probably saw Scott as a threat to himself and the dozens of people milling around the front doors, he said.
"He's probably thinking this guy is going to harm me or these customers, and I thought he did the right thing in shooting him," he said.
Posted by: Federale at October 25, 2010 04:19 PM (NAlbk)
19
The only problem with this paranoid fantasy is that several witnesses testified that they saw Scott draw the Kimber (still in the holster which shows how much the drugs in his system affected him) and point it at Mosher.
THIS
Just how reliable was the key witness - the one who called 911 and described a frantic tweaker and set the whole tragedy on course - the medical experts showed he was on some heavy downers, quite the opposite effect.
We are to believe any of these witnesses word as gospel. THAT is stuck on stupid
Posted by: Sluggish Tweaker at October 25, 2010 04:54 PM (VSOCz)
20
"Christopher Villareale testified that he watched the entire confrontation unfold after being one of the last shoppers to leave the store."
Yup, Villareale, saw it all and was so afeared for life he milled around the allegedly deranged and well armed tweaker.
"I honestly thought that civilians were going to get shot," Villareale said.
Breaking news - the only people who use the term "civilians" in that context are LEOs.
Posted by: Sluggish Tweaker at October 25, 2010 05:00 PM (VSOCz)
I watched the entire inquest. I have the entire inquest taped. I live in Las Vegas, and the Rj is selectively printing testimony, not in it's entirety. There was conflicting command's,I guess you haven't heard the 911 tape yet, cause none of the other command's you quote are not on them. The Blackberry is clearly in the photo's but not in any of the diagrams, and guess what it's BLACK. The Kimber was far away from were Erik was said to have dropped the object, the Blackberry would have been at Mosher's feet. Villereale is a wanna be cop,who also stated," I've drawn my weapon hundreds of times that's how I knew the motion he was making",and" I was once stopped with a concealed carry weapon, I removed my firearm and put my hands up and got on the ground". Key word REMOVED my firearm. You can't see a gun in the gun rug, it's a zippered case, which nothing of the sort was found. I don't know where you live but it's obviously far removed from Las Vegas, because your fact's are way off, and inaccurate.
Posted by: Jvh at October 25, 2010 08:18 PM (uaicc)
22
The stench is overwhelming. Civil war is coming. And it may start in Las Vegas if the truth is not rapidly brought out.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 25, 2010 08:29 PM (YFMIJ)
23
And "Federale" is probably Lon Horiuchi. His postings here are consistent with his prior performance at other murders by "Law Enforcement".
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 25, 2010 08:41 PM (YFMIJ)
You have raised a few legitimate points, but your provocative style insures that those points will not be considered here. I have made the point that Erik may have been attempting to disarm and reached for, or actually grasped his weapon. A move which would almost guarantee his being shot by any police officer in contact with him under the circumstances that MLVPD was called to Costco for.
The problems I have center around the actions of the police and especially the Public Administrator's Office in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. In addition, there are a lot of things that occurred during the on-scene investigation that if nothing else, reek of gross incompetence or negligence on the part of the investigative team.
As a cop, I understand how the shooting could have happened. What bothers me is that so many of the things that happened after the shooting SEEM to indicate some type of effort at CYA after the fact.
Many of the folks here have a very low opinion of the MLVPD, and from ongoing professional experience, I can say that "where there's smoke, there is usually fire".
I have gone over the audio tapes of both the radio traffic and the cellphone call between Shai Lierley and the call-taker. The radio traffic is telling because I was waiting for that breathless, high-pitched shout on the radio of "shots fired" that I have heard first hand many times and indeed it came. There is a section of the radio recording which is covered by a loud continuous tone that is, if not suspicious, certainly grounds for questioning what might have been missed or covered by it.
The cellphone call captured some of the officers commands and I have been able to pick out commands of "Get on the ground" at least twice and "Don't do that" the latter immediately before the first shot. It's hard to make out because of the ambient background in the Costco, but you can hear it. The time from the first command (that I could clearly distinguish) to the first shot was right at five seconds. The time from the first shot to the last shot (audible on the cell phone) was three seconds. This conflicts somewhat with the timing put forth here by others, but I have checked it numerous times, and in a situation like this these times are not unusual.
I have contacted CCTV 4 for a copy of the entire Coroner's Inquest, and should have it in the next few days. I plan to scrutinize it in depth. But even then, there are many questions which that proceeding will not satisfactorily answer, and may only come out in a civil proceeding or Federal investigation.
While you may be right that the shooting was justified from the point of view of the involved officers, there were a lot of actions taken just prior to it that do not reflect well on the competence of the MLVPD and which might have directly led to a needless shooting confrontation. In addition, as I said before some of the actions by the police and other agencies immediately after the shooting make what might have been a justified shooting look like something else.
A lot of the commenters here have made some points about conflicting statements from some of the witnesses, and most tend to only give credence to those witnesses whose testimony fits with their own personal construct of what happened that day at Costco. You too are falling into this trap.
If you have worked even more than a handful of investigations, then you know that personal eye witness testimony, which usually carries a lot of wieght in a legal proceeding, is in fact, highly unreliable. Even the statement from Ms. Sterner should be approached with investigative scepticism. It often takes a lot of follow-up and parsing of witness statements to arrive at something close to the truth, particularly in an unexpected and sudden violent confrontation, in a crowded situation like this one.
I say let's see what additional information comes out before we call the police murderers, like some commenters here, or call Erik Scott a junkie who deserved to die, as you seem to imply.
Posted by: Montie at October 26, 2010 03:18 AM (kiwYh)
We all know Vicki Weaver's death was not by chance, but an intentional tactical decision to eliminate the true leader of that tribe to disrupt and demoralize her adherents. And, it worked. The other zealots did, in fact, surrender. Horiuchi was an outstanding marksman. He had been waiting for days for Vicki to show herself and made a perfect shot directly between Vicki's eyes from 250 yards, when she did. The infant she was holding in her arms, was not injured.
The question should not be if Horiuchi is a murder, but if the FBI command's modified 'rules of engagement' were legal.
That being said, clearly Officer Mosher badly interpreted "in fear of your life". He should of a least waited until Erik fired one or two shots at him to confirm Erik's intentions and validate his response. Anything less would make Mosher a murderer, right?
Good luck with your "civil war", let me know how that turns out for you.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 26, 2010 01:02 PM (PSUvm)
26
Montie as usual you are right I let my temper get the better of me. But understand that Federale has been other places and his arguments there have been Erik was a drug crazed criminal and deserved to die. Anyway my first impretion of this whole thing was Erik was frustrated and tried to hand the gun over, mistake, yes deserve to die for it NO. But the great lenghts the MVPD have gone to commit blatently illegal acts after the fact is highly suspicious to a completely justified shooting. If this instance were a single in nature I would be inclined to side with police but it sadly is not. Metro, had they said it was questionable,not in a criminal way but, not by the book. None of this would be coming to pass. Metro is responsable for creating the doubt now turned to outrage from the public. Their actions after the fact extremely suspicious. I do not believe it was intentional murder, just bad policing. I hope out all of this that better Officer's are on the streets, so no more needless loss of life occur's. May this be Erik's and Trevon's legacy.
Posted by: Jvh at October 26, 2010 01:58 PM (uaicc)
If a non-LEO had pumped those bullets into Mr. Scott, what would "Law Enforcement" have done? Would they have said "Good job! You were fully justified?" Or would said individual be sitting in jail on a 1st Degree Murder charge? The stench is overwhelming!
Ah, but "Law Enforcement" is such a DANGEROUS job that they HAVE TO have less limits than John Q. Public, right? Bull! "Law Enforcement" doesn't even make the TOP TEN most dangerous jobs in this country:
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110394/americas-10-most-dangerous-jobs
Filthy. Maggot. Pigs.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 26, 2010 07:19 PM (kXYdJ)
Indeed Mark, I understand now. (There I was, just committing my crime when the police showed up and violated my rights.)
So, where did you serve your 'time'?
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 26, 2010 07:35 PM (Fw0L3)
29
Keep on suckin', Buck! Got a lotta practice with them donuts, eh?
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 26, 2010 08:16 PM (kXYdJ)
30
The question should not be if Horiuchi is a murder, but if the FBI command's modified 'rules of engagement' were legal.
REALLY? thats what the question should be?
yeah thats what the question should be if your a fuckin nazi.
I was just following orders from zee fuhrer.
buck you may have a shinning future as a fascist state apologist.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 26, 2010 09:22 PM (60WiD)
31
mmm and im thinking popping a women got that? a women holding a baby, got that? HOLDING A BABY! between the eyes,
IS SOMETHING TO BRAG ABOUT, unless your one of saddam hussiens republican guards, or fedayeen.
fuck horrucci.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 26, 2010 09:30 PM (60WiD)
32
Just remember - the outstanding Buck is REPRESENTATIVE of a LARGE number of what is passed off as "Law Enforcement" in this country. Not only do they REFUSE to honor their oath of office to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...". but they MOCK those who actually have the NERVE to reaffirm that oath as members of the Oathkeepers. The stench is overwhelming. In fact, that sewage actually makes the Mafia look good by comparison. After all, while BOTH are Thugs with Guns, at least the Mafia honored their oath or they were gone. PERMANENTLY! So Mr. or Ms. Police Officer - Which is it? Do you ACTUALLY honor your oath of office? Or do you bow and scrape before your Masters and then do whatever you're told?
Filthy. Maggot. Pigs.
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 26, 2010 10:16 PM (kXYdJ)
I have been coming here to have a serious discussion about the Erik Scott shooting and the MLVPD actions before during and after the shooting. Remember, you really don't know who you are dealing with in internet discussions such as this one. There is no guarantee that "Buck Turgidson" is any kind of LEO. He may just be a small-minded troll who enjoys stirring people up on the internet.
I have to say though that I am very suprised at the sheer vitriol put forth by many of the commenters here towards law enforcement IN GENERAL. I for one resent being lumped together with the likes of disgraced FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. That is one shooting in which the officer should have, without a doubt, been tried for murder, but it has nothing to do with the shooting of Erik Scott.
As I have expressed before, I have always felt that armed citizens were on the same "side" as the police, but statements the like of those I have seen here make me wonder who is on the other end of the internet here. Certainly not anyone like the people that I know who go armed.
Posted by: Montie at October 27, 2010 01:51 AM (kiwYh)
"Small-minded troll", eh? Mark Matis and rumcrook I understand, because of their history. But you, I didn't think you'd be the genus not to handle the truth. So, please tell us what you know about Ruby Ridge that's not on the internet - like the film.
And remember pilgrim, what other people think about you is none of you business.
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 27, 2010 08:07 AM (Fw0L3)
35
So, Montie, I take it you don't feel vitriol is appropriate towards "Law Enforcement" that refuse to honor their oath of office? After all, it's ONLY an oath. right? Even though said oath is the SOLE AUTHORITY by which they put on their badge? Says enough about you for me. Thank you!
Posted by: Mark Matis at October 27, 2010 08:34 AM (qvyOB)
36
As I have expressed before, I have always felt that armed citizens were on the same "side" as the police, but statements the like of those I have seen here make me wonder who is on the other end of the internet here. Certainly not anyone like the people that I know who go armed.
Here's the thing, Montie -- you don't know how we act when a cop isn't around. Yes, we are polite to you, and yes, we tell you what we think will keep you from overreacting. Just like how we would handle a strange dog who might attack at the slightest provocation. We treat cops like potentially rabid animals, because the results for us are the same.
I spent a long time feeling out cops and trying to sort out the good ones from the bad ones. Eventually, I accepted that even the ones who seem good have, by necessity (at least in my area -- DFW) learned the look the other way, give "professional courtesy" and excuse criminality by anyone who wears a badge. That's the only way that the rampant excesses can last as long as they have. The ones who don't quit (or got set up) long ago.
Las Vegas looks to be the same way, only more advanced down that path. A significant portion of the force has decided that they are the law, and the rest of the force has decided that they are better off abiding it than doing anything about it.
Posted by: Phelps at October 27, 2010 09:56 PM (jhIJh)
37
The key to a professional group is their submission to a set of standards and their self-regulation of those who breach professional standards. It appears that in the history of officer involved shootings, Las Vegas cops don't make mistakes, at least not for many years. This is an unlikely history given the number of shootings. It is more likely that officers are protected by their system which looks less and less professional and more and more like a gang that operates at the fringe of legality.
Posted by: Jeff Jones at October 27, 2010 11:51 PM (FLX3h)
38
To clarify my comment, I think Montie is 100% right that armed citizens are overwhelmingly on the side of law and order. So yes, you are correct that they are on your side. When it comes to doubts of who's on the side of law and order, I worry more about the police.
Posted by: Phelps at October 29, 2010 12:26 PM (o/6if)
The Biscuit (Or Do We Really Want Democrats in Control of Nuclear Weapons?)
Ah, the good old days when Democrat leadership was riding high, when the economy was booming, basking in the post Cold War glow when America was respected and loved, when Yassir Arafat was the most frequent foreign sleepover guest in the White House (can’t you just imagine the pillow fights and related hijinks!), when terrorists were killing hundreds of Americans every year around the world, more or less unnoticed, and almost destroyed the World Trade Center, yet were treated as common criminals, and when Osama Bin Laden was offered, repeatedly, to Bill Clinton on a silver platter, a platter he declined. But above all, who can forget the trademarked Democrat foreign policy acumen and leadership displayed by the aforementioned President Bill I-feel-your-pain-and-other-assorted-parts Clinton when he lost, for several months, the “Biscuit,” the card on which was printed the nation’s nuclear access codes. That’s right, the POTUS actually lost the codes that he was required to carry with him 24/7/365, the codes without which he could not access America’s nuclear arsenal.
1
That he lost the card is not the frightening part. I'm sure that's happened before and will happen again.
The frightening part is that apparently he didn't realize he'd lost it for days, weeks, possibly months. Or did realize it, and didn't care.
Posted by: wolfwalker at October 22, 2010 08:12 PM (v2V5O)
2
I kind of feel that Clinton was drunk most of the time he was in office. If you look at his face and other characteristics, they look much like an alcoholic.
Posted by: David at October 22, 2010 08:53 PM (Msf2n)
3
On number 6, you forgot to point out that said betrayal actually occurred on the 70th anniversary of Russia invading Poland
Posted by: Sail Boffin at October 22, 2010 11:00 PM (VRb3l)
4
"European DVD players use a different format than American players. The DVDs were not only cheap and tacky, they were useless."
That's not quite correct. European and American DVD players use the same format, but most DVDs are region-coded so that only players manufactured in a certain part of the world. (It's part of the brain-dead DRM scheme that the movie industry uses to control when and where movies are released by sabotaging international purchases of them.)
Obama gave Brown a set of DVDs that were coded for Region 1 (North America). When Brown tried to play one on his Region 2 player, he got an error message that said "Wrong region."
Posted by: Pat at October 23, 2010 11:58 PM (H+mDv)
5
That should probably be something a president is required to wear on their person 7x24 like a set of dog tags.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 24, 2010 10:24 AM (3ovrM)
6
Pat, that's a distinction without a difference. Either way they were useless. I remember thinking when the story first broke "Wouldn't it be funny if Barry gave them a box of Region 1 movies?" The laugh was on me.
I can remember when you could trust Democrats on security, but it's been a long time; guys like FDR and Truman. Wilson not so much. Alas, most Republicans at the time were reflexively isolationist, the same way modern Democrats are reflexively pacifist.
If memory serves, the Harding administration was infamous as a period where no capital ships were laid down.
I'm just glad both parties don't get stupid that way at the same time.
Posted by: Casey at October 24, 2010 11:05 PM (fwjyy)
Gun Nightmare in Carolina [Updated with Corrections]
Update: Corrections to the Pajamas Media article have been posted.
In the dark fantasies of comic books, villains with pathological intent maniacally plot to build super-weapons to decimate cities, countries, and even planets. In Hollywood movies, the corrupt and evil plot to build cop-killing firearms to bring anarchy and chaos to our streets.
Imagine, if you can, a convicted kidnapper with additional arrests for communicating threats and simple assault acquiring not just a weapon or two, but an entire gun company while the federal government stood idly by.
Imagine that this same felon then started another gun company from scratch, and then used that company to acquire a third company that was licensed to build machine guns. Imagine further he was given a concealed carry license, and that local law enforcement and federal agents turned a blind eye to everything.
This isn't the plot latest reboot of the RoboCop or Lethal Weapon movie franchises, but the extraordinary alleged real-life story of Lee Franklin Booth, 51, a Greensboro, North Carolina resident with an incredibly checkered past.
If you aren't scared, you aren't comprehending the implications of my latest investigative report at Pajamas Media.
Update: Well... look who stopped by for a visit on their way to Pajamas Media.
1
Ironic that North Carolina has one of the more strict carry permit requirements, including classroom training. The NC permit has reciprocity in more states than my GA permit, like in SC, where I can't carry but my son at Ft. Bragg can.
Posted by: twolaneflash at October 22, 2010 03:27 PM (xb4TD)
2
I'm not scared. This is a felon who owns guns. Even if he owns a MILLION guns, unless he also has a personal army, he can only fire, at most, two at a time, making him no more dangerous than a common street thug - not some kind of super-villian.
More worrisome than Booth himself, however, is whatever shady back-door dealings ANY owner of a firearms manufacturing company has with the BATF and IRS. THAT should be the focus of the article. Unfortunately you only barely touch on that, at the end of the article.
I have an immense amount of respect for you as a journalist and a blogger. The unwarrented tone of panic in this article is below your usual standards.
Posted by: Walt at October 22, 2010 07:05 PM (puT5W)
3
Walt, would impaling you help you get the point? Gun-grabbers want more laws to burden us with, but they won't enforce the ones we have. Particularly if you know the right people.
Posted by: SDN at October 23, 2010 08:37 AM (jnQrp)
Once again it's apparent that the inmates are running the asylum.
The DOJ visits blogger CY and then heads off to PJM?
In the immortal words of LawDog, *Snerk*
Posted by: Charles at October 23, 2010 11:32 AM (LdxGG)
5
No referrer means either direct entry or a bookmark. Curious.
Posted by: Phelps at October 24, 2010 01:53 AM (jhIJh)
6
It's not so much a nightmare as it is a clear screw up by the enforcers. Will our new healthcare system be run any better? Should we trust Uncle Sam to do great things for us and on our behalf?
I hope the DOJ does something with this. I doubt they will.
Posted by: ukuleledave at October 24, 2010 11:36 AM (Wh//M)
7
Wait what? The second amendment has noooo exceptions....Thow shalt not make any laws abridging the right to own and bear arms.
Walt said it...I ain't skeerd. What does scare me is that in case of national emergency. We get invaded is I won't get a shot at the blighters.
Posted by: ron at October 24, 2010 02:44 PM (itafp)
8
well said, Ron.
The 2nd states nowhere that "...except for convicted felons" when it states that "...shall not be infringed".
On top of that, I strongly believe that once your punishment under the law is over (in other words, you've paid the fine or done the time) you should not be restricted any longer in what you are allowed to do.
Maybe the police should keep a file of your previous wrongdoings, if we want repeat offenders to be punished harsher than first timers, and/or if we think people are likely to offend again (thus potentially shortening investigations by allowing police to look up who's done similar things in the past easily) but that's as far as it should go.
Here's a former criminal going into business, starting a company and buying another company.
So these companies happen to be related to weapons manufacturing, so what?
Are we no longer free to choose our line of business as long as that business doesn't include committing crime (and I don't mean the tens of thousands of things that have been criminalised yet never should have been, like eating french fries on the DC subway)?
Posted by: JTW at October 25, 2010 02:35 AM (jMRqb)
9
You know, those same folks hit my blog all the time, only they're looking for photos of Kayden Kross and Silvia Saint.
They're just bored at work, with little else to do. Those clowns at the TSA will sit on my blog for forty or fifty minutes at a time.
Posted by: Norman Rogers at October 26, 2010 06:36 PM (JKZc4)
10
It is a scary thought that someone with a felonious background could acquire multiple firearms companies.
For those of you that don't understand the implications of this (and there seem to be a couple ) it is best to assume that we don't want criminal masterminds to be in charge of manufacturing and selling thousands and thousands of weapons. Just because they are made here in the US doesn't mean they will stay here in the US or that they won't end up in the wrong hands anyway. Who do you think is supplying Mexican drug cartels with modern weaponry anyway?
As a die-hard supporter of gun ownership rights, I simply could not agree with giving these criminals the rights to produce their own armies which is what they are doing almost certainly. Because of the financial cost of setting up a gun manufacturing facility is so great, I can only assume that these criminals have access to millions of dollars. For Walt (and other readers), please don't be naive' and believe that these guys are selling guns only to law-abiding citizens for self-defense, but in fact for something probably much more sinister. And for this, I cannot agree with giving gun manufacturing licenses to convicted felons. It's just too dangerous for the rest of us.
Still, I am for legislation that would require EVERYONE to carry a gun at all times. Perhaps we would cut down on muggings, robbery, violent crime, etc if criminals thought that everyone was armed. We wouldn't even have to enforce the law, it would enforce itself because the criminal wouldn't know who was carrying a gun. I would like to think theoretically that this would deter a large number of people from ever becoming a violent criminal to begin with.
I live near Atlanta, GA. In one of the suburbs here in a town called Kennesaw, they have enacted a law requiring people who own homes there, to own a hand gun. The law is rarely or never enforced, but Kennesaw claims that number of break-ins and theft have become marginal.
Even though some solutions may seem severe, almost always the best thing to do is examine what works and implement that policy regardless of what people might "believe". We are missing too much of this philosophy in our political system unfortunately.
Posted by: Marko at October 27, 2010 02:29 AM (SPbBd)
11
Damn. I really hate it when I make a good point, then somebody comes along and proves me wrong with a better one. CY, please carry on sir - my words taste okay with ketchup. Marko, next beer is on me.
Posted by: Walt at October 27, 2010 06:56 AM (puT5W)
Sorry for the slim-to-nonexistent blogging for the last few days. I've been doing the legwork on an investigative report that will post over at Pajamas Media tomorrow that will knock your socks off.
Man Who Claimed the New Black Panther Party Was Created by Fox News Suddenly Seen As Credible Expert on Bigotry By MFM, Left Wing
The media spreads the lie that the Tea Party is racist based upon the activities of a half-dozen members nationwide in a movement number millions of people, and of course left wing blogs blogs join in as well. After all, the unrepresentative slur fit the narrative they've been working so hard to create.
I guess it would be more credible to the other 80% of the population if the primary messenger of the slur wasn't himself tied to a group that only can only exist if it finds boogeymen to fight against.
1
Let's break down your foolishness here. First, nobody ever claimed Fox News created the NBPP, and you know that. They claimed that Fox News ginned up the controversy surrounding it because it was good for ratings. You can't deny they covered the story endlessly and breathlessly. Second, nobody ever called the entire Tea Party racist, but the NAACP has certainly called for the Tea Party to repudiate the racist elements. Whether you think that's a fair thing to ask of the Tea Party is a debatable subject. What's not debatable is the fact that you're purposefully dishonest about the reality of the situation.
Posted by: Not Likely at October 21, 2010 12:17 AM (fDhqq)
2
Yeah, these are the same guys that continued to run their slanderous and completely false report on the Duke Lax hoax for months after the NC AG had declared the defendants innocent. They also did not condemn the antics of the NBP in that case. So, if you want to see just how impartial and non-bias the NAACP is just review their actions in the Duke case.
Posted by: mikeinhouston at October 21, 2010 03:53 AM (gP6Yr)
3
From what I have seen of the NAACP, it is about as racist as it gets. And they don't make any bones about it. I have seen and been to Tea Pary gathering and the only agenda there seems to be less government and less tax. I guess that is excessively racist to the NACCP.
Posted by: David at October 21, 2010 04:02 PM (Msf2n)
4
"First, nobody ever claimed Fox News created the NBPP, and you know that."
So, I guess it's your foolishness that just got broken down.
Posted by: Pablo at October 22, 2010 08:54 AM (1fuCG)
5
"Second, nobody ever called the entire Tea Party racist"
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
Garofalo.
"this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks. And there is no way around that."
Dana Milbank once used to be entertaining, back when... well, I'm sure he was, or he wouldn't have a job.
Unfortunately, whatever he was, what his is now is a shrill, whiny little man who reveals far more about his own prejudices than he hurts those he sallies forth against.
Take for example, the evil rich folks running against Dana's beloved progressive Democrats in this election.
Consider the candidates on the ballot next month who are getting Tea Party support. In the Connecticut Senate race, there's Linda McMahon, who with her husband has a billion-dollar pro-wrestling empire. The challenger to Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire manufacturing executive. The former head of Gateway computers, Rick Snyder, is spending generously from his fortune to win the Michigan governor's race.
In New York, the Republican gubernatorial candidate is developer Carl Paladino, with a net worth put at $150 million. And Rick Scott, running for governor in Florida, has a net worth of $219 million from his career as a health-care executive. Then there's California, where the Republican Senate nominee is former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina and the gubernatorial candidate is former e-Bay boss Meg Whitman.
The McMahons turned a regional wrestling sideshow into a billion-dollar business empire. Ron Johnson, likewise, is a self-made entrepreneur in the plastics industry. Rick Snyder worked his way through the ranks of Coopers & Lybrand before joining Gateway computer. Rick Scott's dad was a truck driver and his mother worked as a clerk at J.C. Penney, and he worked his way to the top.
In each and every instance, the men and women Milbank reviles for the crime of being rich are self-starting, hard working individuals that created the wealth they now command. They are living examples of the American dream we were once taught to admire.
Not only did these individuals make themselves very wealthy, they created dozens or hundreds of jobs each, supporting thousands of family members. Like all successful entrepreneurs, they created wealth not just for themselves, but for everyone around them.
This, apparently, amounts to capital crime for someone like Milbank, a small man who can only generate scorn, not jobs.
1
Contrast with prominent Democrats like John Kerry, who married wealth, or the Kennedys, who inherited it.
Posted by: Robert at October 20, 2010 03:52 PM (TGdxO)
2
And contrast with prominent Repubs - Romney (inherited), Bush (inherited), Palladino (government) and O'Donnell (never had any).
Posted by: Tc at October 20, 2010 06:21 PM (5nm6S)
3
Yo, Tc! Just remember it was Obama's Inaguration that drew the record number of private jets into DC airports!
You don't suppose they were all Repubs celebrating the Won's win?
Posted by: Earl T at October 20, 2010 08:56 PM (QPZAf)
4
Then there's California, where the Republican Senate nominee is former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina and the gubernatorial candidate is former e-Bay boss Meg Whitman.
Neither of whom started those businesses. They were instrumental in offshoring jobs from those businesses however, & Fiorina has been rated as one of the worst CEOs in recent history.
And a health-care executive? Really? "Trafficker in human misery" would be a better phrase.
But your "beloved" crony capitalists & parasites can do no wrong, right?
Posted by: M. Bouffant at October 20, 2010 09:44 PM (PF+iy)
5
Earl, how do you know the people with private planes weren't self-made? And we were talking about people in politics, not just money.
Besides, I thought Obama was supposed to be a socialist who was out to get the rich. So why would so many rich folks turn out to celebrate his inaugaration?
Posted by: Tc at October 20, 2010 10:56 PM (5nm6S)
what is it about libs that everything they scream about is projection.
just as Britt said the real "cronies" are in the dem party where they sucked like "leaches" on things like fanny may and freddie mac. ei bawny fwank
how pathetic.
tell any one hear what bawny fwank has produced in his life besides antibiotic resistant VD
and nan pelosi with her sweetheart deals to her hubby thats not cronyism....
same with boxer...
I want a lib to name a career lib pol who has ever produced anything but layers of smothering bureaucracy
Posted by: rumcrook at October 21, 2010 03:11 AM (60WiD)
8
As is standard operating procedures for liberals, ignorance is no bar to spouting an opinion.
M. Bouffant - Meg Whitman was one of the founding partners of eBay. And Fiorina was considered (at the time) to be horrendously imbecilic for her pushing the merger with Compaq. In hindsight, she left HP far healthier than either HP or Compaq were at the time.
I'm guessing that you take the union perspective - it's better for both companies to fail and everyone lose their job than to offshore a few thousand jobs to keep tens of thousands of Americans employed.
Posted by: brian at October 21, 2010 11:35 AM (y05cf)
I know the left is grabbing for some sort magic talisman to save their dream-turned-nightmare, but petty jibes—especially ones that turn out to be based upon their own ignorance—only makes them seem petty and desperate to voters.
1
There is something hilarious about the progressive face plant on the history of our nation and then the middle school theatrics of their attempts at "I was being sarcastic"
Posted by: MunDane68 at October 20, 2010 08:53 AM (dlS06)
2
That could be O'Donnell's best strategery, get the Dems so over the top that even the stuff that's true and relevant gets ignored in the general din of screeching.
Posted by: Veeshir at October 20, 2010 10:37 PM (PMNMj)
So, I don't normally do candidate endorsements... it simply isn't my thing. I prefer to talk policy and news and issues, and know readers will make their choice based upon who they think is best in their districts.
That noted, I feel rather strongly about defeating a couple of North Carolina's entrenched liberal incumbents, starting with David Price here in NC-4.
Price is my Congressman, and while he acts on stage like a North Carolinian, he votes to the left of my deranged former congressman in New York, Maurice Hinchey. After being in Congress 22 years, it is fair to say Price isn't a North Carolinian. He's a beltway insider, that slathers the folks back home in pork so that they keep electing him. I have to admit that strategy has been successful until now. But now the cost of all that largess is coming home.
The simple fact of the matter is that while Price has brought home research dollars for the universities in his district, he is one of the power-hungry progressives in Congress that has driven up the federal deficit and made it far more difficult for businesses to operate, even here in RTP.
Unless you are a university researcher and intend to stay on campus your entire career, David Price is a threat to your livelihood.
His opponent BJ Lawson is cut from an entirely different cloth. Lawson has never held public office, but instead left his medical residency to become a successful businessman after identifying a market for medical software. Having run a successful business and running headlong into the morass of innovation-stifling regulation Democrats have thrust upon the healthcare industry, Lawson is in an excellent position to provide the insights we need on Capitol Hill when we overturn Obamacare and develop health care legislation that lifts up all Americans, instead of dragging us all down to a minimal level of care.
On healthcare and healthcare alone Lawson deserves your vote, but Lawson also respects the Founders' intent for a small federal government.
Price has failed miserably in debates with Lawson, and has actually beaten himself quite convincingly.
David Price can't make a reasonable argument to extend his mediocre tenure in Washington, even to himself.
It's time we send the better man to Washington. BJ Lawson deserves your vote in NC-4.
1
David Price has never been a "North Carolinian" in the sense you mean it. He came from a tenured position in the Political Science Department at Duke University and has always voted left of left. We'll be well rid of him.
Posted by: kahr40 at October 19, 2010 09:54 AM (WUBEt)
2
Lawson has my vote.
"Washington is all smoke and mirrors, so send an expert like me." isn't going to work for Price.
Posted by: Shiggy at October 19, 2010 01:02 PM (U3B7l)
3
Unfortunately, Price is my congressman as well and I cannot wait to vote for Lawson. His message is resonating with younger people. My oldest son, a high school senior, and a lot of his friends are volunteering their time to work on Lawson’s campaign. Let’s add Price to the unemployment rolls.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at October 19, 2010 01:25 PM (+LRPE)
4
Lawson gets my Vote as well. I find it refreshing to finally have someone to vote FOR instead of AGAINST as I've always been forced to.
Posted by: jayne cobb at October 20, 2010 10:32 AM (0i6GN)
5
BJ Lawson is endorsed by both The Independence Caucus and the Republican Liberty Caucus...both who have a vetting process and are run by regular citizens
Posted by: Mark at October 20, 2010 09:35 PM (P9JwZ)
6
We have great Independence Caucus endorsed candidates like BJ Lawson running across the country. Let's return some sanity to Washington.
Posted by: Tom at October 21, 2010 12:03 AM (sd5aJ)
7
I do believe you're quite right here. Another career politian and that's never a good thing.
B J Lawson is a breath of fresh air and he has been endorsed by I Caucus, which for me just says he's willing to answer questions before he's elected to give us an idea of his stands, etc. Let's hope the people of NC 4 are ready for a change, vote BJ Lawson.
Posted by: BrattyPatriot at October 21, 2010 08:01 AM (MxIHP)
8
BJ Lawson is a great candidate and will make a super Congressman. iCaucus only endorses canddates who are on the record as supporting the Constitutional principles on which the country was founded.
Posted by: Jim W. at October 21, 2010 11:40 AM (Shz3L)
9
BJ Lawson is the one we need in Washington. Being Independence Caucus endorsed tells me he is for smaller, fiscally responsible government that adheres to our Constitution.
Posted by: Annie Oakley at October 22, 2010 11:18 PM (rJHXR)
I've read some truly dour news story and blog entries concerning our economy during this recession. Much of it (it seems to me) has been superficial, in that though the impact to individuals and companies can indeed be traumatic, the underlying pillars of the economy was relatively solid.
The central pillar, of course, is the aggregate middle class.
But when the recent news came out that banks had been "robo-signing" mortgages and in many instances didn't even know where the physical paperwork was to the loans for many homes, it scared the crap out of me. As a result, banks have (temporarily) lost the power to foreclose and evict. This makes a bad situation worse.
It suddenly hit home that it was becoming increasingly possible that my fellow citizens in the middle class could simply say "screw it," stop paying their underwater mortgages, and essentially dare the banks to do anything about it.
The empty shell of a home across the street from me is a stark reminder of the impact that can have on the micro level. My neighbor—I should say, former neighbor—ignored payments on his home, neglected his yard to the point where erosion was washing topsoil into the street when it rained. He was the bum, and his house was the eyesore on our block. For years.
And at some point in the foreclosure process, he moved to a nicer home that cost less in the neighboring town, and in a more upscale neighborhood.
Think about that for a second. This family skirted the edges of neighborly decency, constantly ran afoul of HOA standards for minimal home and yard maintenance standards, refused to pay their mortgage, depressed property values for the rest of us who live here and their apparent "punishment" was a nicer home somewhere else.
What kind of message does that send to those of us that play by the rules, who pay our mortgages on time, and invest money into our homes, making improvements and enhancements? What good does out work do to our own homes, if our neighbors have no regard for the rest of the neighborhood and leave us with an eyesore that is now listed on the market for $40,000 less than it was worth when it was built 5 years ago?
Thanks Gerald, you asshole.
It sends a message that we don't have to play by the rules, or pay our bills. It tells me that I don't have to pay my mortgage or sell my home if I find a better one; I can abandon my current home and leave my neighbors to deal with what follows. And far better people than Gerald are considering it (via Instapundit).
It is a recipe for anarchy, and an economic collapse.
I've worried about individuals and individual families before, and in broad terms, thought the wider economy would take some hits but weather the storm.
Now I am not so certain, and I have no idea whatsoever what to do to prepare for it should the worst occur.
1
I agree with you. Still. Our leaders, stars, sports figures, hell even the local cops are here... oh man. All we see is them flaunting the cornerstones of our society while getting richer and richer...
I'm thankful I was smart enough to not get into a situation where I owed the bank for my roof. I saw this coming and said "no way". But I'd be very tempted if I was in the situation to not just walk away.
Posted by: Bill at October 18, 2010 01:01 PM (QDtMz)
2
I commented on that article as well. It really does burn my hide that folks like me that conduct our affairs with honor and discipline consistently get the shaft while the looters get the spoils.
My house isn't underwater (yet!) because I put down 25%. If it gets any worse I have to say I will be sorely tempted to "strategically default".
Of course, I wont because I'm a complete sap...
Posted by: Sinner at October 18, 2010 01:42 PM (U/yZ+)
3
Here's what worries me... If the banks can't find the paperwork in order to legally foreclose on my property, how will they be able to find the paperwork in order to legally give me the title when I get done paying off my 30 year loan?
Posted by: scp at October 18, 2010 02:50 PM (zf6OM)
4
SCP,
You already have the title, assuming you got one properly transferred to you when you bought the place. What the Bank owes you is a release of the lein once you finish making payments. But if they never registerd that lien, then they have no hold on you. Of course, if they had any documentation at all, they could sue you instead of foreclosure.
The real thorn in this paw is that the properties so encumbered with no legal owner cannot be sold to someone new with a proper title transfer. The banks cannot sell what they do not own. If they cannot foreclose, they cannot gain title. So they stay empty and a drain on the neighborhod property values.
Anyone who recently bought a foreclosed home should be shitting bricks right now wondering if they have clear title to their property.
Posted by: Professor Hale at October 18, 2010 03:53 PM (PDTch)
5
This is an obvious problem in your system, as this observer views it from the UK.
The buyer (in many US states) seems to have a put option at the bank, and that cannot be a healthy risk for a financial system to run. When that is combined with no-money-down mortgages, that financial system seems absurdly vulnerable, especially when viewed in the light of a country which views a bad cheque as a criminal offence.
One way of reducing this risk would be ruthless checks for false statements on mortgage docs after foreclosure, but I don't see the political will to do that.
Posted by: slowjoe at October 18, 2010 04:23 PM (UaBMH)
6
You know, I was thinking about this as I was tooling down the freeway at 75 today, when I got a text that I just had to answer. My doctor was telling me that he could do botox for me if I would just claim migraines, which was no problem as I had already been hitting the nice Hawaiian kush for that anyway. So I answered to him to set it up after I got done talking to the tax attorney about finding a few more deductions.
/irony off
The problem is the middle class is already used to lying and cheating to get ahead. I mean how many rules of the road did you violate today on your way to work and home again? Make no mistake, I am far from blameless, the problem isn't that Gerald is doing it, it is that he is flaunting it.
The worst part is not the default. The worst part is people feel no remorse or guilt about doing wrong.
Posted by: MunDane68 at October 18, 2010 08:24 PM (dlS06)
7
MunDane68 nailed it: The worst part of this whole mess is that people have lost the ability to feel remorse or guilt about doing wrong. That is at the core of much of our problems in the US. We've become a society where having a conscience is passe, where people simply don't have a sense of individual responsibility.
Posted by: Random Thoughts at October 19, 2010 12:14 AM (WwIUf)
8
The problem with comparing it to breaking laws like traffic violations is that quite often these are worded in such a way that it's impossible to not break a law.
Take a prime example we have here in the Netherlands:
There's a clause in traffic law that says you must at all times stay in the right lane if possible (so you're only supposed to be in the fast lane while overtaking, and go into the slow lane immediately after even if it's only for a few seconds before moving left again to overtake the next car).
There's an equally powerful clause (so similar level, strength) that states you must stay in your current lane as much as possible so as not to interrupt the flow of traffic.
There's a clause at the same level again that makes overtaking on the right (so through the slow lane) illegal.
So if I overtake and move to the slow lane because there's room there, then keep at the speed limit and as a result overtake a car going less than the limit that's driving in the fast lane, I'm breaking the law.
Were I to go into the fast lane to try to signal that car to move aside, I'm leaving my lane unnecessarilly, as well as showing "agressive behaviour" which is also illegal.
If I stay in the slow lane without doing anything, they can still get me for blocking traffic.
And then there's a nice blanket clause they can use to arrest you whenever they feel like it for "causing a potentially dangerous situation on the roads", of course driving a motor vehicle at 80mph (the legal limit here) is in itself a potentially dangerous activity so they can always use that.
In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand has her antagonist proclaim that laws are created not to punish those who break them but to make sure the State always has something to use against you, so they are created in such a way that it's impossible not to break them.
In an environment like that, is it any surprise if people don't care about the law?
Posted by: JTW at October 19, 2010 05:48 AM (jMRqb)
9
I'm of the opposite opinion than the majority of posters.
You're house is probably the biggest asset you'll make in your life. If the value of that asset is such that it is doubtfull that you will recover your investment, the correct business decision is to stop throwing good money after bad.
The banks are playing on the moral aspect rather than the business/investment aspect of owning a home. They want you to keep paying irrespective of whether you'll be able to recover your initial investment.
However, were the situations reversed you can rest assured that the same bank would not continue making payments because it makes economic sense not to.
This economic factor of owning property is what is truely missing from the home ownership/mortgage debacle conversation. If all parties viewed the home mortgage as strictly a business decision, you can bet normal, free market forces, would impact both ends of the transaction.
Right now the lien holders are HOPING mortgage payors are swayed by emotion rather than economics.
Posted by: DFG at October 19, 2010 08:37 AM (F5wR6)
10
So DFG, let me get this straight. You bought a new Buick for say $35,000 with a low down payment. You took it off the showroom floor and 6 months later the car is worth less than the balance due on your car loan. So you give it back to the bank/GMAC/credit union that financed the purchase? After all, it's just a business decision isn't it? Good luck buster on getting your next car financed. And if there are enough people like you, good luck on any of us getting car loans in the future.
Posted by: MJM at October 19, 2010 11:55 AM (3ESDJ)
11
This from and anonymous mortage broker quoted in a Vox Populi post: "there are blatant efforts by several of the giant mortage security selling institutions to intentionally fail to find "the relevant loan documentation. We have seen multiple clients in September and October who either face foreclosure or had been foreclosed and were not even late on their mortage payments". From what I've read about this situation
My concern is that when you take away a person's ability sustain their livelihood, it will result [eventually] in a violent outcome. This is very disturbing.
Posted by: harrison at October 19, 2010 12:16 PM (u9eMK)
12
Better the J. Crew Anarchists than the shirtless Abercrombie & Fitch Anarchists - or is it?
I'll go with the Tommy Bahama Anarchists and fix a drink.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at October 19, 2010 03:02 PM (dRMSX)
Homes have been sold/marketed as an investment asset (note: most cars have not been so marketed).
If you had a stock or bond or other investment asset where you had to pay a monthly payment AND THE VALUE OF THAT ASSET CONTINUED TO DECLINE TO THE POINT THAT THE ASSET WAS WORTH LESS THAN YOU COULD SELL IF FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, you'd be a financial idiot to keep paying.
Why is a house any different?
Now, if we want to assume homes are no different than cars (ie they depreciate in value) that's fine. But good luck changing that perception.
I'm not saying the non payment should not result in the lien holder taking appropriate action: that's what our courts are for...in order to decidfe who has the valid claim to the property.
As an INVESTMENT, however, if both sides of the equation (buyers/sellers, brokers, banks, home builders etc) equally viewed the home as an asset and investment, the natural market forces would take hold and quickly solve this issue.
However, the banks, etc want to play on the morale aspect of this transaction, not the correct business economic view of the transaction.
So, if you currently pay for something that you need as an investment, AND THE VALUE OF THAT INVESTMENT IS LESS THAN THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE YOU WILL OWN, the correct finanical decision is to stop paying.
THe old sunk cost rule: don't throw good money after bad.
Posted by: DFG at October 19, 2010 03:04 PM (F5wR6)
You sign a 20-year contract with a widget supplier to purchase $2,000 worth of widgets each month. This is a good deal, because you resell those widgets for $3,000, making a nice profit.
However, at some point the value of widgets plummet, and suddenly you are losing $1,000 per month. Do you now have the right to walk away from that contract? Is the commitment void because the market has suddenly turned against you?
I'm no fan of the banks, but they agreed to loan the mortgagee the money to allow him to live in the home of his choice. If the home appreciates in value, that's great. But if the home stops appreciating (and in fact loses value) how is that the lender's fault? Did the lender guarantee you would be able to sell your home for more than you paid for it?
Just because in our lifetime homes have continually appreciated in value does not mean they always will do so. In reality, purchasing a home is akin to buying stock on the stock market. If you purchase stock on credit and the stock tanks, should you refuse to pay your creditor for allowing you to make the purchase?
Moral aspect? Absolutely! For when you turn your back on morality, there is no longer any honor nor honesty in any transaction. This is the definition of anarchy.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at October 20, 2010 08:49 PM (MbNa2)
15
"You sign a 20-year contract with a widget supplier to purchase $2,000 worth of widgets each month. This is a good deal, because you resell those widgets for $3,000, making a nice profit.
However, at some point the value of widgets plummet, and suddenly you are losing $1,000 per month. Do you now have the right to walk away from that contract? Is the commitment void because the market has suddenly turned against you?"
Welcome to the real world. The above happens constantly.
If I can only sell for $1000 and it costs me $2000 to secure what I sell, golly, I sense something bad coming.
Posted by: DFG at October 21, 2010 08:07 AM (SaQrg)
16
Ремонт и отделка офисов, квартир или дач – это самая распространенная на сегодняшний день проблема большинства людей, решившихся, наконец, привести в порядок свое жилище. Мало того, что ремонт – это занятие трудоемкое и напряженное, еще и найти достойную компанию, занимающуюся отделкой квартир или офисов сегодня практически невозможно. Дело в том, что все меньше и меньше в нашей стране остается фирм, делающих свою работу качественно, эффективно и недорого. Однако наша компания является приятным исключением из этого неприятного правила. Мы вот уже долгое время занимается отделкой и ремонтом квартир и в г. Зеленоград и еще ни разу нам не приходило от наших клиентов ни неприятных отзывов, ни каких-либо жалоб. Богатый опыт наших специалистов, а также высокий профессионализм всех без исключения наших работников, поможет сделать хорошо, качественно и – главное - доступно как косметический, так и капитальный ремонт. Современное оборудование, новые технологии планировки и дизайна, а также индивидуальный подход к каждому клиенту и гибкая система скидок сделали нашу компанию самой успешной на сегодня фирмой, оказывающей услуги по ремонту и отделке квартир и офисов в г. Зеленоград. Список услуг: ремонт квартир ремонт квартир в Москве ремонт квартир в Московской области косметический ремонт квартир капитальный ремонт квартир евроремонт кватрир ремонт магазинов ремонт ресторатов ремонт офисных помещений отделка квартир ремонт ресторанов ремонт квартир под ключ строительство коттеджей VIP ремонт квартир отделка квартир в новых домах
Posted by: remroom at October 22, 2010 05:14 AM (5zJOK)
The Erik Scott Case: Update 6--Las Vegas Follies Redux
It was my intention to temporarily put this series to bed with Update 5, thinking that little would be of interest to readers until a civil suit was filed at some point in the future and discovery began as is common with such cases. But as I’ve noted in previous updates, there is much about this case that is unusual, so unusual as to raise reasonable suspicions about the actions of the Las Vegas authorities before, during and after the shooting of Erik Scott. This update will focus on the involvement of the Office of the Clark County Public Administrator, John J. Cahill. The PA’s website can be found here, and the section of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 2009) that deals with Public Administrators can be found here. A You Tube rendition of a message left on Kevin Scott’s answering machine by Clark County Deputy Public Administrator Steve Grodin can be heard here.
1
Erik Scott was murdered by people in authority. Now his murderers are using their authority to get away with it. They deserve to die.
Posted by: ccoffer at October 15, 2010 07:11 AM (uzbuT)
2
Looks to me that there is enough evidence here for a federal investigation to take over the case
Posted by: Rich at October 15, 2010 09:25 AM (siQqy)
3
Evidence can move two ways. The police may have been looking for evidence of the drugs Scott was using and they may as well have been planting evidence that can be used later against his girlfriend to coerce her testimony in a plea bargain.
If you already believe the police capable of murder, negligent homicide and robbery, evidence tampering is a small additional step.
They are not just in CYA mode. They seriously believe protecting the officers is more important than justice.
Posted by: Professor Hale at October 15, 2010 10:37 AM (m7EhJ)
But why? Why this big collusion after the 'no true bill' inquest? Why would anyone risk a career or criminal charges when all that's left is a civil trial, in which any judgment is payed by the taxpayers anyway?
Do you think the Officers will not receive qualified immunity for monetary judgments?
I would understand a CYA mindset before the inquest, but now?
Posted by: Buck Turgidson at October 15, 2010 04:09 PM (rNnSn)
he broke all public trust to be someones minion. why? why put himself in what could amount to a criminal position? what could they possibly said to him or gave him for him to whore himself in this manor?
and grodin if by chance you ever read this blog.
*spit* thats right I called you a whore.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 15, 2010 06:07 PM (60WiD)
6
and why is there no investigative reporters hounding this guy with a camera crew? asking him who the officers were that went into the apartment that day?
what a travesty. we are certainly witnessing the erosion of what made this land great.
Posted by: rumcrook at October 15, 2010 06:10 PM (60WiD)
7
Buck, take another look at the chronology. The PA and accompanying officer began efforts to enter before Scott had reached ambient temperature. It doesn't look like anything but a panicked attempt to find evidence of criminal activite to justify what even the LVPD must have known was an unjustifed shooting.
Most of the time, stupid or arrogant or useless acts by bureaucrats can be explained by bureaucratic inertia or institutional incompetence or overzealousness. Had the PA been acting on his own, that would have been my preferred interpreation. The involvement of a police officer, and the disregarding of the explicit instructions of Scott's resident girlfriend, raise all kinds of stink.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at October 15, 2010 08:31 PM (QQ9sc)
8
Actually I was about to ask the same thing. Who were the officers that were with the PA and what was their relationship with those at the shooting. This case get stranger and stranger every day.
Posted by: James S. at October 15, 2010 08:44 PM (eakLR)
9
The head of Metro, the Clark County Sheriff, is up for reelection. His opponent's web site is http://bischforsheriff.com/
Posted by: Kevin at October 15, 2010 11:49 PM (22uKd)
10
VEGAS IS CORRUPT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN MANY WAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE KNEW THIS ALREADY, ERIK SCOTTS MURDER, I TRULY BELIEVE WILL HELP GET THE CORRUPTION OUT OF VEGAS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: heather at October 16, 2010 01:29 AM (UxhJy)
11
Im glad I wasn't the only one outraged by the message on youtube. My immediate thought went right to the 380 also. I can't imagine being in Ms. Sterner's shoes.... she witnesses her fiance murdered right in front of her and to top it off the same people responsible have entered her home and changed the locks? God no wonder she didn't show up at the inquest. No possible way she would feel safe and secure.
Posted by: willis at October 16, 2010 03:59 AM (fT8ar)
12
I'm sure, that as soon as the detectives arrived on scene and started to investigste. They realized right away it was a bad shoot, and probably called a higher up(?). Why do you think they kept Sam on scene for 4 or more hours. First they searched her vehicle, then they BROKE into her house. There is a huge contraversy about what was taken. The Scott's insist Erik never carried a second gun, and I believe them 100%. After watching the entire inquest a couple of times, I find no fault with Sam not testifing in that enviroment. First, she wasn't properly served. They would have made her look like Tokyo Rose, with no attorney to call into check, the line of questioning, they could have said anything to her in any leading fashion they chose.
It's obvious that this is a cover-up all the way to the top, and the DA and medical examiner are in on it. The worst part of this whole deal besides Erik's death, is they seem to think we here in Las Vegas are to stupid to see thru this or that we are so mindless, we'll believe anything they want to tell us!
The Sheriff, DA, PA,and any others involved need to GO!!
Posted by: Jvh at October 16, 2010 09:17 AM (uaicc)
13
Still makes me sick to my stomach, all this cover-up. Makes me think that cops in the US should be like the bobbies in Britain. No guns. If they can't be responsible with them they can't have them.
Posted by: Ron at October 16, 2010 09:57 AM (IidtF)
I commented at length back on update 4, and was castigated for saying that I was witholding judgement on the officers invoived in shooting Erik. I have now had time to digest updates 5 and 6, and I have to say that what you have relayed in those updates is very disturbing. I could comment more on the shooting itself, but I wanted to address the unusual acts you have attributed to Deputy PA Grodin.
In Oklahoma, we have no position directly correspoding to that of the PA, but in reading the law as you have set forth here, I think I have an understanding of the function of the PA's office.
I cannot think of any legitimate reason for the Deputy PA to overstep his bounds in the way presented here, nor can I think of any legitimate reason for the police to enlist the PA's office to gain entry to Erik's condo. The fact that the PA described Erik's girlfriend as "stonewalling" him raises some serious suspicions. If the PA had already contacted her and knew that she lived in the condo, thus having "joint tenancy" why would he attempt an end-run around her and try to get permission from Erik's brother? This would flat-out seem to be beyond the scope of his authority, for the law as quoted PROHIBITS such action by the PA's office.
I am puzzled as to what the police hoped to gain. As you have stated there was no reason to look for evidence of a crime, and in fact anything gained by the police in such an entry would be "fruit of the poisonous tree". There could not even be an exception in that it was discovered by a non-police entity and turned over to them inasmuch as they ACCOMPANIED Grodin, let alone the fact that he was clearly acting as an agent for the police, which is the same as if the police did it themselves.
What I don't understand is why involve the PA's office at all? If you are going to make an illegal entry, why drag another agency into the mess? Unless the police somehow felt that the presence of the PA added some type of an air of legitimacy to the unauthorized and warrantless entry.
Also, is there ANY accounting of what was seized? If so, who took custody of the seized items, the PA's office or the police. If the police did, is that a normal state of affairs in cases handled by the PA's office? Has Sterner been able to account for missing items that were not included on the list of seized items, and has the seized property been returned to any of the family?
You are right in stating that the civil trial will in all likelihood answer many more questions than the Coroner's Inquest did. As described, the Coroner's Inquest seems set up more like a Grand Jury, with only the prosecution presenting evidence. A situation which resulted in the quote regarding a Grand Jury indictment "you can indict a ham sandwich". The coroner's inquest would seem to provide the same lopsided result.
Having worked at both large and small agencies, what you say regarding patrol officers and search warrants is true. Even in the small agency I once worked in (which had only about 36 officers), only the detectives wrote up search warrant affidavits.
The additional information you have provided troubles me to no end. Some of what it says to me is that what was, without a doubt, a mishandled situation from the git-go resulting in a confrontation to which the officers reacted poorly (although I tend to think without malice aforthought) may, after the fact, have grown into a major criminal conspiracy.
I look forward to your 7th installment which you have described as both interesting and troubling, because I'm getting that same sick feeling I got when the news broke here locally of the Federal investigation which has ensnared a number of officers that I thought I knew (but obviously didn't). The more I learn about not so much the shooting, but the aftermath, I'm beginning to think that the LVMPD could stand to be looked into by the Feds also.
Posted by: Montie at October 17, 2010 08:55 PM (nX+SQ)
I'm curious about your comment that Erik's family insisted that he never carried a second gun. I don't for one minute doubt their veracity, but would he necessarily have told them that he carried a backup?
Most trainers these days recommend it, but is there something in the Nevada concealed carry permit law that prohibits the carrying of a backup gun? Most cops I know do so, and so do a number of friend of mine who carry on permits.
Posted by: Montie at October 17, 2010 09:07 PM (nX+SQ)
17
So first the city of Las Vegas murders a small business owner in broad daylight in front of dozens of bystanders, and then they break and enter into his home in order to loot valuables that may be present (by their own admission that's what they were looking to do)?
Would have expected something like that in Mexico City or Harare.
Posted by: JTW at October 18, 2010 03:53 AM (jMRqb)
Good to hear from you again.
My comments about the second gun are because during the inquest Metro detectives on the stand were making a huge deal about a Ruger .380 in Erik's pocket. There interpretation was it wasn't on his CCW permit with his other 5 or 6 weapons, BUT, he did have the blue card for it in his wallet. So he was committing a felony for carrying it concealed. By watching all of the testimony of this inquest several times, my opinion is that they were justifying his killing on the felony gun and that he had drug's in his system. Since Erik had not committed any crimes until after his death, according to all who testified. They had to come up with something considering the prominence of the man they just killed for apparently no reason. They were trying to say he was loaded for bear, and was probably going to shoot the place up, so Officer Mosher was a HERO. The Ruger.380 in his pocket was misidentified on the stand as a kel-tek .380 by the lead detective on the stand, which Erik did have on his CCW card, you see Erik owned both. The Scott's say Erik didn't carry a second weapon, so the controversy is Metro is believed to have taken the .380 from the home, and either swapped them or planted it to discredit Erik. There have been no attempts by Metro to clarify serial #'s on the guns, and has even eluded to the fact the .380 in his right pocket deflected the bullet that traveled up his body, but clearly there is an entrance wound to the buttocks.
This is what Bill Scott has to say about the PA's trip to Scott's house.
We’re not accusing the PA or Metro of taking anything, but these are the facts: Two items that we believe were in Erik’s condo are missing, but did not appear on the list of items the PA removed. One of those items is very important, and there’s currently no explanation for it “going missing.” If it shows up as “evidence,” then we’ll know how Metro and the DA plan to virtually guarantee a “justified” verdict this week.
Bill Scott
Posted by: Jvh at October 18, 2010 12:05 PM (uaicc)
One more thing. This is business as usual for Metro. There have been several unarmed men killed by officer's in Vegas. The testimony at inquest's have not jived with the shooting officer's stories. Even the use of force board's clear the officer's under highly questionable circumstances. The problem with the fact finding inquest is there are fact's other than Metro's and the DA's office want to present and even nauseously twist to there means. It's absolutely disgusting to watch, escpecially when their own witnesses tell a different version and the DA becomes aggresive toward their own witness. Going as far as putting words in their mouths.
Posted by: Jvh at October 18, 2010 12:34 PM (uaicc)
One more, one more.
Miss Sterner has been followed and ticketed byMetro multiple times in these last week's. Sounds like good ole' fashion intimidation to me.
Posted by: Jvh at October 18, 2010 12:38 PM (uaicc)
22
LVMPD is far from police work of that of good Ole Office Barney Fife. People have a misconception of what police work actually is. To this day, most citizens think “police work” is “solving crimes.” It is common for even bright people to still think that professional police “solve” murders, robberies and rapes. In Erik Scott’s case, the investigators were evaluated on their ability to create crimes out of the horrific murder. They went as far as attempting to smear his name, running ads in local papers about him being heavily intoxicated with “drugs.” They performed a search of his residence after the fact of his murder. All this in a poor attempt to justify their own cover-up.
People who were once tasked with “upholding the law” have now become “agents of social control.” America used to be the land of the free. As a whole, our country has taken our freedoms as they have started to “regulate” every aspect of our social liberties.
It is no longer okay for an individual to display personal expression without being profiled. One cannot enjoy the liberty of riding a motorcycle or wearing their favorite team logo. Shame on those who drive a custom automobile or spike their hair.
When does it all end? My heart goes out the the Scott family. Please know that there are others who will stand behind you and support your fight for justice.
“Si Vis Pacem, Parabellum.”
Posted by: Fat Ray at October 19, 2010 02:07 PM (59Kvb)
23
@jvh....
You are right on point about the .380... I remember watching the inquest thinking something was up as to why they were trying to hammer home the fact that he had it on him, yet no one finds it until later on in the ambulance? If thats true about Ms Sterner getting ticketed and followed multiple times since that is sickening.
Posted by: willis at October 19, 2010 06:14 PM (fT8ar)
24
Willis,
It's absolutely the truth, not onlt her but people with Erik Scott memorial ribbon magnets on their cars. What's really great though is alot of people on Erik Scott's memorial Facebook page is requesting the magnets to put on their cars, in spite of the threat of being singled out.
Posted by: Jvh at October 20, 2010 02:02 AM (uaicc)
25
I have a question for those who are qualified to answer: it is self-evident that Mr. Scott was taking several medications for spinal issues. What I want to know is, to what degree (if at all) would the "mix" in question slow down his reactions?
From what I've read of the timeline, even a fraction of a second could have made a great difference when faced with multiple/contradicting commands shouted out without warning.
Posted by: Casey at October 21, 2010 11:42 PM (fwjyy)
When Dan Rather "broke" the story of George W. Bush's alleged malingering when he served as a Texas Air National Guard fighter pilot, the only thing Rather ultimately broke was his own career. His reputation for honesty and integrity had been broken long before. The story was, of course, false and the documents that were the sole basis for and proof of the story were proved by bloggers to be neophyte forgeries within hours. Within a few days, the entire story collapsed and CBS was forced to backtrack. However, Rather did do a public service (no, not by resigning, but that was surely a public service) by introducing an entirely new reporting standard: The documents were "fake but accurate." Relying on that well-established and much-revered Lamestream Media standard, we introduce the tale of the Cattle Guards.
This is a story making the rounds of the Net that is likely false, but humorous nonetheless. The story goes that a little while back, President Obama was reviewing a report regarding Colorado ranchers protesting his proposed changes in grazing policies. The report mentioned the "100,000 cattle guards" (as in the metal grates ubiquitous in the West that cattle will not cross) in Colorado. President Obama immediately ordered his Secretary of the Interior (apparently this took place in a cabinet meeting) to fire the offending people who were guarding the cattle! Vice President Biden is reported to have intervened, suggesting that before being fired, they should receive six months of retraining so that they could serve as Arizona border guards!
While those who live in the midwest and west and actually work for a living would have little trouble believing this, it very well may be false. President Obama would almost certainly have tried to unionize and federalize the "Cattle Guards," rather than fire them, and no one in the Obama Administration would have ever thought of doing anything that would actually increase border enforcement or in any way aid Arizona, the political entity considered most dangerous in the world by the Obama Administration. Still, the story does illustrate the very real disconnect between those who live on the coasts and those who live in flyover country. Fake but accurate indeed.
The race for NC-4 is heating up, as a recent debate between Democratic incumbent David Price and, uh... Democratic incumbent David Price... left Republican challenger Dr. BJ Lawson with little to do except cheer along with the audience. Price made his case for his own replacement, displaying time and again how hopelessly out of touch the pro-Obamacare, pro-stimulus, pro-amnesty liberal is with the district he is supposed to represent.
Watch for yourself, and marvel at how the clueless incumbent shows how out of step he is with the audience in this debate.
If the stakes weren't our nation's future, it would almost be funny. The emperor has no clothes, and Congressman David is a Price NC-4 can't afford.
1
This video must be attracting attention because YouTube has stopped the view counts.
Posted by: David DeGerolamo at October 13, 2010 02:59 PM (x/37O)
2
I am so sorry - I couln't watch all of the video. I had to go wrap my head in duct tape or else it would have exploded. For the life of me I can not understand how anybody in NC4 could vote for him other than his mother and his wife! I bet if given the chance his hound dog would vote against him.
GOOD LUCK NC4 - you have a clear choice!!!
Posted by: mixitup at October 13, 2010 04:49 PM (Z21cb)
3
mixitup,
The problem is that all the politicians are like this guy. They just don't get it. Maybe something is wrong with with water or air in DC that makes these jerks completely dense when it comes to the wishes of the country. Lets get rid of all of them!!
Posted by: David at October 13, 2010 07:35 PM (Msf2n)
4
It's good for the opposition that he spelt out the oppositions views, the republican was probably going to skip that smarty thinky stuff and just tell the audience "I'm you", like a retard.
Worse yet, what the democrat instills in his opposition most likely isn't even there and the republican candidate is just a typical RINO.
Posted by: NAC at October 13, 2010 10:59 PM (wRhUB)
5
I L O V E the "we can't deport them" line of reasoning. No, you can't. You also can't go around and collect income taxes from a hundred million or so American tax payers.
But.
You CAN make them pay voluntarily -- as they do -- and we can make illegal aliens WANT to go home on their own, just as they CAME here -- ON THEIR OWN.
We didn't IMPORT them! So, we don't have to DE-port them. We just need to make it difficult for them to stay. And, Congressman Price? The back of the line is in MEXICO!
Posted by: Bill Smith at October 14, 2010 12:37 AM (NPoMW)
6
I can't find anything in the news or pseudo-news on the internet about Americans being sold as slaves in Mexico. Can anyone offer a credible source on this?
Posted by: Sol at October 14, 2010 10:31 AM (PlbDM)
7
Sol, I was wondering about that, too. Putting that in there weakens the credibility of whoever put this together.
Posted by: MikeM_inMd at October 15, 2010 10:50 PM (6hI0A)
) it is best to assume that we don't want criminal masterminds to be in charge of manufacturing and selling thousands and thousands of weapons. Just because they are made here in the US doesn't mean they will stay here in the US or that they won't end up in the wrong hands anyway. Who do you think is supplying Mexican drug cartels with modern weaponry anyway?