Confederate Yankee
September 23, 2010
The Hat Trick: How To Outreach America to Death
Bob Woodward has once again revealed—to whatever degree one is willing to credit Woodward for unerring accuracy and integrity—many disturbing actions and thoughts of an American president, but in this instance, it’s President Barack Obama. In excerpts from his soon to be released book, Obama’s Wars, published on Sept. 22 in the Washington Post and New York Times, Mr. Obama’s beliefs informing his performance as Commander in Chief are revealed much more clearly than Mr. Obama will likely find comfortable. In fact, he may well have written some of the most effective Republic campaign commercials for 2012.
Posted by: MikeM at
01:02 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We'll do fine as long as the terrorists take out the White House. We can rebuild the building. Oh, and we don't need the occupants.
Posted by: Bill Johnson at September 23, 2010 10:12 AM (9X1+H)
2
Woodward became the wonderboy jounalist how?
Posted by: bman at September 23, 2010 12:01 PM (cJ0jg)
3
I'm going to apply the left's standard for evaluating Woodward's take on Bush and believe everything he says in his book.
Posted by: ECM at September 23, 2010 05:59 PM (nYKDd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Erik Scott Shooting: Update 2
Comments on the initial article have raised a number of questions that deserve clarification. Perhaps additional clarification of what I learned in my years as a police officer about the police and the world in which they live and work will be useful.
Posted by: MikeM at
12:37 AM
| Comments (59)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"The issue is slightly more interesting in the case of a ***citizen who might have recorded events on a cell phone or video camera.*** The police would be able to argue with somewhat more plausibility that a citizen unknown to them, as opposed to long established business, would be more likely to damage or destroy evidence, and the same processes of seizing the materials would apply. Might a citizen make copies, post them on the Internet, even send them to their lawyers for safekeeping before turning video over to the police? Certainly, unless there is some specific statute that would address the issue, but that’s quite uncommon."
I'm not following you. Are you saying it is legal/appropriate for police to confiscate the cell phone videos of citizens who may have recorded this shooting? Or is it iffy?
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to flame you or anyone. I commented earlier in the first thread that I was pretty sure that the police didn't need a warrant to confiscate witnesses cell phones. I would guess because they are evidence or something.
If you can clairify this, it would be appreciated.
And if there is a lot of variation between different states and jurisdictions about this, OK, I can understand that.
Posted by: ed at September 23, 2010 02:01 AM (Zsqn4)
2
While I always try and keep a wait and see attitude, I appreciate your continued well balanced comments on this LEO involved shooting. Your obvious knowledge of the potential back-story is most enlightening. Please continue to cover the emerging data / facts / spin.
Posted by: Del at September 23, 2010 06:27 AM (8D/SR)
3
Dear ed:
Sorry if I was less than clear. According to the 4th Amendment, the police can seize just about any private property upon a showing that they have probable cause to believe that it's evidence of a crime and they must, on a warrant, particularly describe the items to be seized and places to be searched. Again, not all searches and seizures require a warrant, particularly those under emergency circumstances. In other words, if the police don't act immediately, without a warrant, the evidence almost certainly will be, as opposed to might be, lost.
Of course, if the police don't know about a citizen recorded video, then the matter is up to the citizen's conscience. I hope this helps.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at September 23, 2010 08:23 AM (AL1KP)
4
"It should be kept in mind that Costco could have, if it wished, refused to turn over any recordings or devices. At that point, the police would have had two options: (1) Seize the recordings and devices anyway under an exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, or (2) Obtain a warrant."
Or NOT SEIZE IT AT ALL but ask politely for a copy like normal people! Good God are you really this incredibly benightedly stupid? You think you're defending cops? With every word you make yourself look worse!
Posted by: Rollory at September 23, 2010 08:44 AM (XGnEq)
5
I think a lot of clarity would be achieved if the tapes from the CostCo 911 call were released. It would establish what the officers thought they were facing. If the caller said "we have a man with a gun" is quite different than "THERE"S A NUT WITH A GUN IN THE STORE!"
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 23, 2010 08:51 AM (7rfUg)
6
I think the police will find that they will increasingly have trouble "seizing" information that is digital. Already there are iPhone apps that stream video live to a server and distribute feeds via twitter immediately to friends so it can't be easily confiscated.
Posted by: steve h at September 23, 2010 08:57 AM (9vsSX)
7
I seems to me, given the current state of the story that the first shot was most likely a mistake and the rest of the shots to Scotts back were most likely the result of poorly trained officers overreacting to the first shot ...
Once the facts all come to light, besides the officers involved any other police official who lied to the public should be punished to the full extend to the criminal justice system and anyone who made misleading statements should be fired ...
Posted by: Jeff at September 23, 2010 09:28 AM (A3tpD)
8
@Rollory
"However, most businesses want a good relationship with the police whether they consider the police to be corrupt or not as the police provide several valuable services for them. Costco likely did not think of objecting to the taking of the materials. If the police ask (I’m assuming they did) and the citizen agrees, no warrant is required."(emphasis added)
Rollory, you really ought to start reading these posts before you start shrieking insults. As with the prior post all you're doing now is letting everyone know that you're ignorant and only casually acquainted (at best) with logic
Posted by: James Felix at September 23, 2010 09:37 AM (/itx5)
9
I appreciate your expertise and continuing perspectives on this case VERY much.
One disagreement. It's been my experience with the Police Culture that an officer is not really considered an REAL officer unless he has fired his weapon and killed a criminal. Note the whole subset of human beings referred to as "bad guys" when you are listening to LEOs talk. "Bad guy"s can have anything done to them and are without civil rights or humanity. Also notice the epidemic of dog shootings nationwide by LEOs, often without cause or provocation. Police officers MUST make their bones.
I think the belief that unless you have blooded your weapon you aren't a real veteran LEO is nationwide and a factor in this killing in LV.
Posted by: Robert at September 23, 2010 09:38 AM (eSGqw)
10
Hey Mike,
Your clarification for ed seems less clear to me.
Are the police acting within the law by confiscating cell phone recordings by witnesses to the shooting?
Can the citizen legally refuse?
-----
Quilly,
I believe a copy of the video would be viewed as potentially tampered evidence--they need the original for court.
BTW, did MikeM shoot your dog? Where did you sign up for the I Hate MikeM club?
Posted by: mockmook at September 23, 2010 09:39 AM (WZMt3)
11
Sorry Quilly, I meant might response for Rollory.
Posted by: mockmook at September 23, 2010 09:43 AM (WZMt3)
12
I appreciate your perspective on what should be done by a well trained member of the police. I believe, though, that the whole point is that LV does not have a well trained PD. The fact that a man with a holstered weapon (which no one seems to be challenging) is dead seems to indicate that these officers were poorly trained. As in most cases like this, it ultimately comes down to a leadership problem; hence the attempt at a cover-up.
Posted by: charles at September 23, 2010 09:54 AM (MVNPA)
13
"...many cops will admit to being adrenaline junkies..."
This is the key phrase. When adrenaline junkies are combined with a culture that encourages a siege mentality and discourages accountability bad things will happen.
It's not bad apples, it's the orchards.
Posted by: Jeff at September 23, 2010 09:59 AM (FPKD1)
14
'Regarding firearms, most working officers fully support the Second Amendment and have no difficulty with citizens carrying concealed weapons.'
not in my personal experience and not in the experience of Pete Eyre and other activists. in fact, I'd argue that cc makes cops feel that they must be more aggressive toward citizens because 'anyone could be carrying'. I've been a firefighter/medic for over 20 years and have been on over 15,000 911 calls... I've never heard a cop voice support for an armed public.
there are lots of videos showing cops acting against people with concealed carry and exercising their rights to open carry.
Posted by: Marty at September 23, 2010 10:02 AM (hzAS0)
15
IT's just somehow wrong for one of the parties in an investigation of this serious a nature to have possession of all the evidence. Evidence fro Costco recordings, 911 center recordings and any dashcam vodeos should all be placed in the hands of a disinterested third party.
But it's too late for that. So who can trust what that one party says? How can this be anything but lose-lose for the po-po? Well, they have guns...that's how.
Posted by: Bill Johnson at September 23, 2010 10:07 AM (9X1+H)
16
Rollory stated re. the CCTV seizure "Or NOT SEIZE IT AT ALL but ask politely for a copy..."
I'm afraid that just doesn't work. Original recordings are important, because copies could be more easily edited without it being obvious (depending on how the video system works). I've found defence lawyers are not above this themselves. By way of example, I've seen a defence lawyer present still images from a CCTV recording, with some scenes magnified. Later we realised the images were out of chronological order and appear to have been run through Photoshop.
I guess the store can keep a copy, and modern digital systems often allow this, but the police will always need an original, date stamped.
Posted by: Wilbur at September 23, 2010 10:22 AM (9R/db)
17
Have any of you people noticed a civilian testified that Scott pulled his gun and pointed it at an officer before he was shot? A young woman, no less.
Nice Kangaroo Court you have here. No need to wait for facts to come out.
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM (0gzMf)
18
The elephant in the room is the recording of the 911 call. Its non-release smells to high heaven. Is there any theoretical justification for keeping it secret?
Posted by: tom swift at September 23, 2010 10:49 AM (kKWoX)
19
The initial reports were that the video recordings could not be recovered from the disks. The chances of several disks all failing at the same time are less than the chances that a meteor would hit the Costco security room to destroy the recordings.
If the recordings were destroyed, the only reasonable possibilities are that 1) the police destroyed them or 2) Costco employees destroyed the recordings.
If the police destroyed the recordings, it seems likely that it would have been done to conceal bad behavior by police officers. If a Costco employee destroyed the recordings it could be that the 911 call described an armed, drug addled lunatic destroying property and threatening people with a gun while video of actual events would not support this, making Costco liable to lawsuit and the Costco employees criminally liable for causing the death of Mr.Scott.
If the LVPD were expecting to deal with an armed, violent madman based on a 911 call, it would mitigate but not excuse their culpability. Peaceful citizens should not be killed by the police. At a minimum, LVPD needs a better procedure for dealing with these sorts of situations and that procedure needs to be taught to its police officers.
In the mean time I am going to stay out of Costco and stay out of Las Vegas because I don't want to be killed either by malice or by accident.
Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2010 10:50 AM (h7y0v)
20
Here is a recap of the inquest being held in Las Vegas this week.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/22/coroners-inquest-erik-scott/
Posted by: inspectorudy at September 23, 2010 10:50 AM (KOOZL)
21
Paul Fels, did you notice that the young civilian woman was a Costco employee? A part-time employee who could probably be fired at will? No possible bias there?
I think what people are wanting to see is actual video and audio evidence, because people have agendas and eyewitnesses in stressful situations are not always reliable.
Posted by: VKI at September 23, 2010 11:03 AM (LZK9H)
22
Costco had a video SYSTEM. Which means, that to protect themselves, a backup copy should have immeduiately been created for themselves if the original were handed to the police. In fact, a copy should have been created for the police. A copy made at the time is as good ads the original- it's viseo.
The fact that video taken at the time by Costco is "unuseable" screams coverup.
Posted by: Harold at September 23, 2010 11:12 AM (9mf6d)
23
ed, please read the link sent in the last thread from Carlos Miller's blog, in which attorneys who specialize in this area explain why you don't have to give your camera to the police. Note that they are *attorneys* whereas the poster here is a former cop. Sorry, "attorney" wins every time.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/01/21/do-police-have-the-right-to-confiscate-your-camera/
With digital files, there's no difference between "original" and "copy". Again, I refer to the BART shooting of Oscar Grant for an example. There, police officers stole all cameras that they could get their hands on, an act recorded by phones which weren't stolen. The DA had to ask citizens to come forward with any video they had, oddly the police didn't have any. See how that works?
Most phones store the videos on internal memory, meaning you have to "make a copy" to get it out of the phone. In the Grant case, the DA made copies of the videos for use in the court case. All of you talking about "copies" and "timestamps" are very confused about how computers work. "Tampering" is a separate, unrelated issue.
To see how tampering works, read this:
http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/26/and-the-lies-continue-to-mount-in-the-maryland-police-beating-case/
To summarize, police beat a guy in Maryland after a ball game. He wasn't doing anything, they just attacked. Cell phone videos captured the incident, and the officers are now awaiting trial. When the victim's attorney subpoenaed surveillance video from cameras in the area, the police claimed that the particular camera pointing to the area where the beating took place wasn't working. Later, they came up with the video, but oddly the two minutes when the beating took place were blank.
Again, this is why you do not trust police with the video evidence when police have committed crimes. First, post the video on youtube. That is the absolute first thing you do. Next, *make a copy* for your own keeping. If it looks like a big case (such as a killing), give it to local news organizations, too. Finally, make a copy for the DA and take it directly to the DA's office. Hand deliver.
As to the rest of McDaniel's writing, it's actually fairly balanced but still comes down on the side of hoping for the best of intentions on behalf of the officers involved. I don't believe this was premeditated, but the fact is that it was their guns that killed a man who posed no threat to them. Regardless of everything else, they are responsible for his death. They are also responsible for their reprehensible actions after shooting him, including handcuffing him (sorry, Mike, I don't buy your reasoning, and reasonable people wouldn't - he was shot 7 times) and then handling his body roughly when the ambulance showed up.
As to Paul's point, they've come up with one witness who saw a gun? And she trumps everybody else who didn't see a gun? Everybody says he had his hands in the air - even the original author doesn't dispute this.
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 23, 2010 11:24 AM (6kg1i)
24
"Have any of you people noticed a civilian testified that Scott pulled his gun and pointed it at an officer before he was shot? A young woman, no less.
Nice Kangaroo Court you have here. No need to wait for facts to come out."
Have YOU noticed that other witnesses have testified that no such thing occurred? And isn't demanding to see the video and hear the 911 call the exact opposite of not waiting for the facts?
Posted by: James Felix at September 23, 2010 11:30 AM (/itx5)
25
Hmmmm.
1. Anybody on prescription painkillers has no business carrying a firearm. I've been on perqs on occasion due to post-surgery and even then I avoid going to the range no matter how much I'd love to.
2. "almost lethal amounts of morphine and zanax"?
Anybody else find that phrase odd? I'd suggest an second opinion from an independent coroner.
3. The witness who saw the guy draw a weapon before being shot was evidently a part-time employee of ... Costco. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the testimony but I didn't see any other witness testifying the same thing mentioned anywhere.
4. Seems like a major effort to portray/reveal Scott as someone addicted to prescription drugs.
Posted by: memomachine at September 23, 2010 11:32 AM (MwCol)
26
"I guess the store can keep a copy, and modern digital systems often allow this, but the police will always need an original, date stamped."
There is no difference between the copy and the original. None. If police demand I surrender the original storage medium, I will politely offer to work with their IT staff to make a copy and confirm that the copy is bit-for-bit identical to the original, will sign an affidavit to that effect, including the MD5 checksum and original timestamp of the file, and will testify in court to back up that affidavit. They will have their chain of custody beginning with my testimony as the camera operator. But that's only if they do it my way.
Without my cooperation in testifying as to how that video got onto the original storage medium, there is no reason to believe that it was not tampered with. I will explain this to the police, and inform them that if they insist on taking my camera from me, they will no longer be able to get me to sign that affidavit, and in fact I will inform the attorney for the suspect that I will offer this testimony: As an IT professional, because that camera left my custody before I could compute and log the checksum, I can not state with certainty that the file saved on the storage medium is what I recorded.
If they are unmoved, and continue to insist I surrender the camera, I will demand that I be allowed to go through the available tools on the camera itself and view all the stored metadata about the video, record same to paper receipt, and have the officer sign it. If he refuses to provide me even this minimal protection, I will have to inform the suspect's attorney that I will testify to that effect. A jury hearing me describe the officer's refusal to catalog the evidence I was handing to him where we could both see it would take a very dim view of the veracity of the video.
Posted by: The Monster at September 23, 2010 12:23 PM (bOY30)
27
Seems I've read that Scott was shot multiple times with .45's. Four times in the back and one even in the arm pit showing his hands were raised. There were other shots fired into his torso in the frontal area but it those in the back in the one in the armpit thats grabs my attention. Those cops had better have some film showing a gun in Scott's hand or an example is going to be made of them. You don't kill someone because he's "carrying a gun." You don't shoot people in the back when they are down usually and if you have film it had better be forthcoming.
I just had lung surgery and was on oxycodone for awhile, they make you pain free not homicidal. Sounds like the cops were on something like an adrenalin rush.
Posted by: ronnor at September 23, 2010 12:26 PM (ggIfT)
28
Yeah, the "lethal" amounts almost has to be intentionally misleading. Lethal for someone who has never taken them. For someone in a pain management program, they would be more properly called "normal" or "everyday" amounts.
The only thing he had lethal amounts of in his system were copper and lead.
Posted by: Phelps at September 23, 2010 02:00 PM (QhXW0)
29
Michael Chaney and The Monster hit the nail on the head for the most part dealing with camera and such.
The police under no circumstances can take your cell phone, camera, etc without giving you a hand receipt for it period. Police who take cameras and such without giving a hand receipt have one goal... hide the evidence and legally they should be charged with a host of crimes... however its unlikely even in the best of cases cops are held to the same standard and laws as the public at large(or even they're own policies).
Under many states laws in fact a person recording a police crime is not legally allowed to give it to the police "on scene" due to the fact that would be giving evidence to suspects and interfering with a police investigation. Once again though police who live by a different set of laws above normal ppl are not held to that standard and are rarely if ever charged.
Posted by: robotech master at September 23, 2010 02:07 PM (uMlYo)
30
@ Tom Swift,
The lack of disclosure probably should be more appropriately directed to the DA's office I would figure. They have probably been apprised of the situation of possible police misconduct and the possibility of charges against officers. At which point the prosecutors office would take ownership of the matter and direct that no release be forthcoming.
But The dept has bigger issues. My legal counsel is an old bull dog type. I have heard him more than once reply to a threat of a suit with -- "Be my guest you have the right. But be aware that having brought suit you open yourself to deposition. You will find discovery worse than going to trial. Still interested?" Only for the LVPD, when the wrongful death suit comes they will be flayed open like a boil.
Posted by: JohnMc at September 23, 2010 02:38 PM (kZxAh)
31
mockmock,
Done properly, a copy IS what is introduced in court. Digital forensic labs have a defined set of procedures and software that assure that the digital copy is a bit for bit exact match to the original. There are ways to access storage in read only mode. Copy the contents bit for bit to a mated copy of the storage media and certify that the whole procedure is untampered as the software records all the steps that were performed. The original would then be returned to evidence lockup for safekeeping. Everything else done to the copy would be documented.
Keep in mind that in many cases the defense can request an independent evaluation of the original or observe the original extraction when performed.
Posted by: JohnMc at September 23, 2010 02:47 PM (kZxAh)
32
Some of the best initial radio commentary by to locals, both with Police backgrounds one of them with Las Vegas Metro PD. Some insightful comments regarding the coroner's inquest as well.
http://archives.davechampionshow.com/Champion_1_071310_150000.mp3
Posted by: Difranco at September 23, 2010 03:42 PM (uASWX)
33
Tell Scott's father to keep his mouth shut; we, the public, have no need-to-know the specifics, such as his son's medications. The place for revealing this type of information is in court, through a lawyer with documentation. Especially in this case, where all the official forces are arrayed against Erik Scott & family.
Posted by: Jason Roth at September 23, 2010 04:10 PM (VU50J)
34
Everyone who really believes someone would lie under oath for her $10 a hour job at COSTCO, raise your hand. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Now there is testimony that Mr. Scott pointed a gun at a man whose dog bit Mr. Scott. Another one of his constitutional rights, I suppose?
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 04:54 PM (Ehkg6)
35
Your definition of malice aforethought being "planned ahead of time" is not correct. Malice aforethought can be developed in a fraction of a second. Murder can be mitigated to manslaughter if the malice aforethought was developed in the heat of passion, but the malice aforethought is there nonetheless. The definitions of murder and its elements (the killing of one human being by another human being with malice aforethought) don't change just because one of the parties was a police officer.
Posted by: Tinlaw at September 23, 2010 04:54 PM (u+2+B)
36
"Original recordings are important, because copies could be more easily edited without it being obvious (depending on how the video system works)"
You're about 5 to 10 years behind the technology curve. This is not true for modern digital video.
Posted by: bw at September 23, 2010 06:17 PM (KvZ3L)
37
Paul Fels:
Not for $10/hour would somebody lie but we have no idea a) what other possible motives (love, etc.) might factor in which the young lady may value more than absolute honesty, b) whether or to what extent the witness was influenced by what she heard other people say they saw.
Witness testimony is consistent only in it's unreliability.
She may, for example, be the girlfriend of the security officer who placed the 911 call and would do anything for him, like perhaps remembering things she didn't actually see.
Security: "OMG, Jill, did you see it? He pulled a gun on the cops!"
Jill: "Oh, uh, yeah, I saw it, too!"
In this case, Jill initially just wants to be "in" on all the excitement only to find the cops putting her on the stand. So she "remembers" the event as such to protect her reputation and/or that of the security guy.
So, there are plenty of reasons why one witness recalls events differently than others.
Posted by: Director at September 23, 2010 06:44 PM (9VSWS)
38
The last poster is correct. I am only questioning those who are making this troubled drug abuser the poster boy for our gun rights.
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 06:47 PM (Ehkg6)
39
I will be praying that the truth comes out, whether at the trial, or later in possible Court case to expose the truth. This father must take this to authorities who will have the video shown.
LV is a wicked place; I would have no problem believing the police there are corrupt and trigger-happy. These 3 cops should be haunted by their murder of this man for the rest of their lives. The death penalty should be one of their possible punishments.
Who wants to go to LV, and run the risk that they are the next victim of these killers?!
Posted by: Liberty's Daughter at September 23, 2010 09:38 PM (nKKir)
40
@ Paul Fels at September 23, 2010 06:47 PM
I love how you claim he was a drug on the strength of zero evidence right after claiming people who want to see the video are rushing to judgement. You're quite entertaining.
Without the video, one woman's testimony that Scott pulled a gun is utterly outweighed by the testimony of other who saw no such thing, but who report the police executed a man for no reason. The fact the police not merely seized the video but that they won't reveal even the 911 call and claim the video is ALL unusable, this is evidence on it's face the police are concealing misbehavior on their part.
Posted by: Tom Perkins at September 23, 2010 10:43 PM (N0wSU)
41
"drug on" != "drug abuser on"
Posted by: Tom Perkins at September 23, 2010 10:44 PM (N0wSU)
42
Another good link for those of you like the original poster who are naive enough to think that giving your phone laden with "evidence" to the police is a good idea:
http://hillsboro.katu.com/content/hillsboro-officer-involved-collision-sparks-mobile-phone-rights-questions
Let me set up an analogy to make it easy. Let's say a guy robs a liquor store one night, and on the way out the clerk says "Hey, sir, wait! Here's our only copy of the surveillance video - keep it safe so that if you're caught and have to go to court you can turn it in as evidence against you."
That's about as dumb as a box of hammers, right?
So, if the police officer commits a crime, that makes him a criminal. Hopefully you can finish putting the rest of it together.
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 24, 2010 12:12 AM (6kg1i)
43
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 23, 2010 11:24 AM
Hi Mike.
I think we are discussing two different things here.
Confiscation of cameras that are recording/have recorded the police in their normal day to day duties...
VS
Confiscation of cameras that are recording/have recorded the police or others in the act of committing a potential crime.
I read your link and poked around that blog. It appears to me that it is usually illegal to confiscate the camera of some guy who is video taping the police or a government building or what not during the course of the day. It's a first amendment issue.
HOWEVER...
If there is a crime being committed (by the police or by a citizen) and a person is video taping it, that tape is now evidence that can prove the guilt or innocence of whoever is involved. And thus can be seized as evidence.
The question then is...do the police need a warrant or not?
I think that what I and what the author are saying is that since there is a definite chance that this person may leave the scene and not turn over that tape, the police are legally allowed to seize it without a warrant.
Now... I know that if the police are the ones who are doing something that could be construed as illegal, or is illegal, that they have a lot of motivation to seize and destroy this video evidence.
Posted by: ed at September 24, 2010 03:24 AM (Zsqn4)
44
Many posters here have an odd idea of what proof is. Name the person who has testified they saw the police execute Mr. Scott. The coroner testified about the drugs.
But of course only the police and their evil minions ever lie, right?
Neither you nor I really know what happened at COSTCO that day. The difference is I can admit I don't know. In your case, haters gotta hate...
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 24, 2010 09:03 AM (Ehkg6)
45
Paul Fels:
You really need to read what you yourself have previously posted. Your own bias is obvious:
"I am only questioning those who are making this troubled drug abuser the poster boy for our gun rights."
You state, unequivocally, as fact, that he was a "drug abuser."
You are thus discredited as the impartial observer you do a bad job of pretending to be here.
But, do feel free to continue!
Posted by: Bill Smith at September 24, 2010 10:39 AM (7cynb)
46
Once again, I didn't come up with stuff out of the blue. Check the Las Vegas papers for what the coroner and MR. Scott's own father said.
I never said I don't have a bias, everyone does. I'm saying I don't know what happened, and you don't either. I'm saying even the police share ALL the constituition rights that you enjoy.
Including a fair trail and proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since so much of this case depends on what the officers who fired THOUGHT at the moment they fired, you will never know the truth.
Won't stop you from thinking you do. Hate on...
Posted by: Paul Fels at September 24, 2010 11:12 AM (Ehkg6)
47
I think we are discussing two different things here.
We're not. If you had actually read Carlos' blog post (in which he quotes attorneys) they state very plainly that your video recording of a crime is not "evidence" and cannot be "seized". The only exception is if the camera itself is involved in a crime, such as child porn.
A warrant is required, and if you have recorded an officer commit a crime, then you need to hang on to the recording and require that they get a warrant. See my earlier post for proper procedure. Note that "giving the recording to the officer or his pals" doesn't appear at any step in the procedure.
ed, you obviously came to the conclusion that the police can "seize" cameras or video recordings and you show little interest in reading up on the subject.
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 24, 2010 11:41 AM (6kg1i)
48
You're about 5 to 10 years behind the technology curve. This is not true for modern digital video.
It was **never** true of digital video. Digital video can always be imperceptibly compromised. It's impossible to tell the difference between a video file created 10 years ago and today if they use the same codec because even file system data like timestamps can be altered.
Posted by: Mike T at September 24, 2010 01:32 PM (nwEiU)
49
Michael Chaney,
I actually posted that link for him in the previous thread. I think Ed is just being obtuse. Miller interviewed several prominent attorneys on the subject and they all gave clear and convincing arguments about it.
Posted by: Mike T at September 24, 2010 01:34 PM (nwEiU)
50
"..."Original recordings are important, because copies could be more easily edited without it being obvious (depending on how the video system works)"
You're about 5 to 10 years behind the technology curve. This is not true for modern digital video.."
BW, that might be the case if they actually have a modern system, but the vast majority of stores use systems that are several years old. I must have dealt with hundreds of bits of seized CCTV evidence over the years, and the average age of the systems involved is very old indeed, very few of them are modern.
A large proportion of them were unreliable, out of focus, looking in the wrong direction, or just plain not working at all too.
Posted by: Wilbur at September 24, 2010 10:10 PM (9R/db)
51
It is interesting. But all this it is really true?
Posted by: auto dealers at September 27, 2010 01:26 PM (DsOOM)
52
Very insightful article. Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and experiences. Thank you for the comments and discussion on this tragedy. As evidenced by the comments, many of us see things differently, but that is part of being human. I pray that God will bless us with learning the truth soon.
Posted by: DisabledVeteran at September 28, 2010 06:56 PM (C9aYf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 22, 2010
Intellectual President: Mexicans Were Here Before the 57 States
For the life of me, I can't see why the media continues to try to portray Barack Obama as a scholar when he has proven time and again he has Blutarsky's view of history:
"Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land," President Obama told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mexico declared its independence on September 16, 1810. It was recognized on September 27, 1821.
The United States of America declared its independence in 1776.
The video at the link is just as dumb, but not nearly as impassioned as this
intentional comedy classic (mildly NSFW-language).
I blame the teleprompter.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:27 AM
| Comments (50)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Having been born and raised in Florida, the home of the two oldest cities in the United States -- the Spanish were here first and in the largest numbers. The English were relative latecomers. Mayhap someone needs to go back and read some junior high history again.
Posted by: Micheal at September 22, 2010 08:53 PM (CILQH)
2
Mexico ain't Florida, and if you really want to talk about who got here first, look at the Norse (if you want to talk Europeans), or the Asians who tromped over the Bering Land bridge thousands of years ago who became the first "native" Americans.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 22, 2010 09:36 PM (CwGYU)
3
I would also like to point out that Americans are not English. When America declared its independence, it became a new nation, not an extension of British rule. So any arguments about the English being latecomers are irrelevant.
Posted by: Walt at September 22, 2010 09:50 PM (puT5W)
4
Are all of you forgetting the Sabre-Tooth-Tiger-Americans? Speciesists.
Posted by: John Davies at September 22, 2010 11:27 PM (y/U1E)
5
It really doesn't matter who was here first. It's who's here last.
Posted by: Jeff at September 22, 2010 11:45 PM (twsVm)
6
why does everyone forget that spaniards are white europeans too?
Posted by: don at September 22, 2010 11:46 PM (v3V9Z)
7
The night The Manchurian Moonbat was elected, my closest friends & I adopted these immortal words as our credo:
We gotta take these bastards.
Sure, we could fight them with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives.
In this case I think we have to go all out. I think this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
And we're just the guys to do it.
Posted by: Gorgo at September 22, 2010 11:49 PM (bbTou)
8
Mexico, and thus "Mexicans", did not exist at the founding of the U.S. Elementary geography and elementary history. To say "Mexicans" were here before the U.S. was founded is like saying "Canadians" founded Canada, not the British and French.
Posted by: Curmudgeon Geographer at September 22, 2010 11:52 PM (XtAtw)
9
Say, Madeline Albright ever find anybody locked in Don Rumsfeld basement?
Posted by: Joe at September 22, 2010 11:58 PM (7O7vK)
10
The real point is being missed here. Look at the first sentence: "Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples."
This land of plenty. He's not speaking of the natural resources. He's talking about the wealth that has been created. That's the "plenty" he's talking about. Yet he refuses to acknowledge the source of that wealth.
Posted by: Henry at September 22, 2010 11:59 PM (g61gd)
11
When he says "Mexican", he means "La Raza" - the distinctive Aztec/Spanish hybrid that many Mexicans hold as their racial identity.
In that sense, "Mexicans" did indeed predate Mexico.
My fear isn't that the President is an idiot; it's that he knew exactly what he was saying, and meant it.
Posted by: lewy14 at September 23, 2010 12:01 AM (pU+dW)
12
Bernal Dias del Castillo was one of the Conquistadores with Hernan Cortez, and in his book "The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico" an eye-witness account (1522) he calls the "Aztecs" as "Mexicans" (Mexicanos) and their city "Mexico." The term "Aztec" was a term invented much later to call these people. Incidentally, Mexico at this time was pronounced something like Meshico. His book is very interesting and enlightening, with admiration and praise for the Indians and display of a wide range of emotions, not just gold-lust.
Posted by: Dennis at September 23, 2010 12:12 AM (tVnWA)
13
Dennis is correct. Mexica is another name for what we call the Aztecs. But, the modern Mexicans are not Aztecs (Thank God), they are the descendants of the mixing of Spanish and the native tribes, including the Aztecs. So, we are back to 1810.
Posted by: Fat Man at September 23, 2010 12:26 AM (KhGJU)
14
Obama may indeed have read, and been referring to, the "mexicans" in Bernal Dias del Castillo's "The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico".
Now if only he'd read a high school primer on economics.
Posted by: Diggs at September 23, 2010 12:28 AM (NrOen)
15
If you assume Dennis is right and that's what Obama meant was the Aztecs, well I could be wrong but I don't think the Aztec empire stretched into what is now the USA. Not even close. Unless he's referring to North America rather than the nation he's leading. If that's the case wtf?
Posted by: rjschwarz at September 23, 2010 12:37 AM (hctIH)
16
Actually, I kinda think of Obama as Dean Wormer.
Where can I buy 10,000 marbles?
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at September 23, 2010 12:46 AM (x4Slx)
17
Who today speaks of the Chiapas annexation, or the Soconusco annexation?
It is ludicrous to set an arbitrary date when everything was deemed "fair," then brand every change after that as unfair.
A little further south, the Incas had not quite finished their own conquest when Columbus landed in 1492. The Incas took until 1525 to complete the oppression of the "true" owners of Peru and Chile, and begin pushing up into Ecuador...
Posted by: Robert Arvanitis at September 23, 2010 12:55 AM (sE5m8)
18
The Mexica (aka Aztecs) were just one of the many peoples in what is now Mexico at that time. In fact the conquistadors took advantage of that and played the oppressed peoples against their Mexica overlords, which was one of the reasons they were able to overthrow them so easily. The native ancestors of most of today's Mexicans generally didn't like the Mexica and were glad when they fell (though that didn't last long since the conquistadors weren't exactly rays of sunshine either).
Insofar as the term "Mexicans" can be applied to people living before the creation of Mexico, it would be to the Mexica that the term applies (though I personally think the term makes no sense to use before the inception of such an entity as a unified Mexico, any more than using "Spaniard" to refer to Carthaginian inhabitants of Iberia). So to characterize any but the Mexica's direct descendants as pre-1776 "Mexicans" would be disingenuous.
Posted by: Wacky Hermit at September 23, 2010 01:08 AM (1OwrP)
19
People are way over-thinking his "Mexicans" comment. It was pure, deliberate, calculated pandering to the Hispanic audience. That's all it was. Whether Obama himself actually knew he was factually inaccurate doesn't matter. Obama will say whatever he feels he has to say to achieve a desired result. The man has no relationship whatsoever to "truth". Words are just tools to achieve an end.
In this case the "end" was to try to get Hispanics to offset the oncoming tidal wave of middle Americans fed up with his lies, his bankrupting of America, his bowing to our enemies and insulting our friends, and pretty much all else of Obama's true agenda.
It was pure, simple, deliberate, calculated pandering to an audience he was confident would lap it up.
And they did.
Posted by: CosmicConservative at September 23, 2010 02:10 AM (RpYth)
20
If la raza wanted north America, they should have fought harder for it. They didn't, and it's the United States now. End of story.
Posted by: Jones at September 23, 2010 03:07 AM (ZH73Z)
21
Sigh. No one could make me laugh like John Belushi.
Posted by: higgins1990 at September 23, 2010 03:12 AM (1YZFT)
22
Elsewhere at Faber 2010: FOOD FIGHT!
Posted by: Apostic at September 23, 2010 04:28 AM (do1jg)
23
Obama is wrong as usual. Everybody knows that leaf blowers were'nt invented until the 1950's or so.
This is proof that Mexicans were not in America before that time.
Posted by: Walter at September 23, 2010 04:36 AM (ZVCC+)
24
The graduates of Ethnic Studies classes in our town like to teach little ESL students that all Mexicans should be proud of their superior Aztec heritage. Even when some of the kids are from other countries. Like Yemen.
This leads to ongoing fights over whether Mexican or Arab culture is superior. Among kids living in America. Multiculturalism is great.
Posted by: CT at September 23, 2010 04:45 AM (UtkVC)
25
I think cosmic conservative 2:10 am nailed it. O neither knows nor cares about the facts. The reason they continue to call him a "scholar" is because they don't care about the facts any more than he does. It's all about the politics.
Posted by: Becky at September 23, 2010 05:10 AM (0nPfN)
26
"Say, Madeline Albright ever find anybody locked in Don Rumsfeld basement?"
No, but while she's down there, could she grab a mop bucket?
Posted by: ben at September 23, 2010 05:16 AM (1wAo/)
27
It's fine to know the history, but not if you're trying to rewind it.
He seems to have mastered the Golden Book version of U.S. history.
Posted by: flataffect at September 23, 2010 05:42 AM (alC6Q)
28
The president's statement isn't exactly incorrect, though even read favorably it is odd. Remember that before the Mexican-American War, parts of Texas were Mexican territory. The Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo ceded (or sold) Mexican claims to territory in California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The subsequent Gadsden Purchase added additional chunks of previously Mexican land to Arizona and New Mexico. Any families who were in those areas before hostilities and whose descendants remain there are, in a manner of speaking, Mexicans who preceeded the United States.
But, that rather tortured and academic exercise aside, President Obama's sentiment is pure mularkey; full of the kind of multi-culti pablum we've come to expect from the egghead set that he typifies.
Posted by: SkippyGA at September 23, 2010 05:53 AM (MbYyI)
29
You do realize that "America" was part of the Mexican-American War, right? So I think it's fairly safe to conclude that America had become an idea at that point, being in existance and all.
You could of course try to torture history by claiming that America didn't became an idea until July 4, 1776, but that mexicans became mexicans long before there even was a Mexico, but it's equally fair to say that the *idea* of America is hundreds or even thousands of years older, it's as old as anyone has wanted freedom and a chance to create their own life. It's as old as the Vikings that crossed the sea to find new land, or the asians that crossed the land bridge into Alaska for the same reason.
Or even as old as the first people to leave the African continent, looking for better opportunities somewhere else. That's the *idea* of America, the idea of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Posted by: Erik at September 23, 2010 06:45 AM (mAUFy)
30
Hey, he's right. I have proof the Mexicans where first in those 51st throught 57th states Obama talks about.
Posted by: Bob at September 23, 2010 06:54 AM (rX2al)
31
The Mexicans before America line is the kind of crap you hear at cocktail parties hosted by left wing twits. They spout such nonsense trying to impress each other on their activist creds.
There is one other place you hear this kind of garbage; second grade essays as the poor kids try to regurgitate the party line as their teachers present it.
Posted by: Longrange at September 23, 2010 08:13 AM (NfFTJ)
32
The country name Mexico is derived from the name of an Aztec tribe, the Mexica, and from the name of Mexico City, which the Aztec called Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Most Mexicans are descended from the indigenous population.
So yes, Mexicans were here before European settlers.
Posted by: Sterling at September 23, 2010 09:04 AM (pjPHQ)
33
Marmalard? Dead. Niedermeyer? Dead. Reid? Dead. Feingold? Dead.
Posted by: Comrade Al at September 23, 2010 09:50 AM (dt1j0)
34
In defense of Obama, there WERE 57 venues in which the Democrats held primaries:
* The 50 states, of course,
* District of Columbia,
* Guam,
* The U.S. Virgin Islands,
* American Samoa,
* Patagonia,
* Rhodesia, and, er,
* Shangri La.
Posted by: ymal brucker at September 23, 2010 10:07 AM (M4yRC)
35
Repeating myself from another forum, whether there were people referred to as Mexicans before Mexico became a independent nation or not or whether Americans were called Americans before the United States (they were) is kind of beside the point. The President says they (British, French, Dutch, Mexicans, Indians) were “sharing” the land. Is he using “sharing” in its commonly understood sense of “fighting numerous wars and countless battles, massacres and skimishes” or were they “sharing” the land some other way? I am perfectly happy to agree that the United States and Mexico “shared” the Southwest and California in 1846 and at the end of the “sharing” Mexico ceded the land to the United States. Somehow I don’t think that is what the President is saying and even from the weird historical perspective he brings to bear on questions his statement makes no sense.
Posted by: George Ditter at September 23, 2010 10:13 AM (pbeHw)
36
I am offended - this is an insult to Blutarsky fans everywhere!
Posted by: Jason at September 23, 2010 11:30 AM (pBOWG)
37
"When he says "Mexican", he means "La Raza" - the distinctive Aztec/Spanish hybrid that many Mexicans hold as their racial identity"
I'm sure you are an authorized interpreter of his meaning, but you're still wrong. He meant nothing at all, except his contempt for our country. He simply read the words on the teleprompter and gave it not one thought.
Posted by: willis at September 23, 2010 11:34 AM (jyN1i)
38
The bloodthirsty Aztecs were feared and hated by all the other indigenous Mesoamericans in the surrounding region whom they brutalized, and without whose assistance Cortez's small band would not have been able to conquer the Aztecs.
Indeed it's believed some of the worst aspects of Aztec culture, the ritual child-killing, blood sacrifices, and ritual cannibalism were introduced into the Anasazi culture of the Southwestern Indians, by Aztecs who fled from the Spaniards.
Also the "Mexicans" who moved up the coast and received land-grants from the Spanish Gubb'mint - were engaged in a movement to free themselves from the distant, unresponsive, and burdensom Spaniards who taxed them heavily. They saw themselves as independent Californios, and not as Mexicans.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 23, 2010 12:51 PM (dRMSX)
39
Meh. What were you expecting? They probably didn't teach much American history at Obama's madrassa.
Posted by: Swen Swenson at September 23, 2010 02:23 PM (rGow8)
40
Let's see those pre-1624 Mexicans' birth certificates!
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at September 24, 2010 12:18 AM (scOa2)
41
Before you try to figure out who was here first, do some reading. 1) The settlements in S.A. are older than those in C.A. and those in N.A. This indicates a movement from South America northward into the current NM/AZ area. The Athabascan language was used by the populations from AK south into NM/AZ while Nahuatl was the language of the central and south American tribes. THe Aztecs were not the original folks in "Mexico", the Toltecs were there before the Aztecs. And there is much archaeological evidence indicating movement across the Pacific straight to S.A. The land bridge story is good for the common folks but you really got to get into the graduate programs to learn what the Profs really think/know.
Also you might try _Columbus_Was_Last_ available at Barnes and Noble. Folks were coming here long before Columbus. And the first person from Colubus' ship to reach this land was an Irishman who walked ashore. In fact many of Columbus' sailors were Irish as he went there before departing to get the maps of St. Brendan who probably sailed to the new world in the 5th century.
Posted by: fwb at September 24, 2010 12:57 PM (Wfq1z)
42
Put that spammer on Double Secret Probation!
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson at September 25, 2010 01:50 AM (kwhfU)
43
Actually, I was just commenting about the name "Mexico" and it origins. I doubt that President Obama ever read or even heard of Bernal Dias. He was probably just running off a politically correct list of peoples. I think that a third or more of the Aztecs (Mexica) died of smallpox before the Spanish closed in and most of the rest died in the fighting as tens of thousands of other Indians assisted the Spanish in leveling their city. The Aztecs were indeed much hated. The vast majority of the Indian ancestry in Mexico is from other groups. And the Aztecs never came anywhere near what is now the USA. I recently saw a DNA study on some Mexican Indian groups and the mitochondrial DNA (from female line) was something like 90% Indian, but the Y-chromasome DNA (male line) was like 60% European and 10% African. I believe in 1848 all residents (except Indians) of the lands acquired from Mexico were declared to be US citizens.
Posted by: Dennis at September 25, 2010 07:49 PM (tVnWA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 21, 2010
Analysis of a Death: The Erik Scott Shooting
First, My thanks to Bob Owens, proprietor of Confederate Yankee for his invitation to guest blog on the site. I look forward to contributing essays in the future and I have often commented in the past. By way of introduction, I'm a USAF veteran, having served in SAC as a security police officer during the Cold War. I'm also a veteran of nearly two decades of civilian police service, including stints as a patrol officer, trainer of officers, firearms instructor, shift supervisor, division commander, juvenile officer, detective and SWAT operator. I'm an NRA certified instructor and am also certified by the American Small Arms Academy, Chuck Taylor's school. These days, I teach secondary English and am a professional singer, working with a well known symphony orchestra and a variety of other musical endeavors. I'm looking forward to having the kinds of informed exchanges I've often enjoyed on the site. Mike McDaniel
Posted by: MikeM at
12:55 AM
| Comments (69)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What a sickening situation. I very much appreciate this article and its attempt to clarify the issues. I'd been considering applying for a CCW here in PA, but I think maybe I'll pass.
Posted by: ern at September 21, 2010 10:07 AM (/tZRH)
2
Excellent analysis of the incident.
I disagree in one tiny area. You say: "Officers must act on the knowledge they have at the time they are dispatched to a call (the role of dispatchers will be examined shortly)..." If this is indeed current training for most police officers, it should be revised. Yes, good dispatchers can save lives by doing a better job of analyzing the initial call, but the officers on the line should be trained to evaluate the scene for themselves when they get there, rather than assume much of anything when they arrive. The initial call will almost always come from an individual who is NOT trained in observation, and who is in fact highly emotional and ramped up on adrenaline.
Years ago in my hometown, a foreign exchange student was shot and killed by a homeowner. The student and his friend were looking for a Halloween party, and initially knocked on the wrong door (they had a couple of numbers wrong on the address). The wife answered the door, saw two teenagers in costume, and panicked for some unknown reason (she herself could not say why, at trial) and screamed for her husband to "get your gun!" as she closed the door. As you would expect, the husband grabbed for his gun, went to the carport door of his house, opened it, saw the kids at the end of the carport, and opened fire. The kids were doing NOTHING threatening at the time, but the husband's perception of their actions was entirely keyed to his wife's initial overreaction at the front door. It was inevitable he would shoot the moment he decided to open the carport door, because there was literally nothing the kids could have done in a few split seconds that would have seemed non-threatening to the man who heard his wife yell "get your gun!" 5 seconds before.
Here, the responding officers should have been trained to understand that the initial caller may have overreacted, that they needed to reevaluate the situation with their own eyes.
I strongly support officer safety. But the "protect and serve" motto refers to their obligation to support the citizens of the community, not themselves.
Posted by: PatHMV at September 21, 2010 10:20 AM (Wo+JP)
3
4 rounds into his back could not have been because the officers reacted to the first officers shot. Those other officers would have had to track Scott to the ground before firing ... they were not reacting they were aiming and shooting to kill a man in the back ...
the 911 tapes and the COSTCO video will bring out the truth and every officer of official who lied (if they did) should be criminally prosecuted ...
Posted by: Jeff at September 21, 2010 10:24 AM (A3tpD)
4
I would add a subsection to question #7:
Were there any police videocameras (cruiser or shoulder mounted) trained on the scene? What do they show? Were the officer's radio's recording any audio? If so, where is it? If neither audio nor video is available, why not? was the equipment available, and officers trained in its' use?
Posted by: SDN at September 21, 2010 10:32 AM (gmrr3)
5
The 4 rounds in the back are what bother me the most here. In most states, that's a form of murder. If the police showed up to your house on an armed robbery call, and the perp had 4 rounds in the back, you'd be a homicide suspect. It wouldn't matter if you hit him a .22 practice pistol and he came in with a sawed off shotgun or a AR-15.
Posted by: Mike T at September 21, 2010 10:37 AM (nwEiU)
6
All possible video records should have been taken and scrupulously protected. And of course, an attempt to discover if any civilian video was shot should have been made, and if so, the devices should have been taken into evidence with appropriate receipts given to the owners. The officers involved in the shooting should have been immediately relieved of the weapons used in the shooting and other duty weapons issued to them. They should have been immediately separated and individually interviewed, on videotape.
Your analysis was great, but this part sticks out like a sore thumb. Costco should have *not* given the police the video without a subpoena. Likewise, anybody recording an incident like this on a cell phone should *never* *never* *never* give it to the police. Offer to make a *copy* after they subpoena it. Post to youtube first. I've read about a lot of cases, and in every single one they have destroyed the video or pictures. Every single time.
You're assuming that the police agency will try to mount an investigation rather than a coverup. I am familiar with no cases where this has happened, but I am familiar with an untold number of coverups. (as an aside, feel free to provide me with counter-examples) This is obviously yet another case of a coverup.
It's silly to think that the LVPD is going to actually investigate a killing by the LVPD, particularly when one of the officers killed someone a couple of years ago (a fact which would complete your analysis).
To continue:
Post shooting, it’s essential that the suspect be restrained--handcuffed-- and then immediately disarmed if still in possession of a weapon in any way.
Actually, no, it's not essential in a case like this. It's utterly despicable. They shot him 7 times, including 4 times in the back. There's no reason to handcuff him. I've noticed this depraved act in other officer shooting stories, such as Oscar Grant and Kathryn Johnston, both of whom were obviously fatally wounded and should have at least had the courtesy of their killers to be afforded a comfortable death. Instead, it seems to be the ultimate way to show your domination of the victim.
It’s also essential that the suspect be given the most immediate medical help that safety will allow. This is essential to establish that the officers were not acting out of anger or malice, but merely doing their lawful duties.
Witnesses to the Erik Scott killing have said that the officers provided no medical help, but handcuffed him and let him lay there. One witness described them loading him onto the stretcher as throwing a sack of potatoes:
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/12801643/family-gets-chilling-account-of-costco-shooting?redirected=true
It's nice to assume the best in people, but bottom line is that you're not dealing with polite people. The good officers that we have are afraid to speak out, so they all end up being part of the herd. It doesn't work out well in a case like this.
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 21, 2010 10:38 AM (6kg1i)
7
You say
"It’s also vital that one--and only one--officer assumes the role of the sole giver of commands... In fact, these procedures are taught in any competent basic academy tactics class, and are included in the rules and procedures of any competent law enforcement agency."
Which suggests that the accounts of multiple officers shouting multiple conflicting commands is a result of them not behaving as they were trained. I think that is a serious misunderstanding of why they were yelling. They weren't yelling commands at Scott, Scott did not get shot because he disobeyed what the officers were yelling, and they were doing exactly as trained. You see, almost all law enforcement officers in this country are trained that if they are going to shoot someone once they make that decision they must begin yelling something urgent and loud like "Freeze!" or "Drop the weapon!" or "Stop resisting!" while they draw and as they shoot. That way, if there are any witnesses and the officer must defend the decision to shoot in a court or inquiry later the witnesses called will remember the officer urgently shouting at the victim to "drop the weapon" (or whatever) and perhaps it will color their recollection of the event in the officer's favor or at least it will corroborate the officer's claim that they thought the cellphone (or ID, or shiny watch, or whatever) was a dangerous weapon. That is why they were all yelling at him; they were all shooting at him and if they are shooting they must also be yelling.
The officers were not yelling "commands" that Scott ignored or got confused by which resulted in them deciding to shoot. They were really yelling to the other witnesses things they wanted them to recall hearing when they later testified about the shooting. The yelling therefore indicates that the police (or one of them) had already made the decision to shoot and they had begun shouting their 'magical talisman' CYA phrase that wards off lawsuits and firings and prison time exactly as they were trained to do.
Now, I say "trained" but I doubt you'll ever find that bit of training on any official lesson plans in the Las Vegas PD. It is not the sort of thing that is done in official settings, but rather one-on-one training that is done privately as wise words handed down from veteran officers to the newbies. The fact that this training is not standardized is apparant from the fact that there was so much variation in what specific CYA phrase each individual officer yelled after they made the decision to shoot. If you do not believe this interpretation of events then ask some law enforcement officer friend or relative privately about it.
Posted by: ctaylor at September 21, 2010 11:04 AM (QlYId)
8
If the employee told Scott that Costco does not allow weapons on their premises, that is a TACIT request to remove it from the store. Part of responsible carry is to immediately remove the weapon from the premises should you be informed it is not welcome by anyone representing the store. They don't have to ask you to leave - and frankly, most store employees aren't going to get into an escalated debate with someone carrying a firearm. It was his responsibility to immediately leave, not argue that he has a carry permit. And not to keep milling about the store with it.
That said, I believe that is completely separate from the shooting, which at this point sounds wholly unjustified. Even had the store personnel simply noticed the gun and called 911 without confronting Scott about the policy, this tragedy would likely have happened the same way. And frankly, since he was exiting the store, what precisely was the reason the police needed to confront him guns drawn? The parking lot is very likely a legal non-prohibitable area for concealed carry. As long as the gun wasn't drawn, there seems to be little reason to draw down on him especially with so many people around and his girlfriend presumably right next to him.
This was a shooting that was preventable - by following common sense carry behavior, and by better self control by police officers.
Posted by: MEC2 at September 21, 2010 11:15 AM (P8jjB)
9
it is my understanding, and I assume I will be corrected if wrong, that one of the officers invovled had already been invovled in a fatal shooting in the past and was cleared of wrongdoing. And that LVPD has had 200+ inquires into officer involved shootings over several decades, with only one officer being found to have acted improperly.
Does anyone believe that LVPD won't rule this as a justified shooting?
Posted by: JamesT at September 21, 2010 11:18 AM (NLodP)
10
Actually TOO MUCH INFORMATION. If the incident is as it is reported, the police and COSTO are responsible for this innocent man's "manslaughter".
What now? A cover-up by the police and COSTCO "seems" to be going on as they refuse to release the Audio 911 recordings or the Security Camera Video.
The cops should be immediately removed from active duty, their firearms taken away. This is going to end up in a civilian court with a hefty settlement by both the Las Vegas Police Department and COSTCO.
It's a travesty and shame that the Las Vegas Police are so poorly trained.
Posted by: jgreene at September 21, 2010 11:19 AM (JbLjp)
11
"I'm also a veteran of nearly two decades of civilian police service, ... The death of West Point graduate Erik Scott [...] At worst, manslaughter."
Of course a cop defends his fellow cops. You don't even need to read the rest of the article (no, I didn't); that quoted bit right at the start tells you everything you need to know about this guy
It was blatant murder and anybody with sense and who isn't compelled to lie out their ass to defend their fellow thugs can see it.
Posted by: Rollory at September 21, 2010 11:47 AM (A8ejN)
12
In my humble opinion,this was not manslaughter, but
outright murder with official sanction. The officers
involved should be charged with murder because of their actions that resulted in this mans death and
possible cover up. I am surprised a throw down piece was not discovered. Every officer in this dept. should be relieved of his duty firearm until
such time as a review of their training has been performed,along with all being relieved of duty
till an outside agency(preferably from outside the
state)completes an investigation. We are now living in a police state where even a legal CWP
puts a person in jeopardy of being shot by the
protect and serve mafia.Think twice before you
visit Las Vegas.
Posted by: warlord at September 21, 2010 11:55 AM (Mh08e)
13
Let me say up front that I am completely ignorant of the training received in ccw classes. However I think the safest procedure, if you're carrying and find yourself at police gunpoint, is to reach for the sky and stay that way. Lie down if they tell you, but NEVER reach for the gun. Let them disarm you.
Posted by: irright at September 21, 2010 11:56 AM (EquV1)
14
My preferred CCW carry is a Glock 26 in front pants pocket. Not the fastest draw, but I am big enough and the DeSantis Nemesis is good enough that it's not immediately evident that I am armed. No criticism of Mr Scott, IWB carry is entirely valid but having carried that way in the past I am constantly worried about printing my firearm or exposing it.
Secondly, if asked to leave because I have a CCW permit and am exercising my rights legally in an establishment without proper signage, I am definitely going to leave. This is primarily because I am not dropping a dime at a store that employs pinheads like the guy at Costco that got hot and bothered about a legal carry. That idiot has just cost his company thousands of my dollars.
Thirdly, if I see a police officer with a gun pointed at me, my plan is to interlace my fingers behind my head and go to my knees as fast as possible. They are looking for submission, I want to show that to them as soon as possible. The police are probably more scared walking up to the store than I am, they're thinking "Am I going to end up like that guy at the Oshman's in Irving? Am I going to end up like the guys in Oakland or Pittsburg?" I would feel much better if the author of this article were the officer sent to investigate, but rather than giving the police the opportunity to forget their training I am going to remind them visually that I am complying.
Fourthly, I am not going to put a hand anywhere near my weapon, or even toward my weapon. I'd much rather end up facedown in the parking lot with a knee in my back and gravel in my face than shot multiple times. A lawyer can figure out the relative liabilities of the police department and Costco at a future date, assuming I make it to the future date.
All of the above is because I have had the opportunity now to consider what I would do based on the tragic circumstances encountered by Mr. Scott. I can't control the police, but I can control myself. There was no one thing that Mr Scott did wrong, and there are a lot of things the LVPD officers did very wrong, like all tragedies it is the summation of decisions that in retrospect were in error, but prospectively were entirely reasonable.
It was entirely reasonable for Mr Scott to assume he was able to exercise his legal rights. It was entirely reasonable to assume that with the departure of the security guard, Costco was satisfied with his response. It was entirely reasonable to assume the store evacuation was unrelated to him. It was mostly reasonable to attempt to show the officers where his firearm was located, that it was holstered and was not a threat to them.
Much sympathy for the Scott family, and I hope that justice is done.
Posted by: Darren at September 21, 2010 12:01 PM (7K2n8)
15
I agree with Rollory that I detected the "Brotherhood of Cops" attitude immediately and read the article with disdain. One shot in the arm pit and four in the back! If this poor smuck had been black this would be on national TV every night until these gunslingers were in jail. Also, mentioned above about the four shots in the back are allowed only if you are a cop is true. Do you remember the fast food clerk who had been robbed by ARMED robbers who shot one of them and then shot him twice more after he was down? He was charged with a felony. BTW the perps were black and the clerk was white so maybe that explains the public sympathy for the dead perp. My motto is when it comes to cops keep your hands in sight above your waist and say absolutely nothing to them. Let them do the talking and answer them in the shortest way possible. If you are carrying let them take the gun out of its holster. Do not reach for your weapon for ANY reason or command. Imagine the video tape, WITH NO SOUND, of you reaching for your gun after having been commanded to remove it. Their mistake is your death! They will not be prosecuted for it. I don't envy a cop's job but they chose it just like Obama did so STFU and do your job correctly or resign!
Posted by: inspectorudy at September 21, 2010 12:12 PM (KOOZL)
16
I'm with irright. The first - and only - reaction of someone carrying a weapon HAS to be to stop, raise his hands and do absolutely nothing that would make police officers fearful.
And no, I'm not blaming the victim, just pointing out that he could have done something to increase the odds of surviving the incident... just as a young woman can improve her odds of getting home safely if she doesn't walk through dark alleys.
Posted by: steve at September 21, 2010 12:18 PM (L9End)
17
There were certainly parties acting improperly while carrying weapons, and it wasn't Erik Scott.
If the "officers" involved in this fiasco had been private citizens, they would all be accessories to murder. As it is, none of them will be charged, and they'll all retire at 50 on a gold-plated pension paid for by me.
You can discuss the particulars of this case all you want, but does it matter? Do you honestly believe the facts, or the law, will make a difference?
I'm sad to say it, but "Serve and Protect" is a myth. It's just a job, with no oversight and extraordinary power. At best, it's a job done competently and predictably - and you won't get any "most of them are great cops" disclaimer from me. At worst, somebody decides to go in shooting, and there's nothing we can do. Our only hope is to pray they don't notice us.
Posted by: Bubba Cephus at September 21, 2010 12:43 PM (+dx2l)
18
I want to say that I am definitely not blaming Scott here. Nor do I wish to blame the cops yet, although it certainly doesn't look good. I hope good video of the incident turns up so more can be known.
Also, above, I meant to capitalize "THEM" in "Let them disarm you."
Posted by: irright at September 21, 2010 12:50 PM (EquV1)
19
In no way does it justify the actions of the police officers, or any hysterics by whomever from Costco called in Mr. Scott's presence in the store, but either Mr. Scott or his companion had to be Costco members in order to shop there. And Costco states in its membership agreement that private firearms are not allowed in their stores. Therefore, he WAS wrong about being able to carry there, regardless of his carry permit, and had acknowledged it by signing the membership agreement. Read what you sign.
Posted by: Tim at September 21, 2010 12:54 PM (Gsgbp)
20
Given the police response in this case, it seems pretty clear they were told something in the vein of "drug crazed lunatic running around shooting at people". I'm a little more critical of the officers' actions than you are, but I suspect most of the blame here lands on Costco for wildly exaggerating. It'll be interesting to hear the 911 tape. If the civil jury hands ownership of the company over to Scott's family, I may even shop there again.
Posted by: J at September 21, 2010 01:09 PM (gPmsV)
21
Pat, You got the story wrong. The guy had been harrassed by people knocking on his door and running. On that night when he opened the door the Japanese student advanced on him and was shot. He was keyed up by the wife's panic and reacted to a preceived danger rather than the actual danger.
Posted by: Lorenzo Poe at September 21, 2010 01:12 PM (KwOlQ)
22
Tim,
It also adds nothing to the conversation to point out how he could have prevented this. The man did not behave unreasonably or illegally. Focusing on what he could have done to prevent something he could not foresee only serves to implicitly turn some of the blame away from Costco and the police.
I know you said that's not your intention here, but that is what comments like yours (and a few other people's comments) do.
The fact is that the police shot and killed him while they had him under control and he was posing no threat to them. That is the only real story here.
Posted by: Mike T at September 21, 2010 01:19 PM (nwEiU)
23
"Of course a cop defends his fellow cops. You don't even need to read the rest of the article (no, I didn't); that quoted bit right at the start tells you everything you need to know about this guy..."
Well Rollory, if you HAD read the essay before posting you could have avoided proclaiming your ingnorance to the blogosphere. Anyone who reads this and comes away thinking it's a defense of the LVPD's conduct here could only be a product of our public school system.
Posted by: James Felix at September 21, 2010 01:36 PM (gs3Z8)
24
Where is the FBI. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. All video, and all backups being "unrecoverable" is an extraordinary claim, absent an explanation of why, to me is beyond the realm of possibility. Absent an independant (federal clearing) of wrong doing how can I conclude this isnt corruption. How can I conclude that manslaughter hasnt been covered up by willful destruction of evidence. A crime has been committed here.
The victim, and the family are guaranteed due process federally, and the denying them of that is a federal issue. THE FBI NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 21, 2010 01:56 PM (+bBSQ)
25
I don't get how Costco's videos aren't available. For loss prevention purposes they put an entire array of cameras around the doors so that they can film every customer leaving and having their receipt checked and the camera coverage extends the the outside as well. The recording camera at my Costco was some of the latest and greatest in digital recording gear, high quality video off of every camera in the store was kept and it was easy to keep the video on the same time.
Costco and the cops saying there's no video is just highly unbelievable.
Also, at my Costco they shipped in California Type A assholes to be managers and supervisors. Those guys were some scream first, scream second and then show you the days plan kinds of guys. If one of them was on the phone with 911 he could have been screaming that it was a war zone and freaked the dispatcher and cops out to start this whole show.
Posted by: Allen at September 21, 2010 02:10 PM (NqhL+)
26
Sickening, trigger happy cops kill again, and are now busy trying to cover it up as best they can.
Posted by: anon at September 21, 2010 02:20 PM (s0vZd)
27
"While it is unfortunate that he inadvertently exposed it, the mere sight of a holstered firearm should not be unduly alarming, particularly in a state widely known to have concealed carry."
You may also want to note that Nevada is rated as a "gold star" open carry state by opencarry.org. Open carry is 100% legal there, and in some places not unusual at all.
Posted by: Spade at September 21, 2010 02:25 PM (7WUru)
28
At present, all the apparent facts seem to point to this being a homicide committed by the LVPD on an innocent civilian.
Costco may well be to blame for inflating the situation with the 911 call. Either way, this civilian, Erik was shot 4 times in the back for the offense of carrying his legal firearm into this store.
Is anyone else going to join me in a call for a bouycott of Costco until they release all of the evidence into the public domain.
If this turns out to be murder by Cop and Costco are implicated, then i hope the LVPD get's cleaned out - officers jailed, new management team put in, and Costco goes broke from a nationwide bouycott.
Posted by: dee at September 21, 2010 02:25 PM (ySiVs)
29
Las Vegas is going bankrupt on the civil settlement - taking 3-1 odds...
Posted by: Bill Johnson at September 21, 2010 02:48 PM (9X1+H)
30
Simple solution here
everyone write or call or email Vegas and tell then you are boycotting till the cops are fired and jailed
Posted by: Them at September 21, 2010 02:49 PM (MDdQR)
31
"the police have made statements indicating that they have seized internal and external video, but that it won’t be usable"
I'm not buying this for a second. There have been too many questionably incidents where LEO's have simply "lost" the video.
"At least one ambulance had apparently been called at the same time as the police. How quickly was Scott afforded medical help?"
SOP for many departments (written or otherwise), particularly urban ones, is that suspects do not receive any sort of aid from the officers. Since paramedics are sometimes restricted from the scene or choose not to enter for safety concerns, this means quite a few people get to bleed out while handcuffed. Nobody complains until the "wrong" person gets shot.
In the past, I've generally been someone who'd be either defending officers' actions, or at least explaining them to those who do not understand. In this instance, it appears that the officers were pretty much set up for failure by whatever information they received before arriving, and that this was then compounded by poor verbal commands.
Scott's supposed reaction did not help either, but if the officers were in fact ordering him to "drop the gun", "get on the ground", and "put his hands over his head", he likely would have been shot regardless of what he did.
The moral of this story for LEO's is to remember that you frequently do not know what is going on. This is why cops have a much higher chance of shooting the wrong person entirely when they respond to a call than do civilian CCW'ers who become involved.
The moral of this story for those carrying CCW's is not to follow police directions exactly - it does not appear at this point that this was possible - it is to LEAVE immediately if someone makes that you are carrying. Dealing with a panicked citizen is not worth the trouble, or your life.
Posted by: wtfo at September 21, 2010 02:51 PM (YiH5k)
32
What I want to know is under what legal authority does the LVPD have the right to confiscate all video and then refuse to release them or the 911 dispatch call for review?
Where is Internal Affairs on this? Where is the FBI. Are there NO federal or state agencies that have jurisdiction or oversight to FORCE the LVPD to release this information?
What recourse do honest, law abiding citizens have in a situation like this?
Posted by: Joshua at September 21, 2010 03:06 PM (o4CbT)
33
As a minority male with a CCW, I'm pretty much convinced that if I ever need to draw my weapon in defense of my loved ones it will almost certainly be fatal, whether from the bad guys or the cops.
Posted by: Ray at September 21, 2010 03:13 PM (twmIL)
34
Joshua - they have no authority to steal video or recording equipment. That's why you don't give it to them in the first place. If a cop asks you (or demands you) to give them your camera, politely but firmly deny and explain that they can subpoena it if they have need for it, and offer your information for them to contact you later.
In this particular case, Costco is at best complicit in this by giving them all the copies and going along with the obvious lie about none of the video being retrievable. It probably *isn't* retrievable now.
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 21, 2010 03:15 PM (6kg1i)
35
Read the fine print. 200 officer shootings: one disciplined officer. By definition, because they ARE police, they are innocent of anything but following training policy and procedure.
Posted by: Robert at September 21, 2010 03:21 PM (eSGqw)
36
The sort of fear and hysteria evidenced by the Costco folks seems to be a direct out-growth of the anti-gun movement. The mere SIGHT of a holstered firearm was enough to cause Costco to summon many armed officers who were ready to kill on sight.
Too many people reading news stories about how 'the gun went off' all on its own, perhaps...
Orion
Posted by: Orion at September 21, 2010 03:40 PM (UnCdA)
37
May the officers get what is coming to them, which should be a murder one conviction. There is no plausible way you can shoot someone in the back who is facing you and have a situation where it is possible that the additional discharges are justified.
Posted by: JohnMc at September 21, 2010 03:53 PM (kZxAh)
38
"Joshua - they have no authority to steal video or recording equipment. That's why you don't give it to them in the first place. If a cop asks you (or demands you) to give them your camera, politely but firmly deny and explain that they can subpoena it if they have need for it, and offer your information for them to contact you later.
"In this particular case, Costco is at best complicit in this by giving them all the copies and going along with the obvious lie about none of the video being retrievable. It probably *isn't* retrievable now."
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 21, 2010 03:15 PM
Can we get some clairity on this? I'm pretty sure that the police are legally allowed to confiscate those cellphone and video tapes as evidence.
I'm pretty sure they don't need a subpoena.
Can anyone else with some knowledge about this chime in?
Posted by: ed at September 21, 2010 05:14 PM (Zsqn4)
39
Can we get some clairity on this? I'm pretty sure that the police are legally allowed to confiscate those cellphone and video tapes as evidence.
You might want to read this. In general, the answer is "no, they cannot without a court order." The main exception cited there is if the camera is actually used in the commission of the crime.
That makes especially good sense when you consider that with surveillance footage being stored in secure areas of stores, it would present a tremendous loophole to search warrants if the cops could barge in and seize it on their own authority outside of truly exigent circumstances.
Posted by: Mike T at September 21, 2010 05:21 PM (A7GRA)
40
What an unbelieveable report! It is unfathomable.
Please, everyone reading this who wants their CCW, DO IT!
The reason this happened is due the ridiculous, reactionary environment we have in America toward guns. We must do it, or those on the left who planted this evil seed will win.
There must be some recourse through our Courts, and I pray that Mr. Scott, the victim's father, DOES take this right to the Supreme Court if necessary. For the sake of his son, who deserves MUCH MORE than this for his life.
Yes, everyone in Clark Co. should be outraged, and protesting what happened. Their very lives are in danger from an out-of-control police department, that is NO doubt corrupt. Please people of Clark Co. do something about this; for no one will want to return to LV again.
The Country is depending on you to do your duty.
Posted by: Freedom's Daughter at September 21, 2010 05:22 PM (GDQ2L)
41
"...but "Serve and Protect" is a myth". You got that right...it's more like "Harass and Abuse"
Posted by: mack at September 21, 2010 06:26 PM (EMqPg)
42
Wow. Too bad the guy wasn't black, because there would be riots in the street until the video was produced. Why don't white people care when other white people get killed by the cops? Not that they don't care, but they don't demand action of the cops. I am sure that there is a judge somewhere who would allow the tapes to be released to the family's attorneys on a foia. Oh, and one last question: What was the race of the cops who shot him? Sorry that's racist, but that's just the way it goes nowadays, thanks to Obie. And where is Obie to say that the cops acted stupidly???????
Posted by: TimothyJ at September 21, 2010 06:54 PM (G5+tV)
43
RE: (5) "As Scott fell, presumably face down to the ground, what... acts on the part of Scott motivated multiple officers to keep firing into his back?"
Typical, reactive, pack mentality. Add; easy target.
Wolves exercise better control. Frightened poodles, not so much.
See "negligent retention," as if the pack would somehow react differently because 'Trigger-Happy-Tom' was there next to them, gun drawn, high-ready.
Well, I have a slightly different take; Tom's presence is a virtual license to kill. And is why "Tom" will always be...retained.
Posted by: Jason Roth at September 21, 2010 07:13 PM (2k/R6)
44
"The fact is that the police shot and killed him while they had him under control and he was posing no threat to them."-TimT
Murder. And co-conspirators aiding and abetting.
Either police have open season on the populace -OR- there is the "rule of law".
Mexicans lost control over their cops. But Americans will not tolerate cop cartels.
We must all hope that wiser heads prevail, and charges for murder and for conspiracy are filed. Or police create a situation where "there is no law". Murder and lying to protect murderers is a gang/cartel activity.
Without "the rule of law", Citizens will have to control and disarm cops, "for citizen safety", if they want to live. Or accept domination by the cartel, and these regular 'acceptable' deaths.
Everyone expects cartel behavior from LVPD. I hope for the rule of law; because blatant cartel behavior would destroy belief in the rule of law, and it would make this just another dangerous 3rd world country. Rule of force, rather than rule of law. Nobody wants that... except the police are creating that.
May wiser heads prevail.
I'm too old for anarchy.
Posted by: sofa at September 21, 2010 08:52 PM (2jilc)
45
Orion "The sort of fear and hysteria evidenced by the Costco folks seems to be a direct out-growth of the anti-gun movement. The mere SIGHT of a holstered firearm was enough to cause Costco to summon many armed officers who were ready to kill on sight."
What makes it even worse is that Nevada is an "open
carry" state. Rated Gold Star Open Carry by opencarry.org. You would think people in Nevada would NOT lose their minds upon seeing a firearm.
Posted by: rickb223 at September 21, 2010 09:03 PM (t0j41)
46
My Comment, Part II
At no point was there any claim that the victim had a weapon in is hands; or that any of the shooters could see a weapon; and the fact is, that he had a weapon is incidental and fortuitous to the shooters.
Had US Soldiers done this in the 'Stan they would surely be accused of war crimes, prosecuted by their own command, and likely convicted of cold-blooded murder. Fairly so, given that they killed a man merely because some unknown informant pointed at him.
The fact that our civil authorities will tolerate treatment of own civilians that we do not tolerate of our enemies speaks volumes of what kind of country we really are.
Posted by: Druid at September 21, 2010 09:22 PM (r246N)
47
It sounds very likely that all the videos and 911 tapes will turn out to be "unusable".
Let us pray that some bystander video'd this, and that the police of Las Vegas will not arrest and/or shoot him when he shows up.
Posted by: Ellen at September 21, 2010 09:32 PM (ET2gJ)
48
The new Chief of police in Dallas has fired 10
officers since taking office. Most recently,
one officer was fired, and others are facing
criminal charges, for _beating_ a suspect who
tried to evade arrest.
The killing of Erik Scott, and the coverup,
are a clear warning to the citizens and the
businesses of Las Vegas that their police
department, and their city government, are
in need of radical reform.
Posted by: M. Report at September 21, 2010 10:14 PM (XlqnV)
49
I have never been a peace officer or a lawyer.
Having said that: I thought this was a balanced and useful article. I'm a bit distressed by some of the comments. This may very well be a case of manslaughter, though a different picture may come out in discovery if the family sues for wrongful death. But murder 1? What motive would the cops have to premeditate Scott's murder?
Posted by: Vader at September 21, 2010 11:37 PM (hMf3i)
50
I'd like to clear up some false information presented in this comment thread:
Costco states in its membership agreement that private firearms are not allowed in their stores. Therefore, he WAS wrong about being able to carry there, regardless of his carry permit, and had acknowledged it by signing the membership agreement. Read what you sign.
This is false.
Costco's anti-gun policy is not included in the text of the membership agreement or rules of conduct that prospective members sign when they join.
They specifically attempt to keep their anti-gun policies concealed from customers...this is also why they do not post their stores.
The policy does exist and is spelled out in the "knowledgebase" section of their web site, but you must follow a very specific and arduous route to get to it. It is not unambiguously and prominently stated on their web site and is not mentioned in the membership agreement at all.
Basically, they are an anti-gun organization, but they don't want the 80 million+ gun owners in this country to know about it because then those gun owners may choose Sam's Club instead.
The big problem is that employees are well aware of the policy. When I first found out about Costco's policy SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I inquired about it at my local Costco. The employees there readily verified that Costco has a "no guns" policy, but when I asked to see this in writing, they could not produce it. I was referred to the corporate office, which e-mailed me a statement similar to the one available in the Knowledgebase article on their web site linked above.
I complained at the time that their policy was effectively a "secret", warned them that this could create a dangerous situation, and advised them that gun owners need to be made aware of it. The issue has obviously never been resolved...with disastrous consequences.
Costco has a no guns policy that they refuse to let customers know about ahead of time but which employees are trained to enforce.
Couldn't possibly have foreseen any unintended consequences there, huh?
I hope the Scotts sue Costco into the stone age. As far as I'm concerned, Costco murdered Erik Scott. The Police were the murder weapon, but the premeditation and overt act that resulted in Mr. Scott's death are completely and totally the responsibility of Costco.
Posted by: Sailorcurt at September 21, 2010 11:55 PM (nJHxK)
51
If Costco does not terminate the employees involved in this murder (especially the manager for handing over ALL copies of the video) I will be very happy to drive an extra 15 miles to Sam's.
The employees should be granted all of the benefit of doubt and due process given to Erik Scott.
This all started with the Costco employee freaking out and the manager escalating matters. Having them fired won't be much justice but it might be all that's left after the LVPD is done with it.
Posted by: Director at September 22, 2010 01:41 AM (VFIrS)
52
I would love to be on the civil jury that tries this case. The Scotts would own Costco when it was over.
We've already got a situation where even the police themselves say you should not speak to them in a criminal situation without a lawyer. Now you've got them killing people who are simply doing what the law clearly allows them to do. To make it worse, it appears they're trying to cover up their crime. You know you can't trust the crooks; now it appears you can't trust the police either.
Maybe it's time to leave this country.
Posted by: mac at September 22, 2010 02:59 AM (seAbh)
53
Hopefully the NRA and other organizations will help highlight Costco's anti-gun policies which the company appears to want to hide from its customers. While I have been a Costco shopper in the past this is a big disincentive to shop there anymore.
Posted by: PR at September 22, 2010 08:18 AM (Jv8Yg)
54
@patHMV.... a couple of things about the shooting. It was not Halloween night, it was a week prior. The family had been robbed recently. The exchange student had been told to scare people and was running toward the homeowner flailing his arms. He was shot about 5 feet from him.
Posted by: Roux at September 22, 2010 09:11 AM (c/0dB)
55
I'm pretty sure that the police are legally allowed to confiscate those cellphone and video tapes as evidence.
You're improperly using a legal term: "confiscate". Read the link in the other reply, which specifically talks about the BART shooting of Oscar Grant and the aftermath of that, and you'll see that we're talking about robbery. There's no legal right for a police officer to steal your property. They can take items into evidence that are related to the crime, but unless you're committing a crime with your camera (i.e. child porn) it's not evidence.
Again, I've yet to read any case where the police stole someone's camera and did anything except delete the photos. I'd love to read about an honest cop, so feel free to send any counterexamples.
Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 22, 2010 10:37 AM (6kg1i)
56
"When the time comes, if they are reluctant to make the evidence public, if evidence has been in any way mishandled, or worse, altered or destroyed, the public would be justified in drawing the most negative and damaging conclusions."
This.
If I were on the jury at the criminal trial, the most negative conclusion would be that the three police officers who shot Eric Scott should be found guilty of murder and all receive lethal injections. If on the jury at the civil trial, the most negative and damaging conclusion would be that Costco will now be known as Scottco since the late man's family would wind up owning the company. I would also award the family enough damages to raise Las Vegas property taxes for the next 20 years.
Perhaps enough if enough trials went that way it would serve as an incentive to not destroy evidence.
Posted by: Mark at September 22, 2010 10:56 AM (h7y0v)
57
Alot of if, ands, and buts, but precious little facts.
I think you should wait for the inquest and for the videos to be released.
And I noticed that you ignored the Las Vegas Journals articles on Scott's drug use. His father has admitted that he took three prescription pain medications each day. Guns and prescrition pain medication don't mix.
One of his ex-wives also stated that he was addicted to pain medication and used illegal steroids.
And why was he tearing apart packages of bottled water? That is not normal behavior.
He was asked to leave and he did not. He was asked to get on the ground by the police and he went for his gun.
Unless you have some evidence and not just speculation, you are just making things up.
I am concerned about your casual disregard for the private property rights of Costco. You seem to think that they should be in the security business rather than retail sales. What training does one need to ask someone to leave, he refuses, you see his gun and you call the police. Negociation training? telephone training? Just what is needed to report someone damaging your property and refusing to leave?
Posted by: Federale at September 22, 2010 01:57 PM (PWWdd)
58
Federale,
You might want to actually read some of the other accounts. When he went for his gun, he did so slowly while telling the officer that was yelling at him to "DROP IT!!!" that he was disarming himself in compliance with the officer's orders.
The fact is that he was complying with at least one of them. Problem is there were different sets of orders and he can't comply with all of them at once. You're blaming him for listening to the wrong officer.
Posted by: Mike T at September 22, 2010 02:51 PM (nwEiU)
59
Las Vegas may be little more than an essentially abandoned "slum" in the not too distant future. Incidents such as this can be understood as both causal and symptomatic. It is also likely that the terminal economic decline of Las Vegas will not be considered as worthy of much note.
Posted by: Scott at September 22, 2010 11:45 PM (n2o+9)
60
**************Posted by Michael Chaney at September 22, 2010 10:37 AM **************
Hey Mike,
I read the stuff at the other link. It was interesting, but I'm not gonna pretend that I know enough about this stuff to make any sort of accurate decision based off of that link, your comment, or my personal knowledge.
I mean, I'm sure you know your stuff. But *I* don't.
Posted by: ed at September 23, 2010 02:14 AM (Zsqn4)
61
Federale
"I think you should wait for the inquest and for the videos to be released."
That may be a long wait. I have read that the video cannot be recovered from the disks that the police confiscated from Costco. Do you have other information?
Eric Scott's ex-wife said bad things about him? Over the years I have known a number of people who have gotten divorced. In many of those cases, people said bad things about their ex-spouse. Many of those bad things turned out not to be true. You might want a more reliable source before you accept that information. Were any of the cops or Costco employees divorced? What did their ex-spouses have to say about them?
As for Costco's private property rights to exclude guns from its stores. Costco does have a "no guns" policy and its employees are told about this policy. However, Costco does not post signs to inform shoppers of this policy or make the information readily available except by digging for it. That may be an oversight on their part or it may be a deliberate decision to not lose business from gun owners. I know that they will not be getting any more business from me. Sam's Club is actually a little closer to my house.
Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2010 11:12 AM (h7y0v)
62
You say "police shootings of the innocent are uncommon". I have to laugh in dusgust. Even if innocent, police will make their victims appear to be guilty, and even when they fail in doing that, the courts will always rule a police killing of an innocent person is justified. I have never in my life seen a police officer prosecuted for intentionally killing an innocent person in the course of their duties.
Posted by: Mike Lorrey at September 23, 2010 04:10 PM (r0edH)
63
It is ironic that the main piece of evidence that could prove what actually happened is a damaged hard drive from the security cameras. The police seized the hard drive and it is damaged. After holding it for over two months they announce that it is damaged. This will cast a cloud of doubts over the entire proceedings. Second, the wound to the buttocks. From the coroner's description the round entered his buttocks, went up through his bowels, and lodged in his chest. Figure out the angles. Basically someone had to more or less fire up through his rear end. How did that occur? Why? Why shoot him four times in the back as he lay on the ground? Destroyed evidence and questionable wounds.
Posted by: ConcernedCitizen at September 23, 2010 10:16 PM (f6EZ7)
64
Watching the court proceedings it occurred to me that Costco and the police had created an extremely dangerous situation for the customers in Costco. Once the policemen drew their weapons, pointed them at Mr. Scott, and began yelling commands they had made a mountain out of a molehill. They had created a situation with some very bad possible outcomes. Erik then had to jump through the hoops correctly or end up dead. Do we live in a free Republic? If a policeman can draw a gun on us for exercising a God-given right, bark commands, then shoot us with impunity, perhaps this is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. I feel bad that we have some policemen who are so scared they can no longer interact with the public in a rationale manner. Fortunately many areas do not have this problem and the law enforcement officers are solid citizens who act logically. Las Vegas appears, given it record of shooting unarmed citizens and citizens dropping guns, to have a big training problem.
Posted by: ConcernedCitizen at September 25, 2010 01:13 PM (f6EZ7)
65
I have been watching the murder of Eric Scott by Las Vegas Metro. What a scary situation. I truly belive that Officer Mosher was too aggressive in his actions. He had his weapon drawn before Eric Scott exited the building. Although Eric Scott was unstable he never had a chance to comlpy with the commands that were being yelled at him. From the testimony, he tried to show the weapon to Mosher but Mosher took this as having the weapon, which was still in its holster, being pointed at him. He took this as a danger to his life and in a few seconds murdered Eric Scott. 2 other officers joined in the execution, shooting Eric Scott 4 times in the back as he was falling to the ground. What is amazing is that no other person was shot or injured. Alot of people were within 5 feet of the shooting.
I can't believe Metro didn't handle this in a more professional manner. It was like "Ready Fire Aim". I am shocked that a professional police force would show so little control over a dangerous situation and just open fire in such close quarters. The Costco store where this shooting took place is in an upscale area of Las Vegas and many professionals were shopping there that day. One of the best witnesses was a doctor who was within 5 feet of the shooting and stated after Eric Scott was shot, no one attempted to provide aid to Eric or do CPR. They just handcuffed him and let him lay there. He was afraid to offer aid as he wittnessed what happened.
I will really be upset if the jury finds this shooting as justified. However with the current coroner inquest system, the DA's can offer any evidence and witnesses can state any opinion they want. I consider this as a sad day in Las Vegas, my home for the last 15 years.
Posted by: Scared Citizen at September 25, 2010 11:13 PM (3nVDy)
66
The 911 Reporter of Costco and 3 officers should be put behind bars for the rest of their lives. How is it that the officer ,fat one, having killed before and he stated he had drawn his gun over 100 times in the past 5 years still be on the police force? He demonstrated he knew he was in trouble by having to wear body armor to the inquest.
Please Scott Family stay strong to see justice.
Posted by: Helen MCDuff at September 27, 2010 06:13 AM (OZLkB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 20, 2010
The Ballad of Goatse Paul
Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate who seems to have deserved his honor just as much as President Obama did his. Writing from inside the walls of his Westchester estate (your mansion is in Westchester, isn't it Paul?), Krugman attacks "the angry rich," the unsufferable and arrogant Americans that don't feel the government has a right to plunder even more of their hard-earned income.
Americans that want to keep their income instead of turning it over to an unworthy government are angry... and Krugman goes
out of his way to demonize them.
These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.
Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.
True to form, Krugman has his head shoved so firmly up the southern end of his alimentary canal that his collarbones are sagging under the pressure.
You don't see chauffeured Bentley's at Tea Party rallies, and razor sharp creases on tailored trousers aren't the uniform of the day. There are buses and Walmart tee shirts, homemade signs, and genuine goodwill towards men.
As a matter of fact, a disproportionate number of multi-millionaires and billionaires (such as the Mexican tycoon that rescued Mr. Krugman's employer) are dedicated Democrats, and their message, more than than that of the right, relies on the deep pockets of Carlos Slim, George Soros, the Tides Foundations, and a Byzantine network of smaller organizations that operate as a liberty-stealing hydra.
The angry today fall into two camps; those that are furious that our government has far exceeded the mandate our Founding Fathers established, and the statists that have come so close to establishing complete control, but fear it slipping through their sticky grasp.
Krugman, Obama, and their fellow leftist radicals fall into the later group of parasites. They would break this nation if they can, sappings its spirit to make it docile, controllable, and unexceptional... a spineless citizenry mimicking a
lesser Britain.
The majority of Americans want to live as American were meant to live, unfettered and unbowed and unbeholden to those that imagine themselves a ruling class. They will not be cowed by the threats of a leaching state... or the rants on one if its lesser pundits.
They—we—are the angry ones that Krugman
really fears, lurking in the shadows outside of his estate, waiting for justice and revenge in November.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:07 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I continue to be amazed at what an easy target Krugman makes of himself. I can't imagine why the NYT keeps him around except perhaps to say that they have an Nobel Prize winning economist on staff, though you'd think such an award might have lost some of its prestige of late. (well... that and the entire NYT Editorial staff is probably just as clueless as Krugman himself)
Posted by: Sean at September 21, 2010 10:44 AM (GmrTl)
2
Paul Krugman, advisor to the infamous Enron corporation. Krugman, doing for the USA what he did for Enron.
Posted by: Looking Glass at September 21, 2010 11:29 AM (8VsjU)
3
I'm sorry, is there any indication that anyone other than you is even _reading_ Paul Krugman? I certainly don't bother - there's only so much time in the day, fercrissakes...
Posted by: Bill Johnson at September 21, 2010 02:51 PM (9X1+H)
4
In the future, everyone will be Goatse for 15 minutes.
Posted by: joh at September 24, 2010 06:18 PM (1FKTk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Left Wing Activist: Chris Coons is a Monster
I keep reading that Delaware Senate candidate Chris Coons is a "bearded Marxist." Apparently that makes him worse than shaving Marxists, but that isn't really my area of expertise. He's a Democrat that would back Obamanomics and the further degradation of our economy. Do you really need another reason to vote against him, even if you don't care for his opponent?
But his politics aren't the only reason to vote against him;
he also seems to be a vicious little monster that unleashes the power of the state against his critics.
Please note that the activist in the article is a self-professed left-wing green, and that the blogger who broke this, Patrick Frey, isn't a Christine O'Donnell fan...nor am I.
But the simple fact of the matter is that Delaware has to send someone to the Senate, and we're down to voting for the lesser of two evils. I'll pick a slightly nutty but mostly harmless candidate
any day over a power-abusing petty tyrant like Coons.
Seems like an easy choice. I hope Delaware voters agree.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:40 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think it's time the state of Delaware got involved in this, and possible the Federal Department of Justice. It is, at the least, a case of corruption, and at the worst a matter for criminal prosecution.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at September 20, 2010 07:32 PM (Y+78Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Where We Go From Here
I promised you several days ago that the break I took from blogging gave me some time to think about what I wanted to do as a writer and blogger, and that I'd have some changes and announcements to make.
So let's get to it.
Confederate Yankee has been my blogging home for almost six years now. It began as flippantly picked Blogspot blog by the same name, which was chosen to match the subject matter of a one-off blog post that soon became a blogging obsession.
The entire time I've had this blog, it has been focused on U.S. national politics, with forays into media criticism and other subjects. It will remain focused on those topics, and I may begin looking at other contributors to start writing on these subjects soon.
At the same time, while
CY has done a lot for me, it has taken a lot from me as well. I don't sleep enough. I obsess over finding the next story. I rant and rave and get angry, and found myself coming dangerously close to
going this nuts.
Did I mention that I don't want to be this nuts?
And so I'm doing three things.
- I'm backing off how much time I spend blogging
- I'm changing how I approach blogging
- I'm returning to blogging for fun
Expect my posting frequency to slow down a bit here. You'll see fewer long-form stories, and more links, and you shouldn't be surprised if I'm a bit more mellow in my approach. That said, I'm not stopping. Just re-focusing.
In addition to
Confederate Yankee you will now be able to find me at
bob-owens.com and two subdomain blogs that I've got in beta,
The Gun Counter and
Restoration Song.
bob-owens.com: Unlike
CY, this is purely and completely a vanity blog, cataloging things I find that are interesting or a amusing.
The Gun Counter is exactly what it sounds like, a blog focusing on firearms and firearms-related stories.
Restoration Song is my attempt to find a high road and still talk about politics... if that can be done.
Folks, I'm not looking to shake things up all that much. I hope the changes actually give you more and more interesting content to check out, while still allowing me more time to focus on the things that really matter. I enjoy blogging, and I'll continue to do it, but there are other, far more important things to be doing with your life and mine, and I intent to start doing them.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:04 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good for you. I had noticed a wee bit of intensity prior to your hiatus; relax, breathe deeply, and enjoy. I'll still lurk here, and elsewhere. I enjoy what I read here.
Posted by: gb at September 20, 2010 09:17 AM (kuTeu)
2
Okay, bookmarks added. Always appreciate your level-headed thoughts.
Posted by: HH at September 20, 2010 11:34 AM (aEAVT)
3
I sympathize and understand completely. Been there.
I try to ignore politics and focus and something that matters. My grandparents thought it was just entertainment and it was when they were young. People were free then.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at September 20, 2010 05:53 PM (brIiu)
4
just what i need: more places i have to check every day.....
why does it have to be about you all the time, instead of us?
/white smoke
Posted by: redc1c4 at September 21, 2010 01:44 AM (d1FhN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 17, 2010
Gunned Down in Vegas: What Really Happened to Erik Scott?
I've written about war, rape, massacres, mass murders and terrorism, so I don't easily get disturbed by the content of the stories I cover.
Erik Scott's senseless death is different.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:11 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thanks for keeping this story alive. I have been following it and hope the truth comes out in the courts.
Posted by: gary at September 17, 2010 01:04 PM (GqnnX)
2
Bob, one thing that is worth remembering is that people not used to being around firearms tend to freak out when they see them in the hands of civilians. It seems likely that the Costco clerk and manager were the ones "behaving erratically, [and]possibly on narcotics..." In other words, the police probably took at face value a description by a clueless anti-gun 'drama-queen.'
I'm not offering this as an excuse, and in fact I think law enforcement folks ought to be much more aware of this fear of firearms. Had the police done their job properly, they would have had tactical information before any interaction. They should have been able to ascertain whether Erik Scott was "brandishing" a handgun, or merely carrying one; they should have been able to ascertain whether or not Scott had claimed a legal CCW. (In fact, perhaps the officers should have asked either the clerk or manager if they even know what a CCW is!)
What you reveal of the tragic tail-end of the story is troubling enough, but what the cops failed to do up-front ought not escape just as close scrutiny.
Posted by: bains at September 17, 2010 05:11 PM (rif6k)
3
whatever the outcome of the investigation into this tragic death one thing is certain, when Three different LEO's are screaming 3 different instructions at you,the thing to do is stay perfectly still and do not move either hand toward your concealed weapon. allow the officers to approach you to disarm you while you hold your hands away from your weapon.
LEO's treat all persons as PERPS until proven otherwise.
Remain stock still and Frozen until the officers have you under their control. Do. Not. Move.
Posted by: firefirefire at September 18, 2010 07:28 AM (7NgJ5)
4
Bob thanks for the story!
The police in America remind me of other uniformed thugs I have witnessed. I never knew of a member of the SS being found guilty of murder!
PS: I am glad you are back even if it is limited at this time
Posted by: 1Fearless1 at September 18, 2010 04:00 PM (kKrr+)
5
Having read 75% of the PJ comments and skimming the rest; having 15 years service (and counting) with the Army (including three in a line company and five years, overlapping, OCONUS); having multiple encounters with potential belligerents with arms; one thing had disturbed me and still does...
Having been trained in the military to kill/target armed belligerents it has always concerned me that US Police, being by definition civilian authorities, refer to their, uhh, subjects, as civilians.
Posted by: Druid at September 19, 2010 12:23 AM (r246N)
6
Bob, one thing that is worth remembering is that people not used to being around firearms tend to freak out when they see them in the hands of civilians. It seems likely that the Costco clerk and manager were the ones "behaving erratically, [and]possibly on narcotics..." In other words, the police probably took at face value a description by a clueless anti-gun 'drama-queen.'
Clearly the cops aren't fimiliar with firearms.
Posted by: NAC at September 19, 2010 12:36 PM (wRhUB)
7
My Comment, Part II
Had US Soldiers done this in the 'Stan they would surely be accused of war crimes (by the libs), prosecuted by their own command, and likely convicted of cold-blooded murder.
The fact that our civil authorities will tolerate treatment of own civilians that we do not tolerate of our enemies speaks volumes of what kind of country we really are.
Posted by: Druid at September 19, 2010 05:54 PM (r246N)
8
So carrying a concealing weapon with a permit meaning the cops can shoot you down at anytime and it's justified. I'm not sure that's the way it was intended to work.
Posted by: twm at September 20, 2010 03:02 AM (ZlXVq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 15, 2010
...And We're Back
Okay, not back back, but getting there. The doctor was very impressed by my wife's progress in healing from her foot surgery, and she is transitioning from being nearly bed-ridden to merely recliner-ridden. I'm almost back to as "normal" as I get.
As we are able to return to more normal lives I'll be able to get back to a more regular publishing schedule, both here and in the various other haunts where I appear.
The 4 1/2 week break gave me time to think about what I want to do as a writer/blogger, and I'll have some changes to announce soon, including the official announcement of my new blogs (yes, plural) and the direction I hope to take with this one.
Tune in, folks... it should be fun.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:53 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is one of my favorite blogs. In the words of Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine Benes, "Get well, get well soon!"
Posted by: Don, the Rebel without a Blog at September 15, 2010 12:54 PM (CIZkO)
2
Really glad to hear things looking up with you and your wife. God bless you and your family.
Posted by: gDavid at September 15, 2010 03:09 PM (Q0tNK)
3
This is such good news, so happy the Mrs. is feeling better.
Posted by: Jackie at September 15, 2010 03:11 PM (1E2Qz)
4
Glad to see this... I've missed you. Been reading you for the past 4 or 5 years...
Posted by: The Albatross at September 15, 2010 04:49 PM (7m1OU)
5
You and the Mrs. remain in my prayers. Looking forward to your new blogs!
Posted by: MissTammy at September 15, 2010 05:07 PM (m8uUu)
6
Can there ever really be too many how-to-use-chocolate-in-baking blogs?
Posted by: Adriane at September 16, 2010 12:30 AM (+NfQM)
7
Best wishes for the future and hope your wife continues her progress.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at September 16, 2010 12:29 PM (brIiu)
8
Heal up, get back ! Your missing all the fun.
Posted by: Neo at September 16, 2010 01:20 PM (tE8FB)
9
I'm glad things are going well. Best to Mrs. Owens. Prayers for you both.
Posted by: Bill Smith at September 17, 2010 05:02 AM (hCB0P)
10
get well fast
WE can hang on for the time being
Posted by: Typical White Person at September 17, 2010 04:17 PM (p/VzK)
11
Yeah sure missed ya. Could only hang out at Wizbang and they probably got a little tired of my ....... You know what? I don't think I'm wierd so I got nuthin.....
Posted by: ron at September 18, 2010 12:05 AM (9xmIK)
12
glad for the good news.....
regards from the People's Republic
red
Posted by: redc1c4 at September 21, 2010 01:40 AM (d1FhN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 21, 2010
On Hiatus
Hi folks,
I'm on the tail-end of a recovery from knee surgery, and now we've discovered that my wife has a vertically torn tendon in her ankle that may reach up her calf. She goes in for surgery early Tuesday morning. The doctor tells us she must be off of it for six weeks, minimum.
I'm going to put the blog on hiatus for at least the next month, and perhaps as long as the next two months while I tend to my family.
I hope to find you all well when I return.
Respectfully,
Bob
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:33 PM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wishing you both good health in the future.
Posted by: arb at August 21, 2010 05:03 PM (XrkWq)
2
Havin sciatic/hip joint issues myself. Stay strong!
Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at August 21, 2010 05:15 PM (nZhtG)
Posted by: dad29 at August 21, 2010 05:46 PM (3PS1w)
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 21, 2010 06:48 PM (WOj7E)
5
Bummer - I hope all goes well with her surgery and rehab. Will miss the daily thoughts - but family is so much more important. God speed and wish you both the best.
Posted by: mixitup at August 21, 2010 06:50 PM (Z21cb)
6
We'll all be here when you return. Hope you reconstruct as well as I did. Praying for you and yours.
Posted by: tjbbpgobIII at August 21, 2010 08:27 PM (8kQ8M)
7
Best wishes to you and your wife, and wish you both a speedy recovery. 2nd TJ as well. We'll be here when you get back.
Posted by: Jim at August 21, 2010 08:35 PM (DVEKz)
8
We'll be here, Bob. Meanwhile, I'll pray for full recoveries for both of you.
Bill Smith
Posted by: Bill Smith at August 21, 2010 09:01 PM (+1NSs)
9
Best of luck, Bob. We'll be here.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 21, 2010 09:19 PM (QQ9sc)
10
Best wishes to you and your wife. Get well soon!
s4r
Posted by: s4r at August 21, 2010 10:41 PM (u0FmQ)
11
had ankle tendon surgery myownself, courtesy of Uncle Sam...
my best to all y'all.... get well soon!
Posted by: redc1c4 at August 21, 2010 11:18 PM (d1FhN)
12
Put the feet up and take it easy for a spell...
Posted by: Adriane at August 22, 2010 03:07 AM (+NfQM)
13
Wishing you and the family the best, Bob!
Posted by: William Teach at August 22, 2010 10:41 AM (7yTel)
14
May the road rise to meet you,
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
The rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of his hand.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at August 22, 2010 10:57 AM (yIcVM)
15
Take it easy,and I DO owe ya one.

Posted by: Chris Muir at August 22, 2010 12:44 PM (kk3HX)
16
I guess that just leaves the prone position for trying our your new shootin' iron. Here's wishing you both full and speedy recovery.
Posted by: Tim at August 22, 2010 02:08 PM (xq7pr)
17
Knit quickly! With both of you hobbling around, I sure hope you have a good layout, compact, all on one level, not a lot of steps in and out of the house, etc.
When I broke my leg I found those motorized carts at supermarkets/Wal-mart were the antidote to cabin fever. I felt useful by being able to do at least one normal chore.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at August 22, 2010 02:47 PM (w7kAk)
18
similar probs here .All the best and god speed. i'll be back for you
Posted by: mytralman at August 22, 2010 09:05 PM (pCZAt)
19
Miss Ya.
I'm sure it'll all work out and ...
Good luck with your new domestic life!
Posted by: Arthur at August 22, 2010 10:36 PM (5Plp1)
20
All the best and a speedy recovery for the Mrs.
Posted by: firefirefire at August 23, 2010 05:46 AM (7NgJ5)
Posted by: Brando at August 23, 2010 10:25 AM (IPGju)
22
Thoughts and Prayers from here for you and your Wife.
You have your priorities straight. Family comes first.
May The Lord bless, keep, and heal the both of you in short order, should it be His Will.
Posted by: jefferson101 at August 23, 2010 08:56 PM (LL9ZV)
23
Be well and God Bless.
Posted by: Gus Bailey at August 24, 2010 12:40 PM (B5Wgp)
24
The knees are the first to go.
First, the left knee.
Then, the right knee.
Then, the "weenie."
Get well soon.
Posted by: George at August 24, 2010 03:34 PM (WA19M)
25
Take care of yourself and your wife. We'll come back when you're all healed.
Posted by: Dave Alexander at August 24, 2010 09:50 PM (netQx)
26
May both of you be back on your feet--literally--soon. We'll be here when you are ready to blog again.
Posted by: Random Thoughts at August 26, 2010 12:52 PM (WwIUf)
27
Smart to get it done before NObamaCARE takes over.
Posted by: Lasertex at August 27, 2010 07:48 AM (WvqFW)
28
What did everyone think of Mr. Beck's event yesterday. I like him, but am concerned about his Mormonism.
Posted by: MIkeMiller at August 28, 2010 02:21 PM (Sc1CJ)
29
Hope all get healthy in time to vote!!
Posted by: Lord Whorfin at September 01, 2010 10:43 AM (Xsrf9)
30
Miss you mucho and hope you both are feeling better and on the road to recovery.
Posted by: Jackie Worthington at September 05, 2010 07:26 PM (1E2Qz)
31
You and your wife are in my prayers.
Posted by: Noah Bawdy at September 06, 2010 08:08 PM (1WKuC)
32
I hope all is well,and that you and your wife get better soon, as well as back on your feet.
Posted by: Michael at September 07, 2010 01:01 PM (PU7e+)
33
Best of wishes and speedy recovery. Look forward to your return.
Posted by: ron at September 08, 2010 01:25 PM (sYhaR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 20, 2010
Yes, Obama Was a Muslim
I don't feel this is a big deal by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot of folks in the blogosphere and newsrooms seemed to freak out yesterday because of a poll that indicates a substantial and rising number of Americans think Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Apologists everywhere were quick to lash out and claim he is a Christian, and some claim he was never a Muslim.
That isn't true.
As a boy in Indonesia, Barack Obama crisscrossed the religious divide. At the local primary school, he prayed in thanks to a Catholic saint. In the neighborhood mosque, he bowed to Allah.
Having a personal background in both Christianity and Islam might seem useful for an aspiring U.S. president in an age when Islamic nations and radical groups are key national security and foreign policy issues. But a connection with Islam is untrod territory for presidential politics...
[snip]
...His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both of the schools he attended.
That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.
The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends.
The campaign's national press secretary, Bill Burton, said Wednesday that the friends were recalling events "that are 40 years old and subject to four decades of other information." Obama's younger sister, Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only "for big communal events," not every Friday.
A little later in the same L.A.
Times article:
Neighborhood Muslims worshiped in a nearby house, which has since been replaced by a larger mosque. Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together, Adi said.
"His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque," Adi said. "I remember him wearing a sarong."
Barack Obama was born the son of a non-practicing Muslim father, and had a barely-practicing Muslim stepfather. Was a Barack Obama a devout Muslim? There is no evidence of that at all.
But Barack Obama was a Muslim as a child, and prayed (at least occasionally) at the local mosque in Indonesia, as confirmed by family and friends.
I don't think he is a Muslim now, any more than he is a Christian (the black liberation theology he exposed himself to at Trinity under Rev. Jeremiah Wright is hybrid of
Marxist political beliefs and black nationalism cloaked in Christian trappings). If he were honest, Barack Obama would identify himself as non-religious.
But he lies when he claims he was never a Muslim.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:22 AM
| Comments (48)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
If I had to guess (and it isn't much of a stretch, I think) he's a small 'a' atheist, these days.
Posted by: ECM at August 20, 2010 11:29 AM (nYKDd)
Posted by: redc1c4 at August 20, 2010 12:09 PM (d1FhN)
3
Barry O the Very Slow can't possibly be a Muslim, and I can prove it.
Being Muslim requires "submission" to a higher power, Call it Allah, God, Yahweh, what have you.
That would require BO to acknowledge that there is a higher power than himself.
Therefore, he can't possibly be Muslim.
QED.
Posted by: alanstorm at August 20, 2010 12:24 PM (1KVW3)
4
I am an atheist, and for those of you who think otherwise, the First Amendment protects my right to be an atheist just like it protects your right to believe what you want to believe. Check it out.
That said, do you all realize how stupid you all look to us atheists trying to besmirch Obama's reputation by constantly hinting he is a Muslim? You are all like little children running around a schoolyard pointing fingers and calling names because he believes in a God, but not your God, or maybe not completely, and somehow you want us to believe that all those nuances of belief can make a person a bad person.
Give it a rest. You all look pretty idiotic.
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 12:37 PM (n79n+)
5
After years of hearing Progressives joke about people having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” we are now told that we should believe that Obama has an unseen “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” Some joke.
Frankly, this man wears religion like a suit, different religions for different occasions, a "religious camelion." Quite cynical if you ask me.
He’s an agnostic.
Posted by: Neo at August 20, 2010 12:37 PM (tE8FB)
6
"...cloaked in Christian trappings"
Thanks, CY, that's something that doesn't get pointed out often enough.
Posted by: pst314 at August 20, 2010 12:48 PM (OA547)
7
It makes no difference what religion obama follows, what matters is that he is a liar
and insults the American people by his opinion that we are all stupid enough to believe his lies!
Paul in Texas
Posted by: Paul Kanesky at August 20, 2010 12:50 PM (2i7Kh)
8
Obama's grandparents were apparently Unitarians. Although its roots were in an offshoot of Congregationalism, for sometime now the Unitarian Universalist Association has acknowledged itself as post Christian. The experiences described of visiting church and mosque in Indonesia on various festival days would be consistent with a Unitarian upbringing. Unitarians cheerfully participate in the practices of a great many religions in the name of culutral exchange while believing no aspect of any dogma or creed. Indeed, Unitarians tend to look down at those who do follow a creed as intellectual inferiors.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at August 20, 2010 12:57 PM (w7kAk)
9
He is a proffessional politician. That is the same as saying big fat liar. There should never have been any such thing as a proffessional politcian. It flies in the face of the founders. We were intended to work and then to give service in order to 'give back' to the country. Then, attorneys saw the land of milk and honey and swarmed it. See the desert it has become.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at August 20, 2010 01:16 PM (brIiu)
10
JayMagoo, you are, at best, missing the point. At worst, you're an idiot.
If you can't recognize that Obama being a Muslim during a war against radical elements of that religion might affect his decisions and acts in an entirely different manner than being a Christian in the same circumstance, you should refrain from commenting until you get a brain.
As noted already, he's neither one, but your comment is still monumentally off base. BTW, I'm an atheist too, but one of the ones who can think. As you aptly demonstrate, atheists don't have a monopoly on brainpower. The only one looking idiotic here is you.
Posted by: alanstorm at August 20, 2010 01:36 PM (1KVW3)
11
It seems the level of discourse here is at the schoolyard name-calling level. Alanstorm asserts that we may be "at war" with radical elements" of that religion, and that the far-fetched proposition that Obama is a Muslim might affect his decisions and actions. Illogical, on the face of it, guilt by association we would have said in Logic 101, not even recognizing that the association is a mythology that's promoted by the right wing noise machine for the obvious purpose of electing conservative Republicans, and one that has little or no basis in fact. But then mental midgets like alanstorm apparently cannot grasp that fact, and the other fact that we have a First Amendment that protects all religions, notwithstanding that fact that all religions have their radical elements. He's much better at mindless name calling than thinking.
Why he tells me he's an atheist is beyond me. There are more differences among atheists than within any religious sect, according to my unscientific observations.
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 01:51 PM (n79n+)
12
Big deal. The man is a screaming COMMUNIST and an adhearant of black liberation theoligy. We knew this three years ago and the sheeple still voted for him. It's the sheeple we have to worry about. We know Osama Obama and his Communist/Democrat minions are out to ruin this country in order to cement their power. It is up to us to reverce this trend by being the goats in the herd.
Posted by: EWoldcrow at August 20, 2010 02:54 PM (Kal6m)
13
Magoo
It seems the level of discourse here is at the schoolyard name-calling level.
Magoo
That said, do you all realize how stupid you all look to us atheists trying to besmirch Obama's reputation by constantly hinting he is a Muslim? You are all like little children running around a schoolyard pointing fingers and calling names because he believes in a God, but not your God, or maybe not completely, and somehow you want us to believe that all those nuances of belief can make a person a bad person.
Give it a rest. You all look pretty idiotic.
I guess "stupid .. idiotic .. little children" is not "schoolyard name-calling" in Magoos neck of the woods.
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 03:17 PM (dhzQW)
14
Ah, and "mental midgets". I missed that one.
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 03:18 PM (dhzQW)
15
Stick to the facts, Flenser, if you can. I was merely answering alanstorm in his own vernacular. You right wingers are all buying the slander by the right wing noise machine that Obama might be a Muslim, despite the transparency of an attempt to rally the non-thinking faithful conservatives to vote Republican. That assertion is so laughably transparent it mystifies me that anyone would accept it. And first amendment protections don't seem to occur to anyone here. Even Bible-belt Baptists and staid and proper Anglicans have their radical elements. Does that paint those entire sects with the broad brush of radicalism and exempt them from First Amendment protections?
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 03:28 PM (n79n+)
16
"You right wingers are all buying the slander by the right wing noise machine that Obama might be a Muslim, despite the transparency of an attempt to rally the non-thinking faithful conservatives to vote Republican."
(yawn)
First hand testimony, as related in the post, doesn't seem to matter to you does it?
Why bother when you can so easily rationalize your alternate reality?
I'll bet you even have an ill-founded opinion of the mosque proposal that's been in the news lately, don't you?
Posted by: Bubba at August 20, 2010 03:52 PM (c2rRR)
17
Byron York says Obama bears some major responsibility for his "Obama=Muslim" problem.
Noteworthy:
"A new poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that 18 percent of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. That is up from the 12 percent who believed that in October 2008, just before Obama was elected president.
At the same time, the number of Pew respondents who say Obama is a Christian — in Dreams From My Father, he describes his conversion to Christianity under the tutelage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright — has declined from 51 percent in October 2008 to 34 percent now. And the number of people who say they don’t know Obama’s religion is growing, from 32 percent back then to 43 percent today.
The White House blames the situation on a 'misinformation campaign' from Obama’s opponents. But Obama and his aides might also blame themselves for the way they’ve handled the Muslim issue over the years."
Posted by: Bubba at August 20, 2010 04:14 PM (c2rRR)
18
Mr. Magoo - I suggest you adjust your glasses and reread CY's post because you seem to have skipped over its meaning.
I am also confused about which First Amendment protections you are concerned. Personally, I worry when Nancy Pelosi wants to have me investigated for expressing my opposition to projects such as the Ground Zero Mosque, which expression is protected by the First Amendment. Is that what you were talking about?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2010 04:44 PM (WOj7E)
19
The question whether Obama is a Muslim or a Christian to me is moot. I doubt he is anchored in any faith tradition; I think the man is shallow and conceited, bright but not wise, badly educated but gifted in the art of mimicry; his faith is in himself and his own importance and advancement.
Posted by: zhombre at August 20, 2010 05:04 PM (THBw8)
20
Mr. Magoo, you're still an idiot. And, as Flenser pointed out, those who first employ the terms and phrases "stupid .. idiotic .. little children" have no standing complain about name-calling. The same re: atheism - you mentioned it for some reason, I figured that would forestall any attempts to claim I was a "religious right-winger" or some such nonsense.
You're also an idiot for not understanding the post in the first place. Despite your claims that "You right wingers are all buying the slander by the right wing noise machine that Obama might be a Muslim", the post discounts that idea. Were you able to read and comprehend, you would have figured that out, and this comment would not exist.
You are again an idiot for misunderstanding my comment, which was that IF Barry O considered himself Muslim, THEN those beliefs would likely color his actions and attitudes towards the US. I do like your invocation of "Logic 101", a subject you know nothing about.
Lastly, you are an idiot for believing that someone's religious beliefs have no bearing on their opinions or actions. If you were capable of thought, you might realize how ridiculous that concept. After all, you make an implicit claim to be smarter than those who believe in God in your first post.
Calling you an idiot isn't name-calling. It's simply categorization according to observed characteristics.
You want small-minded, look in a mirror. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by: alanstorm at August 20, 2010 05:12 PM (1KVW3)
21
Dear Mr. Magoo (no pun intended):
Actually, Mr. Obama was, at birth and for his early formative years, a muslim. His enrollment documents in what we'd call elementary school in Indonesia listed him as a muslim, and for good reason. In fact, jihadists would surely consider him an apostate muslim now and would be more than delighted to kill him, certainly because he is the American President, but more particularly because he has publicly rejected Islam.
Children born to a muslim father are, by their faith and traditions, muslim. Obama's father has been clearly and repeatedly identified as muslim and there has never been an attempt to backpedal on that identification. The Koran prescribes death for those who leave the faith. This is a sentence that has been carried out, usually by the family of the offenders, untold times over the centuries and even today. Muslims do not have the freedom to choose to leave Islam.
It's rather simple. As the son of a muslim, Barack Obama is a muslim, bearing a clearly islamic middle name. For whatever reason, he has publicly denied ever being muslim, in effect renouncing Islam, and has claimed to be a dedicated Christian. Those who renounce Islam are apostates and Islam decrees death for the crime of apostasy. Indeed, Christians endeavor to raise their children as Christians, but generally accept that one must make a conscious, informed and knowing choice to accept Christianity (most commonly when they are considered old enough to make such informed decisions) and that one may choose to leave it at will. However, this is not the case for muslims. Certainly there are muslims who do not try to harm those who leave the faith, but this merely reflects on their individual character and humanity, not the mandates of their faith.
So we might be technically yet incompletely correct in saying that Barack Obama currently describes himself as a Christian and denies ever being a Muslim. However the most accurate complete interpretation of the undisputed facts is that Barack Hussein Obama was born a Muslim, and was raised in that culture and faith during his early years, even writing about attending services at mosques in his two autobiographies. In addition, Mr. Obama has often, particularly before muslim audiences, spoken of his muslim roots (I'm paraphrasing) implying that those roots have given him a unique understanding of and affinity for muslim culture. As an American, he has the freedom to identify himself as an adherent of any faith, no faith, or merely to remain silent on the topic. However, all adherent muslims would of necessity and practice consider one who has been a muslim at any time in their life to be one of two things: A faithful muslim or an apostate.
Perhaps Mr. Obama should, for his own safety and that of his family, remember that before he tries to get too close to muslims, unless of course, he's winking at them with the understanding that he is a faithful muslim and is not telling the truth about being a Christian. Lying to infidels is also mandated in the Koran. In any case, it's hardly surprising that people might think Mr. Obama a muslim. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of muslims certainly do.
Please note, Mr. Magoo, that I engaged in no name calling whatever, but merely presented the facts.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at August 20, 2010 05:27 PM (AL1KP)
22
To Mike McDaniel,
Calling Obama a Muslim is like calling me an Irish-Catholic. As a young adult, I rejected Catholicism as just one of many schemes of mythology that long ago outlived its usefulness. And, I was born into a culture that identified itself by its national origins and its religion, but since the jokes of today about Pat and Mike would no longer be about ditch diggers, since Pat is likely to be a corporate CEO and Mike a PhD in the research department of that corporation. Hardly the kind of stuff bigots make jokes about. But the bigots and Fox News and the right wing propagandists seem to think Obama is fair game, regardless of the lack of truth in their utterances. Obama, probably not on a parallel track with me, but similarly, mainly because of his multi-cultural, multi-racial background, could possibly be called a mixed-race Muslim. I strongly suspect, like me, he not aligned to any religion, and as a politician has only a religion of convenience. But I insist that is strictly his own business, and I really don't want to know.
I went to Catholic school as a boy, and memorized the Baltimore Catechism, knew parts of it by heart, just as Obama probably went to religious schools during his young years. Am I a Catholic? Not by any stretch. To call Obama a Muslim because of his educational background as a boy is absurd, and to base your suspicion that he would jeopardize the safety of the United States out of some sympathy for radical Muslims is beyond absurd. But the right wing propagandists do it constantly.
Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He is an educated man of our times. I suspect he views this screaming and shouting by the right wing noise machine with some detached amusement, up to the time it starts to get personal and frighten his wife and children.
I personally feel the right wing noise machine has gone too far with their character assassination. But the First Amendment protects them, too, doesn't it. It's up to the American people to declare that we've had enough. I've had enough. What about the rest of you?
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 06:09 PM (n79n+)
23
"to base your suspicion that he would jeopardize the safety of the United States out of some sympathy for radical Muslims is beyond absurd."
Mr. Magoo - I missed where Mike said this. Could you please point it out?
Thanks
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2010 06:50 PM (WOj7E)
24
Give it a rest, Daleyrocks. I'm not going to answer questions about every phrase like a PhD candidate defending his thesis. If you don't get the sense of what I'm saying, you are trying not to.
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 07:02 PM (n79n+)
25
Magoo,
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain
Too bad for you that ship has already sailed.
Posted by: NevadaDailySteve at August 20, 2010 07:23 PM (+xi30)
26
Stick to the facts, Flenser, if you can.
I am sticking to the facts. I'm sticking to the facts that you complained about the "schoolyard name calling" you found here while at the exact same time you were engaging in that same "schoolyard name calling" yourself.
Them's the facts, Jack.
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 07:37 PM (+vRQQ)
27
Dear Mr. Magoo:
I don't normally engage in back and forth conversations in these venues, but I'll take a moment to make a few points and let the readers determine who is sticking to fact and honest analysis and who is avoiding it.
One of the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity is that Christians born into Christian families are still expected to accept or reject Christianity when they have reached the point of intellectual development necessary to make such decisions. Should they choose to reject it, parents and other may disapprove, but their survival will not hang in the balance. I, and others, are commenting on this issue precisely because the mainstream media took up the story, but as always, left out any facts inconvenient to Mr. Obama and/or to their favored narrative. As to Mr. Obama being called "...a mixed-race Muslim." I find myself mystified as I certainly said or implied nothing about race, nor do I recall anyone else in this thread making a similar assertion. The race of Mr. Obama, or anyone else for that matter, has nothing whatever to do with the matter at hand. You'll also recall that I stated that Americans have the freedom to embrace religion or no religion, but did this in making the point that muslims have no such freedom.
I did not call Mr. Obama a Muslim "...because of his education background as a boy..." but merely mentioned that fact as one of many bits of well known evidence to support the fact that the children of muslims are considered to be muslims--for life--by all other observant muslims. When his parents filled in the "education" blank in his school registration forms, they obviously considered him to be a muslim, or are our parents devoid of credibility in such matters? Did his parents make a mistake, writing "muslim" instead of "Christian?"
As to your observation that I asserted that Mr. Obama would "...jeopardize the safety of the United States out of some sympathy for radical Muslims..." One might be forgiven for concluding that you were reading the words of someone else as I made no such assertion, explicit or implied. My only glancing reference to this, again, merely points out, with Mr. Obama's own words, often repeated, his own acknowledgement of his muslim background at times and in venues where such acknowledgement would have benefited him. Like daleyrocks, I was not trying to avoid what you were saying, but merely wondering how you could have found such an implication where none was intended and where none existed.
Regarding character assassination, there simply is none in my comments. But I do agree that the American people have had enough. They'll make their point of view known in November. I suspect that you, and Mr. Obama, will not be pleased with what they have to say.
Posted by: mikemcdaniel at August 20, 2010 07:40 PM (AL1KP)
28
Just as I thought; your making election predictions reveals the whole purpose of this back and forth. The Right wing noise machine, Fox News, and the Republican National Committee have one purpose, and that is to discredit Obama in any way possible so as to put the very wealthy (George W. Bush's "base") firmly in power and to keep his tax cut for the wealthy in place, to keep destroying unions, to eliminate social security and medicare, and to place the control of this country firmly in the hands of the corporatocracy and the very rich. They do it with lies (ala Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et al.), selective omission of key facts in the news, and character assassination. The republicans have an amazing ability to convince Americans to vote against their own interest. Let's hope they don't dupe a majority of Americans this time.
As to assigning certain phrases or notions to you, it seems like most people on this blog speak with one voice, so if I mis-attributed someone else's statement to you, it was because all you right wingers are coming at me from all sides, and I got some of you mixed up with each other. Not hard to do, there is a certain sameness in all you say.
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 07:59 PM (n79n+)
29
Magoo @7:59 - All that is right there in them there comments. Congratulations, you saw through everybody, in your dreams, with your first grade-school level Leftist 101 comment. Right-wing noise machine is sooooooo 2006.
Bring a brain if you come back.
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2010 08:12 PM (WOj7E)
30
Perspective:
"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.
...His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is 'irtidad' or 'ridda,' usually translated from the Arabic as 'apostasy,' but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive)."
Does anyone doubt that Secret Service prepares for related threats, particularly when Obama travels to Islamic nations?
Posted by: Bubba at August 20, 2010 08:13 PM (c2rRR)
31
Davyrocks, you play the fool well. Keep at it, you have a future, m'boy.
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 08:18 PM (n79n+)
32
the Secret Service has their hands full, and they have increased their Presidential Detail considerably, because of unreconstructed KKK members who the Fox News Propaganda and the right wing noise machine brought to life again.
Posted by: JayMagoo at August 20, 2010 08:23 PM (n79n+)
33
to discredit Obama in any way possible so as to put the very wealthy (George W. Bush's "base") firmly in power
The "very wealthy" support the Dems over the GOP by ten to one.
That's another fact, Jack.
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 08:54 PM (+vRQQ)
34
unreconstructed KKK members who the Fox News Propaganda and the right wing noise machine brought to life again.
Behold, our Legions of the Dead!
Aragorn summoned them forth with the sword Andúril, reforged from the shards of Narsil.
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 09:00 PM (+vRQQ)
35
Magoo - It is amazing how pants pissing scared you liberals are of one cable television station when you control the content at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and PMSNBC. That is some powerful fear of any truth leaking out from a gigantic right wing noise machine. Hey, if you add in talk radio, it get bigger because nobody wants to listen to liberal talk radio, but then you've got virtually all liberal major metropolitan daily newpapers. Right wing noise machine my butt. Scared liberal liars is the tribe you belong to.
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 20, 2010 10:24 PM (WOj7E)
36
"said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only "for big communal events," not every Friday"
It's not a mosque, it's a community center!
Posted by: Landru at August 20, 2010 10:31 PM (GHpB7)
37
Sounds like he was born Muslim, but as in most aspects of life, he was a slacker at practicing that religion.
Today, he is clearly an adherent of the Church of Malignant Narcissism.
Posted by: Junk Science Skeptic at August 21, 2010 02:23 AM (Fnr44)
38
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Chanel bags 2009
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Gucci Watches
Rolex watches
Concord watches
Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback
Posted by: classic-christianlouboutin.com at August 21, 2010 04:31 AM (1XbuW)
39
"Behold, our Legions of the Dead!..."
LOL!
Troll Magoo, on the other hand, is merely Wormtongue without the brains.
Posted by: pst314 at August 21, 2010 10:45 AM (XP0Bd)
40
The 'very wealthy'? People like George Soros? Last I checked, the Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Soros Enterprises.
Posted by: David Davies at August 21, 2010 11:51 AM (hI9dq)
41
It is amazing how pants pissing scared you liberals are of one cable television station when you control the content at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and PMSNBC.
Heh. Libs often accuse those same stations as being "right-wing".
To do so it takes a juxtaposition of subjective observation and a depth of ignorance that runs so deep that the observer is clueless as to their own gaps in knowledge; and/or someone so far left that they think a socialist is "right-wing".
Posted by: Druid at August 22, 2010 11:28 AM (9bSMF)
42
Don't know why Mr. Magoo's comments are taken seriously. By best polling and investigation, Atheists are somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of the population (this is Atheists only, not "Agnostics"). This may be generous. Their numbers are declining year by year.
So, while they are entitled to their belief, they are in the larger scheme, irrelevant. They speak for no significant portion of the population.
Posted by: SgtJim at August 22, 2010 03:30 PM (ImttL)
43
I think my favorite comment was this:
"I'm not going to answer questions about every phrase like a PhD candidate defending his thesis. If you don't get the sense of what I'm saying, you are trying not to."
Read: "I know I'm dead wrong, and I can't admit it. Repenting is hard. So instead, I'll just blame you for not trying to gloss over my lies."
It inverts right and wrong, good and bad, and yes; good and evil.
After denying any need to defend it's lies, it later tries to by stating:
"As to assigning certain phrases or notions to you, it seems like most people on this blog speak with one voice, so if I mis-attributed someone else's statement to you, it was because all you right wingers are coming at me from all sides, and I got some of you mixed up with each other. Not hard to do, there is a certain sameness in all you say."
Read: "It's your fault that I lie."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A man who has no integrity, has nothing.
Posted by: brando at August 23, 2010 02:11 PM (IPGju)
44
obama is a muslim! he is anti-american, he hates the USA.
Posted by: southernsue at August 25, 2010 09:12 AM (s8T7E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 19, 2010
Issa Report Forces Administration's Propaganda Retreat
Via email:
In a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa, Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III stated that the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, "have relaxed their original ARRA signage requirements" and DOT agencies no longer require ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) signage. Despite this change, Rep. Issa remains concerned about inappropriate propaganda efforts pushed by the Department of Transportation and a lack of focus on creating private sector jobs.
"Despite eliminating requirements to post signs, Department of Transportation agencies are still improperly focused on pushing projects to display signs crediting President Obama and the so-called 'stimulus' for earmarked funding handouts," said Issa. "The Administration's obsession with using taxpayer money to get political credit for projects adds unnecessary expenses and bureaucracy to a spending package that's failing to spur promised job creation in the private sector."
The Federal Railroad Administration's decision to eliminate requirements for posting stimulus signs took effect on July 15, 2010 and follows questions and criticism by Republican Members of Congress, including Rep. Issa and Rep. Aaron Schock, about the improper use of stimulus funds for politically motivated signage.
The stimulus is a failure, and the propaganda efforts the DOT is (slowly) backing away from only existed to fluff for the Administration.
This isn't much, and isn't the GAO investigation Issa is calling for to go after the illegal propaganda being generated from from White House.
Still, it is a start.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:56 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I thought the DOT signs were counter-productive. To me they said "This traffic jam was brought to you by Obama".
Posted by: Stilgar at August 19, 2010 03:11 PM (zh8i1)
2
So are you saying that DOT is Obie Won's fluffer?
Posted by: TimothyJ at August 19, 2010 09:27 PM (b+pBW)
3
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Chanel bags 2009
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Gucci Watches
Rolex watches
Concord watches
Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback
Posted by: classic-christianlouboutin.com at August 21, 2010 04:28 AM (1XbuW)
4
Ninety percent of the signs I see are on stretches of road with NO workers anywhere to be seen. Someone's BEEN there, there are cones and horses set up ... but there's no work going on.
Posted by: DoorHold at August 22, 2010 08:00 PM (8IY+R)
5
obama's tricks. he hates america and all that it stands for. he is just a puppet anyway. someone else is pulling his strings.
Posted by: southernsue at August 25, 2010 09:14 AM (s8T7E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Unsigned WaPo Op-Ed: Where are the Republicans who will reject pandering and prejudice?
It is more than a little bit fascinating to see liberal "conventional wisdom" on display, especially when it is unsupported by reality.
This editorial, for example, is
rife with deception and ignorance.
BROADLY SPEAKING, there seem to be three strands of argument against building a mosque or Muslim community center two blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.
The first is that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and killed almost 3,000 people there in 2001 really did represent Islam and that to pretend otherwise is a dangerous delusion. The second is that, no, al-Qaeda does not speak for Islam, but many people -- including survivors and relatives of the victims -- naturally associate the two, and therefore it would be insensitive to locate anything Islamic so close to the scene of the crime. The third, for many politicians, seems to be that most Americans oppose construction of the mosque, and therefore opposition is useful (for Republicans on the attack) or safe (for Democrats cowering in a corner).
All three of these are objectionable. It is true that more Muslims around the world than one might wish sympathize with some of Osama bin Laden's thinking, view America as an aggressor nation and accept as justified some of what Americans view as terrorism.
The writer of this unsigned piece provides little in the way of qualification here... "more Muslims around the world than one might wish" sympathize with the bin Laden's thinking. The writer might be interested to know that bin Laden's thinking is firmly rooted at the very core of Islamic theology, and his calls to wage jihad perfectly reflect that of his religions' primary prophet, Mohammed, who warred, killed, and took as slaves entire tribes during his lifetime as he spread his newly-created faith at the point of a sword.
The writer also seems to have forgotten the celebratory mood that erupted in many, if not most parts of the Arab world to the news that that thousands of Americans had been killed on 9/11. The fabled "Islamic street" was thrilled.
Almost a decade later, even our so-called Islamic allies are anything but. A
clear super-majority of Pakistanis view the United States as the enemy. That view holds sway across Arab Islamic cultures.
But it's also true that many more Muslims reject such thinking, see Islam as a fundamentally peaceful religion and view al-Qaeda as foreign and repugnant.
Anyone who holds the view that Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion simply choses to ignore the faith's origins, history, religious texts, and modern practitioners.
Islam is intractably linked to violence, as violence is the primary way the faith has been spread for the 1,400 years since it was founded. From early skirmishes to the Battle of Badr onward to today's wars and terrorists, Islam is rooted in forcing itself upon others. It it true that some Muslim cultures have declining support for al Qaeda and the Taliban, but that is only because fellow Muslims are the bulk of their victims. When al Qaeda and the Taliban kill non-Muslims, even those Muslims who disapprove of the groups as a whole find joy in the deaths of infidels.
As Muslims struggle with how to adapt their religion to the challenges of modernity, Americans should be showing respect for those in the second camp, not lumping them together with the terrorists and their supporters.
Here the writer either chooses to ignore key tenants of Islamic religion, or simply professes ignorance. Islam cannot be modernized. That is it based upon the unshakable and un-editable word of Allah is a key tenant of the faith. Author Salman Rushdie has had a
fatwa (death sentence) on his head for decades for challenging that belief, by basing the title of his book
The Satanic Verses on verses said to have been edited out of the early Koran. Islam cannot be modernized. It was designed from the outset to hold anyone attempting to modernize or change it as a blasphemer, worthy only of immediate and violent death. Islam requires philosophical stasis as a key element of it's controlling philosophy.
And if the Muslims who want to build a community center are no more responsible for, or supportive of, the attacks of Sept. 11 than any other Americans, how can their plans be "insensitive"? The hurt feelings must reflect misunderstanding or prejudice on the part of the objectors, and the right response to misunderstanding and prejudice is education, not appeasement.
This, like so much elitist pap, is based up self-congratulatory mental masturbation, as the writer congratulates him or herself for their tolerance. The imam pushing this project holds Americans to blame for the 9/11 terror attacks. Like many other mosques raised around the world, it would be purposefully constructed as a victory symbol, as Muslims have done at the sites of their conquests since the very beginning. It is no accident that many of the most revered mosques in Islam were once Christian churches or Jewish synagogues. Islam
literally means "submission," and it demands that from all, whether they are Muslims or not.
The many Republicans and Democrats who have come out against the mosque—including the presiding Senate Majority leader and the recently retired Democratic National Committee chairman—are not bigots. They are realists. Opponents of this victory mosque are not prejudiced, but instead terribly aware of precisely what the mosque is meant to symbolize to the Islamic faith in every nation in which it is practiced.
This Washington
Post op-ed serves only to expose the historical and theological ignorance of this declining newspaper's editorial board.
None of us should apologize for rejecting intolerance, especially intolerance in the guise of a suicidal multiculturalism.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:16 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Judging by TEH stoopid, I suspect the writer is E.J. Dionne.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at August 19, 2010 01:06 PM (HbWhE)
2
When al Qaeda and the Taliban kill non-Muslims, even those Muslims who disapprove of the groups as a whole find joy in the deaths of infidels.
Are you saying American Muslims found joy in 9-11? You need help.
Seriously, after that "Islam is intractably linked to violence" and your quote above, why on earth should -- in your view -- we allow any Mosques to be built anywhere in NYC, or the DC metro area? Or in the US? Or for that matter, why allow any Muslims in our communities? Think of the children!!!
Try writing a post in favor of building any new mosque anywhere in our nation while we're at war with Muslims and their religion. I'd love to see you try and wrap your brain around that exercise.
Posted by: Jim at August 19, 2010 03:51 PM (YPeWM)
3
Or for that matter, why allow any Muslims in our communities?
Hmm. What's your point supposed to be again? I cannot think of a single good reason to allow any Muslims into the country.
But by all means, remind me of what the reasons are.
Posted by: flenser at August 19, 2010 07:39 PM (wRObA)
4
Well said flenser! This controversy has nothing to do with proximity to Ground Zero, you guys are just bigots. I admire your honesty. I'd love to hear your plans for the Muslims who are already American citizens. Don't be shy.
Posted by: Jim at August 19, 2010 08:40 PM (7EVtA)
5
"Well said flenser! This controversy has nothing to do with proximity to Ground Zero, you guys are just bigots. I admire your honesty. I'd love to hear your plans for the Muslims who are already American citizens. Don't be shy."
I would give them a choice: they can be a Muslim, or they can be an American citizen. The tenets of Islam are so far removed from the philosophy this country was founded on that it would be impossible for a sincere Muslim to be an American in philosophical outlook; likewise, it would be impossible for a sincere American patriot to honestly embrace Islam.
For example, consider the American tenet of separation between church and state. Then consider Islam's claim to absolute temporal authority over not only its own adherents, but over those who do not follow Islam.
In other words, someone who claims to be an American and a Muslim at the same time is lying about something. Prudence would dictate concluding that he is lying about being an American.
BTW, the same could be said of real, no-kidding Christian Dominionists (i.e., followers of Rushdoony, North, and their ilk), and I would not be uncomfortable at all with applying the same strictures to them.
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 20, 2010 12:04 AM (KCVUU)
6
Why not put all of this under the heading of "We're just religious bigots, and we don't care about the constitution and freedom of religion"? To you, every muslim in the world is exactly equivalent. Tim McVeigh was a lapsed Christian, but somehow that doesn't mean that all Christians are terrorists.
Posted by: Black Bart at August 20, 2010 03:10 AM (1NF06)
7
"Why not put all of this under the heading of "We're just religious bigots, and we don't care about the constitution and freedom of religion"? To you, every muslim in the world is exactly equivalent."
How far does "freedom of religion" go?
Does it extend to religious faiths that advocate murder? Arson? Violent overthrow of the government? Defrauding non-believers? Cheating on income taxes? Drunk driving?
Of course not. None of these are constitutionally protected activities. And you should get the precedent of Cheech v. Chong cited if you went to court to argue otherwise. (The judge should say "Bailiff, WHACK HIS PEE-PEE!")
Having established that, in fact, freedom of religion is not absolute, we can examine specific cases.
Islam claims temporal authority not only over its adherents, but over non-believers as well--i.e., that it has the authority to govern everyone in the world. That is utterly incompatible with the American constitutional law forbidding establishment of a state religion.
"Tim McVeigh was a lapsed Christian, but somehow that doesn't mean that all Christians are terrorists."
As you pointed out, Timothy McVeigh was a LAPSED Christian, which means that he wasn't a Christian. Religious adherence isn't an ethnic or racial identity; it's an ethical choice by the individual.
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 20, 2010 07:33 AM (KCVUU)
8
The bottom line is that these terrorists would not have done the deed if they knew they would not have the hero status bestowed on them by the MAJORITY of their muslim brothers and sisters.
Islam is not compatible with all the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Islam is a cult, not a religion, and as such should not have the protection of the 1st. Ammendment.
Paul in Texas
Posted by: Paul Kanesky at August 20, 2010 01:01 PM (2i7Kh)
9
This controversy has nothing to do with proximity to Ground Zero, you guys are just bigots. I admire your honesty.
That's big of you. Now, is there any chance you can show some honesty yourself and explain why you think we MUST admit Muslims into the country? You know, answer the question I already asked you and which you already ignored?
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 01:20 PM (dhzQW)
10
Why not put all of this under the heading of "We're just religious bigots, and we don't care about the constitution and freedom of religion"?
There is no constitutional requirement that we admit Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) into the country.
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 01:22 PM (dhzQW)
11
We are suppossed to be tolerant of something we detest? Why? Had the Aztec priests survived the destruction of their civilization would you have been tolerant of their beleifs? A religion of death is what it is. The majority Islam, worldwide, is our enemy. Recognize reality.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at August 20, 2010 01:44 PM (brIiu)
12
And Jim, I realize that reality is scarce in the rainbow-world that you and the other idiots live in, but I would suggest that you look up the you- tube videos of the muzzies dancing in the streets on September 11, 2001.
Then go back to whatever house of stupid you came from(I suspect daily kos is the location).
Posted by: emdfl at August 20, 2010 09:51 PM (3bHWk)
13
Does Boeing have a right to build a museum commemorating their contributions to aviation within a short walk of Ground Zero at Hiroshima?
Or is the question, should Boeing build such a museum? Would it be bigoted and racist to oppose it?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 20, 2010 10:46 PM (QQ9sc)
14
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Chanel bags 2009
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Gucci Watches
Rolex watches
Concord watches
Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback
Posted by: classic-christianlouboutin.com at August 21, 2010 04:27 AM (1XbuW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 18, 2010
Thanks Democrats: Insurance Costs for Large Companies to Skyrocket Because of Obamacare
And if you're and employee of a smaller company, you stand to get reamed as well.
The deficit will continue to balloon, the quality of care will decline, employers will necessarily slow hiring and pass along the insurance cost increases to their customers in the form of higher prices, and to their employees in the form of higher rates/lower salary to keep compensation packages reasonable.
What's not to love?
If I were a Republican or Independent candidate hoping to win in November, I'd build off the cascading series of failures Obamacare promises to bring, and make it's repeal a key part of my platform, making it understood that getting the federal government out of health care is the key to making it affordable to all. If my opponent voted for Obamacare, I'd hammer them for it, repeatedly asking them if they read and understand the bill before voting for it (they didn't). I'd repeatedly ask how they can justify voting for something they didn't understand, that added so much expense, and created so much uncertainty.
It needs to be made clear:
Democrats who voted for Obamacare didn't vote for the best interests of their constituents. They can't even pretend that is the case, having voted for a bill none of them even understood. They cast their votes out of lockstep conformity, and because they lack leadership. The only Democrats who can claim to have exercised leadership in the debacle known as Obamacare are those that voted against it.
And how many of those were there?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:44 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Since freaking WHEN has the Federal government EVER made ANYTHING less expensive?
Remember $600 toilet seats?
The Bridge to nowhere?
On WHAT BASIS do you think there won't be massive fraud, and massive just-plain-waste in this Boomer Boondoggle?
Posted by: Bill Smith at August 19, 2010 03:49 AM (QPsUL)
2
You have not seen anything yet. If Obamacare goes on to maturity, the cost will so great that we will be swamped in debt. Even more than current. The estimates that were given by the GAO were a joke. Then you have to take into account that the medical industry has been fundamentally changed. I Jim jumps in, let me reassure you that is a bad thing as American medical services were the best in the world. That will not be the case in a few years. In fact, I am beginning to see changes even at this point.
Posted by: David at August 19, 2010 02:01 PM (nLxO/)
3
The only Democrats who can claim to have exercised leadership in the debacle known as Obamacare are those that voted against it.
And how many of those were there?
Obviously, not enough.
Posted by: Gray Wolf at August 19, 2010 07:19 PM (WgKkU)
4
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Chanel bags 2009
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Gucci Watches
Rolex watches
Concord watches
Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback
Posted by: classic-christianlouboutin.com at August 21, 2010 04:20 AM (1XbuW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I Confess... It's Me
Let me make things easy for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
I funded all the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.
Contributions sent to my Paypal account, along with Adsense revenue from this blog, are the cash cows that have bribed almost 3 of every 4 Americans into oppressing the freedom of this aggrieved Muslim minority (those sources also fund my eBay purchases... but don't let my wife know).
Now that I have taken responsibility for my actions, Madam Speaker, I invite you to now move on to pressing charges against me and suggesting a suitable sentence for what I have done.
[idea for taking credit shamelessly stolen from fgmorley in the comments of this
previous post.]
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:14 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Methinks the only crime committed is stealing the original idea from commenter fgmorley in the previous post :-P
Posted by: Diogenes Online at August 18, 2010 12:17 PM (2MrBP)
2
No, I am the one behind the funding of the entire anti-GZM movement. Just tryin' to put America back to work.
(I'm 2 protestors-on-the-payroll away from having to provide healthcare.)
Posted by: Mjdzfun at August 18, 2010 12:51 PM (DM6DH)
3
too late! i called her office last night, giving my RL contact info, and demanded to be interviewed regarding my dastardly, but cunning, plan.
MUWAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: redc1c4 at August 18, 2010 03:17 PM (d1FhN)
Posted by: DrummingAncient at August 18, 2010 04:33 PM (4UoqP)
5
But -- but -- but where does that leave my Swiss bank account withdrawals?
Posted by: Bleepless at August 18, 2010 06:00 PM (sRxdX)
6
My policies have saved or created 8 million mosque opponents.
Posted by: Teh Messiah, O'Bummer at August 18, 2010 06:34 PM (xq7pr)
7
Uh-uh, Confederate Yankee, quit taking credit for MY work.
I AM SPARTACUS!
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 18, 2010 11:14 PM (KCVUU)
8
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 08:29 AM (ApKAm)
9
I'm Brian, and so's my wife!
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 20, 2010 10:47 PM (QQ9sc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Pelosi Wants GZM Opponents Investigated
Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation of the majority of Americans opposed to the so-called Ground Zero mosque.
"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said.
It's revealing to hear elitists like the Speaker admit that they believe the majority of Americans are their opposition. And it should be noted that they tend to view opposition to their desires as not just illegitimate, but worth of being subjected to inquiry and suppression.
November can't get here fast enough.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:17 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But remember, an investigation into the funding for the WTC Mosque is "un-American", thank you Mayor Bloomberg.
Posted by: Penfold at August 18, 2010 10:26 AM (1PeEC)
2
I look forward in demanding from our new congress investigations of the current leadership for treason...
Posted by: Toaster802 at August 18, 2010 10:29 AM (O+v+t)
3
"...it should be noted that they tend to view opposition to their desires as not just illegitimate, but worth of being subjected to inquiry and suppression."
Just reading the original Pelosi quote and before I got to this statement, I felt like my head was going to explode. What actual crime does she feel has been committed? Orwell's "Though Police" have arrived...
Posted by: diogenes.online at August 18, 2010 11:09 AM (2MrBP)
4
I just want clear this whole matter up. I am funding the entire opposition. Now please come and get me and save the American public the cost of a witch hunt. It's me! I admit it. And you dhimmis can all shove it up your rectums or vaginas, as the case may dictate.
Posted by: fgmorley at August 18, 2010 12:03 PM (wejBB)
5
Where's the spin brigade to turn this one on its head?
Posted by: ECM at August 18, 2010 02:57 PM (nYKDd)
6
The Victory Mosque is just the visible tip of a very large iceberg. Beneath the surface of Western societies, Muslims are waging a campaign of infiltration, subversion, sedition and social sabotage, with the objective of destroying our countries and way of life from within.
Posted by: Trencherbone at August 18, 2010 04:05 PM (DAQMZ)
7
I oppose the location Madam Speaker. My funding comes entirely from working my ass off throughout the year at a private sector job. My only 5 day vacation this year will be at my expense, and within the United States. I pay taxes on my hard-earned income, which by the way helps fund your salary and every asinine statement that comes out of your mouth.
Posted by: kyle at August 18, 2010 05:35 PM (8uzdZ)
8
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 08:28 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 17, 2010
Faith No More
It may go up. It may go down. But right now the President's job disapproval is polling at 51%. Despite attempts my his media allies to spin it, this isn't about messaging.
This is about the public's rejection of incompetence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:24 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That 42% Approval rating is the one that amazes me. There is just an absolute floor under that number. If it breaks - then Katy bar the door...
Posted by: Diogenes Online at August 17, 2010 03:08 PM (2MrBP)
2
I can't get past the 42% approval either. It should be somewhere between 20 and 30. There are about 20-30% Obama sycophants that love him no matter what he does. Sort of like those people who voted for a convicted criminal for mayor of D.C.
Posted by: mixitup at August 17, 2010 07:36 PM (Z21cb)
3
I am like you'all, I can't understand why this creep has any support. The reasons that I have considered: the nature of the questions, the equations that they use to weigh the stats, the fact that some people feel they are bigots if they don't like the big O, and the area being sampled.
Regardless, I think that O has achieved something by getting to this level in one year.
Posted by: David at August 17, 2010 07:55 PM (ZgM5r)
4
I think there is a 20-30% floor that Obama will only go under if he goes on live TV and murders puppies (or something equally outrageous and unlikely). Which means to me that Obama is near the floor of his approval rating--only 10% more to go until he hits rock bottom.
Posted by: iconoclast at August 17, 2010 08:21 PM (Srqoz)
5
The whole, "If only he could get his message out." defense is rude as well as counter-factual.
It really says we're too stupid to understand him, if only he could speak "dumb-American" we would understand how great he is.
Tools.
Posted by: Veeshir at August 18, 2010 08:03 AM (S6hQS)
6
Well, yes, many of you here are too dumb to understand. Or more correctly, too filled with hate to care to try. How do I know? The "Kenyan messiah" bashing started before he even took the oath of office. If this came from a source that gave him a legitimate shot and THEN decided they didn't like his policies, I'd be worried. But it comes from a group of bitter white men that started this nonsense before he was even sworn in.
I don't know how November will turn out, but this issue will clarify as we get out of the traditional silly season of August. (the media ALWAYS focuses on the nutcases in August, see: meetings, town hall)
On one hand you have a president who is winding down an unpopular war in Iraq that he didn't start. He kept his word and passed comprehensive health care AND Wall Street reform in 18 months - a remarkable record. He also did it while establishing a trend of GOP "NO" votes and obstructionism along the way. Trust me, we're going to run those ads down your throat. A particularly like the ones where Boehner and McConnell demonize families who are still out of work, then Boehner makes his "ant" comment regarding unemployment. Yeah, we've got obstructionist sound bites.
Then there's the GOP's stated mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs". What's their position? Cranking up the xenophobia machine. The Republican plan for fixing the economy is apparently trying to convince Americans that foreigners are bad.
Their ONLY solution to the jobs issue is to give more money away to the wealthiest 1%. How's THAT gonna play with swing voters?
They've got lots of things to say about immigration (mostly fabrications) and terror babies and muslims (mostly outright lies), but not a word about the economy.
Stay classy GOP.
And think about this, 2012 is going to require that the GOP turn around states they lost in 2008. Look at the electoral map and tell me how, with the MASSIVE demonization of Hispanics that they've engaged in, how they're going to win? Hell, as of now, they stand to lose Texas, whose white population is 48% (and 35% Hispanic and 12% black).
So rejoice in your spot polling, but remember two things: 1) Reagan was in worse shape than this in 1982 and 2) Palin's ratings are in free-fall. Remember President Mondale.
Posted by: Bob at August 18, 2010 10:27 AM (jsQWZ)
7
"Well, yes, many of you here are too dumb to understand. Or more correctly, too filled with hate to care to try. How do I know? The "Kenyan messiah" bashing started before he even took the oath of office."
I think you misspelled "Keynesian"...
Actually Bob, I was willing to give him a chance; thinking just maybe he wouldn't perform like a totally inexperienced Chicago socialist thug. Unfortunately, he lived up to my expectations and the country is paying the price.
I won't bother responding to the remainder of your talking points, as that would be pointless. Suffice to say, keep blaming Bush(whom I wasn't real thrilled with either). All that does is continue pointing out the incompetence of the current administration. The next congress and president will thank you...
Posted by: diogenes at August 18, 2010 11:37 AM (2MrBP)
8
I think it's a case of myth-management. The The "Kenyan messiah" was an elaborate production of the Media leading up to Teh-Inaguration - and who's scrutiny now has suddenly been failing to patch up the crumbling edifice they created.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at August 18, 2010 02:09 PM (dRMSX)
9
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 08:20 AM (ApKAm)
10
Yeah Bob, I can't wait to see those Dem campaign ads touting their Obamacare and Financial Reform successes. I'm sure they will play well.
And those ads on all the jobs this administration has added to the economy will be big hits too.
The obstruction charge is pretty meaningless when one party has such overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress, a point your own post confirms. If there is such obstruction, how then did these bills pass, and in such a "remarkable" time frame?
Posted by: MikeyJ at August 20, 2010 09:43 AM (ixtgQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Campaign Against Obama's Propaganda War Heats Up
Ranking member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and the minority members of the House Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary Committee continue to hammer the Obama Administration's unlawful use of propaganda using taxpayer funds.
This time, they've created a video hammering the Administration for bullying states into costly spending on roadside signs that promoted the failed stimulus.
The Administration was blasted for their unprecedented and unlawful use of propaganda yesterday
in a Congressional report, and Issa had asked that the
GAO investigate based upon those findings.
And Roger Simon of the
Politico thought he was joking about Obama maybe being a half-term president...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:00 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Obama Administration frequently used federal resources to promote the President’s agenda. In many cases, the Administration relied on the reach and resources of federal agencies and their personnel to promote certain of the President’s favorite programs.
Shocking. The President used the Federal Government to...promote his agenda! This hasn't been news, or even borderline objectionable, since 1798. We elect Presidents for the express purpose of using the government to enact his agenda, to promote his favorite programs. WTF?
BTW, did Issa use government resources to create his report and the video? Both seem to promote his agenda. Again, shocking stuff.
Posted by: Jim at August 17, 2010 01:16 PM (YPeWM)
2
Jim,
My brother-in-law thinks that the earth is only 8000 years old. I can't educate him or point out his illogical position. I run into the same problem with liberals like you. I wish that there was a way to get through to both groups.
Posted by: David at August 17, 2010 08:01 PM (ZgM5r)
3
Jim, Lemme 'splain ya somethin':
Use of Federal resources to promote an ideological party agenda is illegal. It's also dishonest. In fact, if true it pretty much defines Obama as thieving, lying slime.
Now. If Darrel Issa were also using Federal funds to promote an ideological agenda (he isn't - he's using Federal funds to EXPOSE thieving, lying slime) then he would also be thieving, lying slime.
And - IF Issa turned out to be thieving, lying slime, that would have NO effect on the status of your punk master. Obama is STILL thieving, lying slime, no matter how many other accusations of thieving, lying slime-hood Obama's drooling minions could dream up.
Face it, Jim, the object of your fevered sycophancy is THIEVING, LYING SLIME. (That's in addition to being a traitorous fraud BTW.)
Your turn, bucky. Get it over with and give us the eternal loser's whine: "BUt WhAAT about BuUuUssHHH, you RAaaaciSt!!!"
Posted by: CFM at August 17, 2010 09:38 PM (1N8nO)
4
CFM,
Here's the complete list of all the US Presidents who did not promote an ideological agenda:
Posted by: Jim at August 18, 2010 12:33 AM (7EVtA)
5
...and it has nothing to do with Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or Millard Fillmore.
Every party is ideological. What do you guys think calling yourself a Conservative or Liberal is except an ideological statement? Every party creates a platform based upon that ideology, and their candidates pledge to do everything they can to enact that platform once in office. A President who didn't promote his agenda would be doing a disservice to the people who voted for him.
Posted by: Jim at August 18, 2010 12:42 AM (7EVtA)
6
Jim,
What part of "illegal" do you not understand? The law was passed in the 1950s - the era when Communist propaganda was rampant. What he's doing is against the law.
Wise up.
Posted by: KSterling at August 18, 2010 09:42 AM (EjR0O)
7
Come on, KS, you KNOW that NOTHING a liberal/progressive/socialist/communist(but I keep repeating myself) does is illegal at least to their followers.
As someone once told me, obumble could serve BBQ'ed aborted babies on the white house lawn and people like Jim would be in awe of the president's finding of a new source of cheap protein.
Posted by: emdfl at August 18, 2010 10:09 AM (LFGgE)
8
KSterling,
If Obama did something illegal I sincerely hope you and Issa can point it out -- and be specific about the action and the law from the 1950s. I'd also love to hear whether you think things like Medicare are Socialist/Communist and if support of those programs has violated those same laws from the 1950s, or if not, why not.
Instead if you read what Issa wrote (not CYs embellishment) you see something a lot more vague:
The President’s right to sell his policy recommendations to Congress and the public is not disputed; however, using the resources of the federal government to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of office and a betrayal of the President’s pledge to create “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”
So Obama (in Issa's mind) broke his own pledge (yawn) and wants to make a distinction between the the President's right to sell his policy recommendations... and ...activating a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign..." whatever that means. You can "sell" but not "activate". OK.
Posted by: Jim at August 18, 2010 10:10 AM (7EVtA)
9
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 08:18 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Those Voices Don't Speak for the Rest of Us
Yeah, I'm sure you've probably seen it elsewhere.
But it's worth watching again.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:54 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The problem is that we don't have anyone around like the great one. What are we going to do?
Posted by: David at August 17, 2010 07:28 PM (ZgM5r)
2
We DO have potential leaders like Reagan. They have been scrutinized and neutralized by an over active and hostile 24 hour media.
Things like second marriages and the attendant scandals, wayward children, and past associations doom conservative prospects now.
Posted by: Steve in TN at August 17, 2010 10:23 PM (dhAG8)
3
I forgot to add... Reagan also raised taxes as Gov in California. That would be a poison pill for many conservatives today.
Posted by: Steve in TN at August 17, 2010 10:33 PM (dhAG8)
4
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 08:16 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fake Tea Party Candidate Angling to Upset Nevada Senate Race
I wrote about Scott Ashjian's spoiler candidacy back in early March:
Unpopular nationally for being thin-skinned and surly, Reid is foundering in his home state of Nevada, where he faces reelection in November. Reid has consistently trailed Republican challengers in his reelection bid; he trails all four in recent polls. Without a major shift, Reid's political career would seem to be on the cusp of drawing to an ignoble end.
And then in walked Scott Ashjian.
Scott who?
You can be forgiven if you don't know who Scott Ashjian is, or where he came from, or if he's even a serious candidate. Even local journalists haven't had much luck figuring that out. All we know for certain is that Ashjian seems poised to jump into the 2010 Nevada Senate race as a third-party candidate representing the newly formed Tea Party of Nevada.
The group, established merely weeks ago, is attempting to trade on the name of the grassroots tea party movement. Though while tea party protests arose organically and simultaneously over the past year, the founding officers of the Tea Party of Nevada don't seem to have been active in any local or regional tea party events. In fact, they don't have any ties to the movement at all. If anything, they seem to be an odd mix of cranks and conspiracy theorists, fronted by a registered Democrat who once represented a reattached John Wayne Bobbit. And the perspective candidate Ashjian may as well be Nessie for his reclusiveness and unwillingness to give interviews or make public appearances.
The Tea Party of Nevada doesn’t seem to be a serious attempt at a third party, but instead seems intent on siphoning off enough support from Republican candidates leading in the polls to put Reid back in contention. Whether or not the Democrat-led Tea Party of Nevada is successful will likely depend on how well Republicans and real tea party activists do in exposing the group attempting to co-opt the votes of their more casual supporters.
Ashjian disappeared as a candidate for a while, but has
just announced his intention to re-emerge.
His role is simple: siphon just a couple of percentage points away from Republican candidate Sharon Angle by exploiting the Tea Party name (he affiliated with no actual Tea Party groups in Nevada, other than the group that was created to support his candidacy) on the ballot. Ashjain, Reid and their supporters hope that the dirty trick will be enough to throw the election to the embattled Democrat.
Whether or not the plot succeeds depends upon Nevada's voters.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:21 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How long have they been electing Harry Reid? We're screwed

Posted by: ECM at August 17, 2010 10:50 AM (nYKDd)
2
I don't think so. Some few votes are siphoned off due to voter ignorance. People who vote based on name recognition, or gender or position on the ballot. But voter awareness is very high this year and will continue to be high. All of us must perform our citizen duty to speak with neighbors, friends and (gasp!) colleagues to limit the damage of these stealth candidates. The major parties still do not grasp the power of the internet. A revolution in transparency and communications is occuring and they still don't grasp it.
Posted by: garrett at August 17, 2010 10:56 AM (DQjJA)
3
heres a cool thing...www.nobama2013.com
Posted by: Amanda Smith at August 17, 2010 11:06 AM (P+Srx)
4
Where are the Lyndon Larouche Democrats, now that the country finally needs them?
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at August 18, 2010 02:49 PM (HbWhE)
5
If someone claiming to be a member of the Sons of Liberty were proven to be backed by King George, does anyone doubt that the tar would already be hot and a bunch of nekkid chickens spotted? Sam and his crew understood how to deal with impostors.
Posted by: SDN at August 20, 2010 05:31 AM (rf0d7)
6
Chanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Posted by: top-coachbags.com at August 20, 2010 08:16 AM (ApKAm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 42 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.2142 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1756 seconds, 365 records returned.
Page size 270 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.