Bullet Hit the White House

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28fB_kWmumM

So according to the Secret Service the round which hit the glass is 'not associated with Friday's incident.'  This tells me it's two different happenings.  I've been nosing around on the web, and I'm unable to find any sort of ballistic information regarding the round which was found, or casings, or anything else.  If any has any info, or knows of any useful sources, please share!

Highway Shakedowns in TN - 4th Amendment is History

Sources:

News Channel 5

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14673883/policing-for-profit-summary-of-dice-activities-2010

I'm not the first to write about this, nor will I be the last.  In fact, this isn't even my first post on the topic.  Cemetery had his car searched for no reason, and is left with little recourse.  The governments are finding more and more ways to get around the protections we have of our rights, and it is costing us dearly.  

And clearly, if you watch the video, you can see that they do not care one iota about actually stopping the drugs.  They are focused on the cash.  If this really was about the drugs, there would be many more instances on the East bound side, and the officers would be facing that direction, looking for the contraband.  

The war on drugs has done more to damage this country than most people realize.  Daily it's costing us more and more, not just financially, but in far more important ways.  

But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and, sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug dealing at all.

Moral of that story is that if you want your money, you need to hire a lawyer to get it back.  They will keep it until you take legal action.  That is outright THEFT from civilians, especially when those civilians are charged with no crime, and have done nothing to justify that seizure of their property.

When do we draw a line in the sand which shall not be crossed?  To allow them to continue to trample our rights is to invite tyranny into our nation, not just turn a blind eye to it, and pour it a nightcap before we go to bed, ignorant of the schemes of tyrants.

Which wrong(s) make a man guilty?

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oregon-man-found-with-gun-sniper-book-after-football-game-held-without-bail/2011/10/31/gIQA0Q8LaM_story.html

In my perusing of news reports, I came across this gem.  Clearly this individual was 'up to something' in this scenario, but what justified the move by police to intercept him in the first place?  Also, notice on which events the Washington Post places more weight.  It isn't the fact that he's already committing a crime by possessing a controlled substance.  It's not even the fact that he had a firearm on school property.  No, they mention and emphasize FIRST his activities as a 13 and 15 year old kid.

His age at time of arrest?  26.  That's 11 years.  11 years of no (mentioned) charges.  11 years of being a productive member of society.  (Or at least not being a drain on the system, from what we're able to tell.)

From the story:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke said the weapons and the books, each by themselves, did not make Amoroso a danger. But taken together — along with his arrest at age 15 for shooting a pellet gun at a passing boat filled with tourists on the Rogue River, and writing on a classroom desk at 13 that he wanted to kill teachers and students — there was enough evidence to show he posed a danger.

Is it really that difficult a concept to consider that someone participating in a sport is going to take it seriously, do research, purchase equipment, and the like?  I know hunters who consume sniper-related material like water, simply because it's a passion for them.  The challenge of learning how to make shots which seem impossible, the tricks and tools used to calculate the ballistics, and other factors readily turn this into an exciting hobby for many.  

So the magistrate judge and the post both look to this person's past.  What makes it so hard to believe that a 13 year old boy would feel anger toward other students and teachers?  Perhaps he was bullied, or had bad grades and was frustrated.  Perhaps he was just a normal kid, who made the mistake of writing what he was thinking.  And that was half his life ago.  

So let's move up a few years, find something more recent.  He was a 15 year old with a toy pellet gun.  15 year old kids aren't known for making the best choices across the board.  It might have been beneficial to him to have had somewhat 'closer adult supervision' than he had that day.  But again, once incident, shooting pellets at a boat, and years later it's being brought up as a sign of how dangerous he is.

It's not until they go through all this that they bother to discuss the crimes he was ACTUALLY COMMITTING at the time of his arrest.  These are plenty reason to lock him up for a while, and press charges.  While I absolutely understand the logic behind eliminating the war on drugs, and legalizing them for various reasons, that isn't the reality in which we live.  As such, his possession of drugs is a viable, legitimate charge.  As is his possessing a weapon on school property.  Again, I understand the reasons for wanting that foolish law repealed as well, and I whole-heartedly support that movement.  But that's not reality.  The law is still there, so it is still a crime.  But they still can't, in their biased minds, differentiate between the actual crimes, and perceived crimes:

Police found a loaded pistol, hundreds of rounds of rifle ammunition, marijuana, a camouflage jacket, and a novel about a sniper attack on a football game in his car.

What about having rifle ammo in his car is so bad, especially when the only firearm found in the vehicle is a handgun?  What about a jacket that happens to be a certain color scheme is so terrible?  Why is possessing a book so evil?  Should we burn all books that mention the word 'sniper' or 'gun' to protect people?  Are we really at that point?

I get that adding all this up, the guy looks suspicious, and frankly he's a bit of an idiot for his behavior, but let's not start a witch hunt over perceived wrongs.  Let's focus on what he ACTUALLY did, and let the justice system do it's job.  There are enough straw men around, we don't need to be building more out of excessive paranoia.

TSA Expanding to Highways!

Source:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

And here I always thought Tennessee was one of the free states.  This is absolutely disgusting.
Take a look at the article and video.  Then come back and tell me what you think about it.  Is there a reason for this?  Will it really benefit anyone?  Do we want to see lines of traffic on the highways that resemble the security lines in airports?  How many miles will we need to stop again and again and again?  How many other questions come to mind regarding this institution of oppression? 
I have no doubt that there are those who genuinely think this is 'for the best.'  But, anytime you restrict, remove, deter, subdue, or otherwise violate the individual person's liberty, you are losing the fight.  The very fact that the TSA exists, and keeps expanding it's roles, is proof that the terrorists are winning more every week, than they ever could have by waging outright war on us.

What ever happened to the America where I was raised?

Overkill

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11291/1183002-100.stm

Police calling in excessive force is nothing new these days.  It just happened again locally.  This time the civilian who experienced an overdose of justice is a 75 year old woman.  With a mental problem.  Who they know.

I understand that police officers need to take steps to protect themselves.  But, doesn't it seem strange to call out SWAT ("...a nearby special response unit...") for 1 lady?  It strikes me as a severe case of overkill, and it does nothing to give me confidence in those who are supposed to serve and protect us.


The really ironic thing is that I am well known as quoting Rule 37 from Schlock.