Interesting. Bob Owens of Bearing Arms is big on training. He’s not wrong that good training makes a "hyuge” difference. Unfortunately training isn’t something you can necessarily point at in a court of law, and much training that people get is bad, or at least insufficient. “Idiot-proof” technology is much more reliable and defensible in court. Therefore much more likely to help you avoid ending up on the losing side of a lawsuit. That’s why the powers-that-be tend to be gear-queer. Searching for a technological solution to overcome human inadequacy. They’re still searching for something that will knock people out without ill effect at any distance, like a Star Trek phaser on stun setting. Something that will work as intended, without fail and that nobody could find fault with. We’re not there yet.

The video Bob cites of the police officers attempting to subdue an emotionally disturbed person (EDP) in a crowded restaurant is both fascinating and appalling. The actions of the three police officers appear hesitant, tentative, timid and aimless. They are clearly reluctant to touch the suspect, as if they are afraid getting something on them or catching some disease. The most efficacious course of action with three officer’s present would seem to be to tackle the suspect, sit on him and then slap the handcuffs on him so you can haul him off and be done with it. Instead the cops keep shocking him and hitting him with batons as if they expect him to put the cuffs on himself. They appear to be punishing him rather than attempting to take him into custody. Finally one of the officers puts on a pair of black nitrile gloves before cuffing the suspect. All in all their behavior doesn’t make them look good, as Bob Owens comments on at length. If they are acting according to their training then their training appears insufficient and inappropriate to the situations they are encountering. In my experience whenever people are doing the opposite of what they should be doing under the circumstance it is because they are doing what they believe they must to avoid being blamed when things go wrong. EVERYONE wants to avoid blame. Always. It’s why people’s management style is often ass-backward of what it should be. That is when they should provide specific guidance to their subordinates they are a ghost and nowhere to be found and conversely when the they should allow their subordinates freedom of action they over-supervise them. In both cases the leader/manager is doing what he believes he must to avoid having blame assigned to him should things go wrong. However you cannot avoid all blame, can you? Learning to accept this reality and still do what is right regardless of any unfair criticism you may receive is part of growing up.

So the question is what are the cops afraid of being blamed for it situations like this? What are they afraid they will be scolded about, criticized for, sanctioned or sued for? This not only includes the individual cops, but the police chain of command and the city government as well. Obviously the individual cops fear displeasing some person or entity that can affect their ability to by groceries and keep a roof over their heads. People are paranoid about catching diseases these days, especially the millennial generation it seems, so that could be a factor in the cops’ odd standoffish behavior. All in all though it’s just puzzling. By seeking to avoid blame they just end up with more heaped upon them.

James, the cops’ use of the collapsible baton appears tentative and ineffectual. What tactics, techniques and procedures would you recommend for using a baton to subdue an EDP? This would be useful information even for civilians. Particularly those who have an EDP in their home. After all if you call for the cops to have your crazy relative hauled away when he acts up they’re liable to shoot him dead when he attacks them instead. Then won’t the rest of the family have something to say?

-James

“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you….You’ll be a Man, my Son."

- Rudyard Kipling, “IF”, 1910

- Applause for NYPD move to allow turbans for Sikhs in uniform

“Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help.”

- Thomas Sowell

Vibrant diversity is changing the appearance of the NYPD.

The U.S. Army is also allowing Sikhs to keep their hair long and wear beards and turbans on duty as well. Based on the public affairs releases I'm not sure at this point whether this is a blanket policy decision now or if the service is making exceptions to grooming standards on a case by case basis to recruit individuals with sought after skills. Like doctors and such. The rational for military and police personnel to have short hair and be clean shaven in the modern era was for reasons of health and safety. Short hair is easier to keep clean and doesn’t attract fleas, lice and other parasites under austere and unsanitary field conditions. Long hair can get caught in dangerous moving machinery resulting in horrific disfiguring injury. Long hair and beards can interfere with wearing a helmet and/or a breathing apparatus. Your gas mask won’t seal properly and keep out the poison gas if you have big soup-catcher beard. Wrapping your head in a couple yards of colored cloth won’t protect it from penetrating injury anywhere near as well as a Kevlar helmet. In Medieval times Norman knights shaved the back of their necks so their helmets would fit better. Finally not having long hair and a beard denies the enemy a painful handle in hand to hand combat. No less than Alexander the Great commanded his men to be clean shaven so they couldn’t be grabbed by the beard in battle.

Another tenant of the Sikh religion is that they must carry a sword or kirpan dagger everywhere they go so that they are prepared to “fight against injustice”. However, since the law in most modern societies prohibits going armed in public with edged weapons, Sikhs living in modern societies have taken to carrying a picture or carving of a sword on their persons. If Sikhs are willing to make this concession to modernity, then why cannot serving Sikhs just carry a picture of long hair, a beard and a turban with them? That doesn’t seem like an unreasonable compromise to make for the sake of heath and safety , as well as the esprit de corps that comes with uniformity of appearance in a military, or paramilitary, organization, does it?

Nevertheless the-powers-that-be that be have decided to allow Sikhs to be "different” on account of their religious beliefs. My question then is that if health and safety and uniformity of appearance are no longer to be overriding considerations in setting grooming standards for police and military organizations, if all kinds of exceptions are to be made based on religious and cultural affiliation, then why not LET EVERBODY grow their hair long and wear facial hair? Sikhs, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Eastern Orthodox priests, females, males, everyone! Why must only Christian, Buddhist and secular males in the service be subjected to the ritual humiliation of having their hair and beards shorn?

Sheriff Clarke: For 8 Years Obama Has 'Rubbed White Peoples' Nose in the Stain of Slavery'—He Can't Let Go

“Whoever sows injustice reaps calamity, and the rod they wield in fury will be broken.”

- Proverbs 22:8 (NIV)

“In reference to the horrendous number of homicides in Chicago and President Barack Obama's pracice of dividing people by race, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said Black Lives Matter never marches in Chicago and Obama, for eight years, has been rubbing "white people's nose in the stain of slavery" because he cannot let the issue go, and wants America to wallow in racial division.”

"He's about 150 years removed from slavery," said the sheriff. "Nobody said forget about it, but you have to be able to move on at some point. And he will not allow America to do that."

CCW Justifiable Shooting Increases Homicide Numbers

"Wherever the criminal classes use weapons, the respectable classes also adopt them for private defense. The police all the world over share the trait of never being on the scene when wanted."

- Captain Hugh B.C. Pollard, "The Book of the Pistol & Revolver” (1917)

"The killing of a bad man shouldn't trouble one any more than the killing of a rat or an ugly cat or a vicious dog."

- James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok, Frontier Lawman

More bad guys getting killed. But is that a bad thing?

Saturday, December 31, 2016