Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Law Enforcement category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Law Enforcement’ Category

When I read articles like this one, I want to punch the author for being this dishonest or this ill-informed. Ill-informed diatribes like this don’t get us to a solution on stopping school shootings. In his ill-informed rant, Scarborough wrote “More than 90 percent of Americans agree that Congress should pass tougher background checks. More than 80 percent of Americans at least somewhat favor a ban on “bump stocks” that make rifles fire much like automatic weapons. And nearly 80 percent believe that assault-style weapons should be banned.”

Guess what, Joe? You’ve been pumping out this BS about tougher background checks for years. It’s a myth. Whether a person buys a gun at a gun show or at a gun shop, the dealer must perform a background check. The so-called ‘gun show loophole’ is a myth. As for banning bump stocks, I’m totally fine with that. Nobody needs an automatic weapon. Finally, Scarborough’s elitism and ignorance is showing when he talks about “assault-style weapons.” The difference between “assault-style weapons” and regular semi-automatic weapons are entirely cosmetic.

Banning assault-style weapons is a feel-good thing that won’t affect a solution. The old liberal saw that ‘Well, if it would save one innocent life, it’s worth it’ is hogwash. That change won’t save a single life. Period. Earlier in the article, Scarborough wrote this:

And once again, I and many other reasonable conservatives find ourselves at odds with GOP — read: National Rifle Association — orthodoxy.

Apparently, Joe isn’t bright enough to understand that the NRA isn’t an evil boogeyman. The NRA is a potent political force because it’s made up of people who feel passionately about guns and gun safety. The NRA is We The People, not some bunch of right-wing lunatics.

Rants like Scarborough’s do more harm than good. It’s what makes conservatives distrust liberals like him. He should step out of his liberal echochamber and watch thoughtful shows like this:

One of Gutfeld’s panelists was Tyrus. Elitists will roll their eyes when they hear that he’s a professional wrestler. These elitists will ignore the fact that he used to be a licensed body guard. Here’s his thoughts on how to prevent these shootings:

This is coming from being an executive of security and, for a short stint, I was a teacher. When I was listening to this, first of all, if we outlawed guns tomorrow, no more guns in this country, all you would do would be opening the business market to the black market. That’s just not who we are. We have freedom of speech and we’re allowed to have guns. When 9/11 happened and the planes crashed into the Towers, airports were changed forever. Our children are getting hit. It’s time to change the schools forever. There’s a population out there, and I’ve checked — they didn’t have the new stats out but they had last year’s stats — 4.3% unemployment rate of returning veterans. That’s 435,000 trained men who have eyes and ears. We need to have them in schools.

Hardening soft targets makes sense. This notion that we don’t want the nation’s children exposed to guns is dangerous. It’s time we admitted that gun-free zones are where these killers feast. They know they don’t have to worry about getting shot.

Another thing that isn’t talked about is how many of these mass shooters were on the FBI’s radar with very specific information, only to not get kept under scrutiny. That’s leading to people on social media starting a new hashtag: #SeeSomethingSaySomethingDoSomething. That’s because the government failed us. According to this article, “police responded to his home 39 times over a seven-year period.”

Scarborough didn’t mention that in his anti-gun diatribe. Isn’t it time we held the FBI accountable for their failures? That likely wouldn’t sit well with Scarborough’s pro-government tendencies. He’d probably join with other liberals in singing the ‘Republicans hate law enforcement’ anthem. When government makes a deadly mistake, should we pretend that everything is fine? I don’t think so.

While elitists like Scarborough predictably retreat to their ‘let’s ban guns’ corner, people living in the real world attempt to find a solution. It’s a shame that elitists don’t think things through and pursue a solution.

This morning, I received this announcement from the Dave Bentrud for Stearns County Sheriff campaign. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve known Dave and his family for 20+ years. I’ll admit that I’ve got a pro-Dave Bentrud bias. That being said, it also gives me the ability to verify some of the statements included in Dave’s statement.

For instance, Chief Bentrud mentioned taking “a lead role in Central Minnesota in the battle against human trafficking and the victimization of young girls and women.” That isn’t surprising to me. Before he got the title of Waite Park Chief of Police, Bentrud was a member of the St. Cloud Police Department. One of the things I spoke with him about back then was how St. Cloud could get ahead of the problem St. Cloud was starting to experience at the time.

The problem then was with Twin Cities gangs driving to St. Cloud and looting. It didn’t take long for that problem to get addressed, then solved. When Chief Bentrud says that he wants to take a lead role “in the battle against human trafficking and the victimization of young girls and women”, rest assured that he’ll figure it out. In fact, count on that happening sooner rather than later.

I’m strongly encouraging you to visit Dave’s campaign website so you can get to know him. I can attest to the fact that Dave is who is able to work with everyone because he’s a professional first. This office is a nonpartisan office. Having known Dave all these years, I’m confident that he’ll respect that part of the job if elected.

Saying that Twitter is rendering a different verdict than the Steinle jury reached is understatement. The sanctuary city lowlifes that reached their not-guilty verdicts should be ashamed of themselves. Earlier tonight, the Steinle jury ruled Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty. Tonight, the Steinle jury “found a Mexican man not guilty of murder in the killing of a woman on a San Francisco pier that set off a national immigration debate two years ago. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.”

La Raza, the vast majority of the Democratic Party and others who don’t care about the rule of law undoubtedly are quietly rejoicing. That rejoicing will be short-lived. Andy McCarthy just posted this tweet, in which he stated “It is a federal felony, up to 10 yrs’ imprisonment, to be an illegal alien in possession of firearm (18 USC secs.922(g), 924). DOJ should indict Zarate if haven’t already. Sentence consecutive to today’s state gun conviction could keep him in prison 13 yrs or so.”

Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions issued this statement:

When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk. San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle. While the State of California sought a murder charge for the man who caused Ms. Steinle’s death-a man who would not have been on the streets of San Francisco if the city simply honored an ICE detainer-the people ultimately convicted him of felon in possession of a firearm.

The Department of Justice will continue to ensure that all jurisdictions place the safety and security of their communities above the convenience of criminal aliens. I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.

Democrats have threatened shutting the government down if Republicans don’t cave on DACA. If Democrats continue to insist on that, they’ll get trampled by the biggest Caterpillar they’ve ever seen. Based on what’s trending on Twitter, I’m betting that those people will be more than motivated that The Wall be built immediately. I’m also betting that they’ll be motivated to vote out any dirtbag standing in the way of building the wall.

This video is of Jim Steinle testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

In his testimony that day, Jim Steinle said “In fact the day she was killed we were walking arm-in-arm on Pier 14 in San Francisco enjoying a wonderful day together. Suddenly a shot rang out. Kate fell and looked at me and said ‘Help me dad.’ Those are last words I will ever hear from my daughter.” The Democrats on the Committee have Kate Steinle’s blood on their hands.

Jim Steinle couldn’t help his daughter that afternoon the way any father would’ve liked to have helped. I’m betting that breaks his heart to this day. Let’s help Jim receive justice in a different way. Let’s defeat the dirtbags that didn’t care about his daughter’s safety.

Further, let’s hope that SF law enforcement officials that ignored ICE’s request that the murderer be turned over and the City of San Francisco get hit with a massive wrongful death lawsuit that costs them 10s, if not 100s, of millions of dollars.

Finally, when The Wall is finally built, it should be named Kate’s Wall. That’d be fitting, wouldn’t it?

If this story doesn’t get your attention in a positive way, I don’t know what will. The article starts by saying “A Minnesota farmer was presented with a $7,000 reward for finding a missing teenage girl and then just moments later gave the money to the girl, who was a captive of three men for a month. Earl Melchert, 65, of Barrett, turned the reward money over to the  girl Friday at police headquarters.”

That’s the uplifting part of the article. Unfortunately, there’s a disgusting part to the article. That’s when Fox9 News reported that the “15-year-old girl was abducted from her home on Aug. 8 in Alexandria, Minn., and taken to an abandoned house where she was physically and sexually assaulted.” According to the article, the “three suspects” have “been charged with kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, assault and false imprisonment.”

The girl’s identity wasn’t revealed by Fox9 News because they don’t “name alleged victims of sexual assault without their consent.” What they did report was that “the girl escaped Sept. 5 by swimming across a lake. Melchert found her when she came running toward him.” Here’s a picture of Minnesota’s newest hero and Alexandria Police Chief Rik Wyffels:

Here’s hoping the young lady’s kidnappers get imprisoned for a very long time.

Now that the Las Vegas police have released the video disproving Michael Bennett’s statements following the Mayweather-McGregor fight, the question now becomes whether NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will suspend Michael Bennett for lying about what happened that night. That night, Bennett accused Las Vegas police officers of telling him that if he moved, they’d “blow my fucking head off”, adding that “I felt helpless as I lay there on the ground handcuffed facing the real-life threat of being killed.” Bennett also said that the officers “singled me out and pointed their guns at me for doing nothing more than simply being a black man in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

The police videos “shows a 3-man police team, made up of 2 Hispanic officers and 1 black officer, identify Bennett as a suspicious person who did not get down on the ground as ordered during the hotel sweep.” This TMZ video goes through Bennett’s claims in great detail:

According to TMZ, the police detained Bennett but didn’t arrest him after they saw him hunched over and trying to escape the casino after they’d told people to stop running and to lay flat on the ground. At no point did any of the police officers threaten to blow Bennett’s [expletive] head off.

If anyone thinks that Bennett’s lie will help him or the NFL, they’re foolish. It isn’t possible that this turns out well for Bennett or the NFL. The question now becomes whether NFL Commissioner Goodell has the spine to suspend Bennett for lying about a police officer. Commissioner Goodell has the authority to do that under the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy, which states “Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

  1. Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence;
  2. Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;
  3. Violent or threatening behavior toward another employee or a third party in any workplace setting;
  4. Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation;
  5. Illegal possession of a gun or other weapon (such as explosives, toxic substances, and the like), or possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting;
  6. Illegal possession, use, or distribution of alcohol or drugs;
  7. Possession, use, or distribution of steroids or other performance enhancing substances;
  8. Crimes involving cruelty to animals as defined by state or federal law;
  9. Crimes of dishonesty such as blackmail, extortion, fraud, money laundering, or racketeering;
  10. Theft-related crimes such as burglary, robbery, or larceny;
  11. Disorderly conduct;Crimes against law enforcement, such as obstruction, resisting arrest, or harming a police officer or other law enforcement officer;
  12. Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and
  13. Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

Disobeying a police officer’s command certainly fits under the heading of disorderly conduct. It likely fits under the heading of undermining or putting at risk the integrity of the NFL, too. At some point, Commissioner Goodell must display common sense, which he hasn’t done the last 3-4 years. Commissioner Goodell must also display some leadership, which he’s never shown.

Personally, I’m betting that Commissioner Goodell won’t show a spine. I’m betting he’ll let Bennett disrespect police officer with impunity. I’m betting that’s what happens because that’s who Goodell is.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

When I wrote that Daryle Jenkins was Antifa’s unofficial spokesman, I highlighted how he spun things to make his cause seem justified. There’s no way Antifa can spin this article successfully.

For instance, when it’s said that “The vast majority of the 4,000-some protesters who descended on Berkeley’s Civic Center Park last Sunday to demonstrate against a small group of Trump supporters were perfectly peaceful, but some of the 100 to 200 black-clad Antifa there ganged up on the Trump fans, punching and kicking them. Other Antifa carried colorful shields painted with the words ‘no hate’ to build a barrier that Antifa claims is needed to protect anti-racist protesters from the police and right-wingers. The activist said Antifa takes to the streets ‘out of love’, keeping nonviolent protesters safe from right wing protesters and the police.”

That isn’t just spin. It’s an outright lie. This video provides verifiable proof that that isn’t what’s happening:

According to the newscaster, Antifa protesters “broke through police barricades during a rally against hate and clashed with right wing activists.” It’s impossible to explain why Antifa rioters needed to break through police barricades and fight with right wing activists while protecting “nonviolent protesters from right wing protesters.” If there’s a police barricade separating the non-violent protesters and Antifa, then all that’s needed to ‘protect’ Antifa is for them to stay separated. Let the police do their job of protecting the peace.

Later in the article, an Antifa activist said “if the police try to attack protesters, Antifa gives other people the space to stay safe.” According to the article, “violence is justified, the Bay Area Antifa member said, because the far right is trying to create a fascist state.”

I’m pretty certain that thoughtful people might dispute who’s trying to create a fascist state. Activists that crash through police barricades to attack peaceful protesters aren’t likely to be considered peaceful protesters. They’re most likely to be called anarchists and/or rioters.

Anyone who’s followed Sen. McCain’s political career knows that he’s had a holier-than-thou attitude. When he co-authored the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation, his interviews on the legislation focused on perceived corruption rather than on whether the legislation violated people’s civil rights. Sen. McCain insisted that ridding society of corruption, whether it was real or imagined, was more important than protecting a person’s civil rights.

Later, Sen. McCain helped push through legislation that tied the hands of interrogators interrogating terrorists, supposedly because these EITs were helping terrorists recruit more terrorists and because the EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) were hurting our standing in the world. The truth is that a handful of countries were complaining about the EITs but that the problem was more imagined than real.

Now, Sen. McCain is criticizing President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, saying “”No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold.”

It’s indisputable that Sen. McCain is an American military hero. Spending years in the Hanoi Hilton bought him that honor. As a politician, though, he isn’t an American hero. It’s important to separate those identities. Sen. McCain isn’t a team player. He’s loved playing the part of a maverick essentially the last half of his political career.

I salute McCain, the war hero and POW. I’d ignore Sen. McCain, the politician, if he didn’t keep jumping into the middle of controversies, then making ill-advised decisions.

The Left’s latest chanting point is that President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio means that he might pardon his friends facing federal investigations. That’s why it isn’t surprising to read Phillip Bump’s article, which reads like a liberal hissy fit on the subject.

Bump writes “The broader question raised by the pardon, then, is where Trump would draw the line. If he’s willing to pardon Joe Arpaio for ignoring a court order in service of a political goal Trump embraces, why wouldn’t he pardon another individual he respects for similarly ignoring a demand from the court.”

First, Bump’s premise is beyond flimsy. Presupposing that members of President Trump’s administration have committed crimes isn’t supported by any investigations. Until there’s more than unsubstantiated allegations of crimes being committed, I’ll ignore Bump’s liberal bias. The naming of a special counsel doesn’t prove anything except that Democrats will do anything in their attempt to delegitimize President Trump’s election. I’ll categorize that as the longest case of sour grapes in political history.

If there’s any doubt that this is the Democrats’ latest talking point to delegitimize President Trump’s election, check out this interview:

Then check out how similar this interview is to the first interview:

The clear message that I think President Trump is sending is that he isn’t like President Obama because he’s serious about protecting Arizona’s people from drug cartels and human traffickers. If Democrats want to pick that fight, let’s get it on. The Obama administration found a liberal judge to torment Sheriff Arpaio with a BS verdict.

Further, the Obama administration wasn’t serious about fighting illegal immigration. That’s indisputable because they frequently tied law enforcement’s hands behind their backs on immigration:

A group of immigration agents filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration Thursday, saying they are sick of being told not to do their jobs, a feeling intensified by the president’s new non-deportation policy and a previous memo directing them not to arrest certain illegal immigrants.

Sen. McCain, Sen. Flake, former President Obama and essentially all of the Democratic Party serving in DC have fought against enforcing the Tex-Mex border. Most importantly, they’ve fought against protecting law-abiding U.S. citizens.

As for the possibility of a president pardoning people whenever they want, that’s always been a possibility. There’s no reason to think that President Trump will pardon his political cronies, partially because his campaign staffers aren’t in trouble. The other faulty part of Bump’s premise is that there isn’t any proof anyone’s broken any laws. Why would anyone lie if they didn’t need to?

According to this St. Cloud Times article, a “Level 3 predatory offender will be returning to the St. Cloud community after serving his prison sentence, according to the St. Cloud Police Department. James Ross Forbes II, 30, of St. Cloud, engaged in sexual contact with a two-year-old girl he was babysitting, according to the St. Cloud Police Department. The contact included penetration. Forbes also had a history of sexual contact with a seven-year-old boy, according to police.”

What type of sick bastard engages in “sexual contact with a two-year-old girl”? What type of society essentially looks the other way when that type of predator gets a slap on the wrist? According to the article, “The St. Cloud Police Department is holding a community notification meeting at 6 p.m. Aug. 28 at the St. Cloud Police Department, Training Room C, 101-11th Avenue North. Representatives from the police department and the Minnesota Department of Corrections will be available to provide information on public safety.” It’s worse than that, though. The article says that “Forbes plans to move to the 100 block of East St. German Street on Aug. 21.” This is what Forbes looks like:

I did a little digging into Minnesota’s FAQ Page on sexual predators. Here’s one of the FAQs:

Q: What is a risk level?

Here’s Minnesota’s reply:

Risk levels are assigned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) not the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).
Risk Levels are assigned to registrants who are released from prison on or after January 1, 1997.
Risk level one indicates the least likelihood to re-offend. Risk level two indicates a moderate likelihood to re-offend. Risk level three indicates high likelihood to re-offend.
Information about Level 3 offenders is available on the DOC web site.

According to the article, Forbes “also had a history of sexual contact with a seven-year-old boy” prior to having “contact with a two-year-old girl he was babysitting.”

According to this fact sheet on sex offender treatment in prison, “Seventeen percent of Minnesota inmates are incarcerated for a governing sex offense, and an additional 14 percent have a prior felony conviction for a sex offense1. More than 90 percent will be released back into the community. Long-term, intensive residential sex offender treatment is used to reduce their risk of reoffending.”

Rather than having to waste time holding community notification meetings, I’ve got a simpler solution. Don’t let Level II or Level III sex offenders out of prison. Any predator that’s penetrated a 7-year-old buy and two-year-old girl” isn’t capable of being rehabilitated. Further, any government that won’t protect children from sexual predators has failed its primary responsibility of protecting its citizens. That government needs to be replaced by a government that puts its highest priority into protecting little children.

Finally, rewriting these sexual predator statutes is required. It should be written this fall and passed the first week of session next winter. No research is needed. Either politicians are serious or they’re part of the problem.

UPDATE: This morning, I wrote about the Level-3 sex offender that’s moving into an apartment on St. Cloud’s east side. Just a few minutes ago, I tried visiting the article to see what the comments were to the article. The article had disappeared. I suspect that it was pulled quite a while ago because there weren’t any comments. On a hot button topic like this, there’d normally be 25-50 comments.

The question now becomes about why the Times pulled the article from their website. Another question for the Times is why they ran the article on Saturday. Was it because they weren’t informed by the police? I suspect that isn’t why but that’s speculation. Surely, the SCPD knew long before this that this predator was likely to land in St. Cloud. Why weren’t St. Cloud residents notified before this morning?

Whatever the explanation, someone dropped the ball. That’s anything except acceptable.

Technorati: , , , ,

According to this article, Rep. Trent Franks, (R-AZ), has called for Robert Mueller’s resignation as special counsel. According to the article, “Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey have been longtime allies dating back to 2003 when the men both worked in Washington, Mueller as the FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General. Franks cited the pair’s relationship as a reason for Mueller to be disqualified from the probe. ‘Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties,’ Franks said. ‘Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.'”

Gregg Jarrett laid it out perfectly, saying that “the special counsel statute says that if you have a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution”, you cannot serve. It’s mandatory. Jarrett said that the language of the statute says that “you shall disqualify yourself.” It doesn’t suggest the special counsel should look into possible conflicts of interests. The statute says that the special counsel shall disqualify themselves.

The fact that Mueller hasn’t disqualified himself already indicates that Mueller isn’t the ethical man Democrats claim he is. That statute isn’t a suggestion. It’s a command.

Franks continued, saying this:

“Until Mueller resigns, he will be in clear violation of the law, a reality that fundamentally undermines his role as Special Counsel and attending ability to execute the law,” Franks said.

Mueller can’t stand for law and order if he’s selectively enforcing the law. It’s time he step aside ASAP.