Thursday, August 24, 2006

There's a lesson in this story.

There are at least TWO very important lessons in the story below. Read the story first.
Cops: Rider gave cabbie a bad tip -- a stolen gun

Boonton man arrested for weapon possession

BY ROB SEMAN
DAILY RECORD

MORRISTOWN -- A taxi driver was arrested Tuesday for accepting a stolen gun that a fare gave him on the way to the airport, police said

Police were called to E-Plus taxi service on Morris Street around 8 a.m. after an employee reported that a co-worker showed him a handgun he received earlier in the day.

The driver, Robert J. Martin, 44, of Boonton, was called back to the company headquarters, where police were waiting. Martin told police that a woman who had been driven to the airport earlier that day gave him the gun and a Swiss Army knife because she did not want to get caught by security checks at the airport.

Martin took Morristown police to his home on Liberty Street in Boonton and gave police the black, semi-automatic 9 mm handgun, which he had placed in a locked closet. The gun was loaded.

Martin was charged with possession of a weapon and receiving stolen property. He was released on $5,000 bail. Morristown police also notified authorities in Florida, where the passenger was traveling.

The owner of E-Plus, George Enslin, declined to comment about the incident on Wednesday, except to say, "it wasn't his fault."

First lesson, if you're going to the airport to fly someplace, leave your weapons at home.

Second lesson, if someone gives you a gun as a tip, YOU have two choices to make immediatly. You either a.) Call the police at once (This should be your only choice, but some of you will want the second one.). OR b.) DO NOT show your tip to fellow cab drivers. By one of Murphy's laws, one of those drivers is bound to be a typical law-abiding citizen, who probably doesn't like you, or doesn't like guns, and is likely to call the cops on you. Anyone who was a TRUE friend, would have advised you to turn it into the police, rather than risking arrest.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

If you ask me, this guy got what he was looking for.

In the story below, you'll read two sides. The father of the intruder's side of the story, and the would be victim's side. With the little foot note by the police, of "...Wesley had a past criminal record." In my humble opinion, Vincent Wesley got what he deserved. If he didn't know better than to menacingly approach an armed woman, than I would guess he wanted to die. If he had only went to her house once, then I'd say there's room for doubt. But he went to her house twice in one night.

Honestly, I feel sorry for the woman. She's the one who took a human life. I'm sure she's suffering for it too. I just hope she doesn't have to defend herself against that criminal's friends and family.

Homeowner Fatally Shoots Would Be Intruder
Last Update: 8/14/2006
(PENSACOLA, Fla.) August 14 -- A grieving father - Ronnie Wesley: "I don't like it.. the way they did my son. Acting like he tried to steal something. I don't like it."

A scared woman - Pam Hagan: "Very upset. My sister is not able to come out of the house. She's traumatized by Saturday night's shooting."

Hagan's sister, a woman in her 50's, fatally shot 29 year old Vincent Wesley, after Escambia County Sheriff's deputies say Wesley tried to enter her Pensacola home twice that night.

According to reports, Wesley climbed the woman's fence, approached the house, and began shaking her door. When she showed him a gun, he ran off, but he wasn't done. According to deputies, Wesley then ran out to the street, tried to carjack someone, and came back to the woman's home when the carjacking was unsuccessful.

Hagan: "At that time, my sister is trying to close the door. When she came out to close the door, her house door closed and locked behind her and there she was, face to face, with a man coming at her. He never said a word to her. She fired once. It didn't stop him. She fired a second time and he went down."

The state of Florida has a law that states, a homeowner does not have to retreat back to their home, that they do have the right to protect their home and property.

Sgt. Mike Ward with the Escambia Co. Sheriff's Dept.: "If someone is trying to enter you residence or trying to harm you and put you in fear in anyway, you can defend yourself to include deadly force and it appears in this case, that's exactly what happened."

But, Wesley's father says his son was never trying to enter the house. He says his boy was dealing with mental problems. Wesley: "He was hearing voices and stuff. He was running from the voices when that lady shot him. He wasn't trying to break in and enter. He had a job."

Meanwhile, as both sides deal with the grief and the loss, Hagan says she and her sister are dealing with harrassment from Wesley's friends and neighbors.

The Escambia County Sheriff's office says Wesley had a past criminal record.

First guns, now swords, what's next, rocks?

First the Brits have virtually banned guns. Now they're going to ban swords and knives. What's next, rocks, or baseball...sorry, Cricket bats? WHEN are they going to get it through to their thick English skulls, that it's not the TOOLS they should go after. It's the people who wield the tools in a criminal manner! They just don't get it. Much as I like Great Britain, right now, you couldn't PAY me to go there. I'd be too afraid I'd be arrested and thrown into jail if I defended myself from some ruffian who might try to mug me.

BBC NEWS
Swords ban to beat violent crime
A crackdown on the sale of swords has been launched as part of a campaign to tackle knife crime and violence.

Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson announced laws to ban swords unless sold for legitimate reasons.

Shops selling swords will need a licence, as will businesses dealing with non-domestic knives and other bladed weapons such as machetes.

The measures are the latest steps from the Scottish Executive to curb the problem of knife crime.

They come weeks after a nationwide knife amnesty.

A total of 12,645 blades - including lock knives, machetes, swords, meat cleavers, bayonets and axes - were handed in during the five-week amnesty.

For the rest of the story, click here

Monday, August 14, 2006

Happy VJ Day!

To those of you who don't know, 61 years ago today, Japan FINALLY surrenedered, ending World War II. Unfortunately, the supreme war criminal, Emperor Hirohito escaped punishment, in order to facilitate the final surrender. It's too bad he got away. Hopefully, God gave him his come uppence when he passed away back in 1989.

Boo, hoo, hoo. She got "targeted" after her little Op-ed about her brother's death.

Gee, I could just cry...NOT. Ms. Jenny Price, (Freelance writer and research scholar at the UCLA Center for the Study of Women.) was just "speechless" at the attacks on her account of her brother's death.

When you dare to call for the removal of a natural (Or, God given) right, don't be surprised if you piss some people off. In your zeal to "protect" us from the "evil" gun, you've made the common mistake of overlooking that:

1. Guns don't have morals, feelings, or intelligence. GUNS, do not start violence. They are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to ascribe morals and intelligence to firearms is a typical Anti-Freedom ploy.

2. However, if you are determined to go after inanimate objects and blame them for death and destruction, there are items that cause way more deaths each and every year, that no one seems bothered about. Why not go after cars? In 2003, the CDC reports that over 44,000 people died as a result of auto accidents in the USA alone!

3. And what about medical mistakes? In 2000, it was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that at least 225,000 people die each year from medical mistakes. Maybe we should ban doctors?

My point is this. If you want to be active for something that will protect human life, why not be active AGAINST gun control? Optimistic estimates are that at least 2,000,000 people use firearms defensively each year. FBI statistics put this number considerably lower. Somewhere in the region of 750,000 or so. Still quite a large number, and considerably more than the number of people who are maliciously killed or injured with firearms.

Take away guns, and you take away ALL those people who were saved by the presence of a gun. Gun control only affects the law-abiding citizens. It does not stop the criminally minded. IF a person wants a gun to commit a crime, they will find a way to get one.

This has been proven in other areas. Back in 1919, when Prohibition started, people still wanted alcohol. They found it, they made it, they drank it. Prohibition also helped increase the size and power of organized crime. If we prohibit gun ownership by the private citizen, all you're doing is creating a nation of victims. IF that is what you want, why not move to Great Britain?

Oh, and hows that war on drugs going? We're really stopping all the drug users with prohibition, aren't we.

Look, I'm sure what happened to you and your family was a tradedy. But creating a breeding ground for more tragedy will not bring your brother and his fiancee back. What I find odd though, LA has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the land, and they did not protect your brother, and his financee. Maybe it's the anti-gun laws that need to be stopped, before they kill again!

I have to add one more comment here. To all the guys who stay up till 3:00AM in their underwear, typing these unwarranted attacks on the anti-gun types like Ms. Jenny Price (Freelance writer and research scholar at the UCLA Center for the Study of Women.), you guys have GOT to get a life. Name calling is NEVER, I repeat, NEVER justified, even if they deserve it. It only belittles your own political stance. And I think some of you owe Ms. Price an apology for calling her story about her brother's death into question.

But that's just my opinion, like everything else on this blog.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Is it Mohammed, or Muhammed? Or is it just plain hipocrisy?

For those who might like to know, some "Mohammed" icons.

Muhammad (((:~{>
Muhammad as a pirate (((P~{>
Muhammad on a bad turban day ))):~{>
Muhammad with sand in his eye (((;~{>
Muhammad wearing sunglasses (((B~{>
Mohammad with a lit bomb in his turban *-O)):~{>
The devil mo ]:~{>
Mohammed with a nuclear bomb in his turban. @=(((:~{>
Muhammad being shot by Starship Enterprise =-o * * * (((:~{>
Muhammad sees a Danish cartoonist !((((8~{o>

The above come from the Mohammed Image Archive on Zombietime.com.

Also from the same place, the following image that I found of interest.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Yet another Dr. who doesn't know a gun from his anus.

Unsafe Gun Storage Endangering Teens

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay ReporterWed Aug 9, 7:02 PM ET

WEDNESDAY, Aug. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Parents with small children usually store firearms safely enough in the home, but that's not always the case when their kids are teens, U.S. researchers report.

"It seems that parents are more concerned about gun safety when they have really young kids and aren't that concerned when they have older kids," explained lead researcher Renee M. Johnson, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Parents seem to believe that older children are old enough to act responsibly and use good judgment, Johnson said.

Statistics show that about one-third of American households with children also contain guns, and many gun injuries among children take place in the home. Earlier studies have found that while safe storage practices can reduce the risk of gun-linked injury or suicide, 14 percent to 30 percent of people with guns keep at least one firearm fully loaded. In addition, about 43 percent store one gun in an unlocked place.

Overall, about 2 million U.S. children may live in homes with loaded, unlocked firearms, the researchers said.

Their study suggests the danger varies according to children's age, however.

"We found that parents of older kids had less safe firearms practices and had their firearms stored in a manner that is easy to get to," Johnson said. "For example, parents of adolescents were more likely to have their firearms stored unlocked and loaded than if there were younger kids in the house," she said.

Johnson said noted that a significant number of U.S. teens die each year from gun injury. "Adolescents are more likely to die from firearm injury and suicide," she said. "And a lot of kids are getting guns from the home."

The report was published in the August issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

In the study, Johnson's team questioned nearly 400 parents who kept firearms in their homes. The researchers asked about attitudes and beliefs about guns, ownership and storage practices.

They found that 22 percent kept a loaded gun, 31.5 percent had an unlocked gun, and 8.3 percent had an unlocked, loaded gun.

In just over 28 percent of homes, all the children were between 13 to 17 years of age, and these were the homes with the highest rates of unsafe gun-storage practices. For example, 42 percent of these homes contained an unlocked gun, compared with about 29 percent of homes with children 12 years of age or younger.

"Parents are concerned about their younger kids, but forget about the older kids," Johnson said. "They just aren't thinking about the risks."

One expert said too many U.S. homes have guns, and, in many cases, accidents are just waiting to happen.

"The notion that a gun in the home is useful for self-defense in the advent of an intrusion is belied by the data," said Dr. David L. Katz, an associate professor of public health and director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine. "A gun is 40 times more likely to injure its owner or a member of the household than it is to be used in warding off an intruder," he said.****

Far too many homes in which children of any age live have the unnecessary hazard of an accessible gun, Katz said. "Ideally, fewer people would own guns. Nearly as good is having all gun owners store their firearms unloaded and locked," he said.

**** You'll note the quote about a gun being 40 times more likely to injure it's owner or other member of the household. This is from the NOW DISCREDITED Kellerman study. Check out Guncite for relavant info on this particular problem. Needless to say, Ms. Johnson and Dr. Katz, wouldn't know a gun if it jumped up and bit their butts!

As for the comment about
far too many homes in which children of any age live have the unnecessary hazard of an accessible gun...
I guess they forgot about the Carpenter household. On August 23, 2000, there were no "accessible guns," because they were all locked up, as required by California state law. The guns were unloaded, and out of reach of the children who had been trained to use and handle them safely. The end result, one maniac dead by police, two INNOCENT children dead by the maniac. All because the gun was locked up, UN-accessible to those who knew how to use it. Thank you Dr. Katz and Ms. Johnson for your concern.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Dr. Lott is wrong??? Yeah, then I must be the King of Siam.

Comments on the controversy over Lott and Mustard's article on the effect of shall issue laws on crime rates, by David Friedman


As a result of a usenet argument and general interest in the subject, I have recently become involved in the controversy over the Lott and Mustard paper. In addition to webbing John's responses to his critics, with appropriate links, I thought it would also be worth adding some of my own comments. Here are some of them.

Teret's Double Standard

In his critique of the Lott and Mustard article, Stephen Teret objects that they did not allow for a variety of complications that might be relevant to the relationship they were measuring, and concludes that their results are worthless. Quite aside from whether his claims are true (Lott argues that they are not), it is interesting to see how his standards change when he is dealing with a study whose results he agrees with.

Take a look at the story describing a study done by Dr. Garen Wintemute on the relation between "junk" guns and crime. It consisted of collecting a sample of 5,360 Californians between 21 and 25 years of age who legally bought handguns in 1988, collecting criminal histories, and looking at the relation between what kind of guns people bought and how likely they were to subsequently commit a crime.

According to an online description of the research "Associations were assessed by relative risks adjusted for gender and race or ethnicity." It seems clear the study did not control for income. On average, poorer people are both more likely to be convicted of crimes and more likely to buy cheap guns if they are available--it does not follow that if cheap guns are banned, poor people will stop committing crimes. I predict with some confidence that if Wintemute had redone his study, looking at cars instead of guns, he would have discovered that cheap cars cause crime too.

Wintemute's work, judging by the online examples, is legitimate research, although done at (statistically speaking) a fairly primitive level and obviously intended for propagandistic purposes. The authors take much less care than Lott and Mustard do to control for relevant variables, to check results by rerunning the regressions on a variety of different assumptions, use all available data, report potential problems, and the like. Unlike Lott and Mustard, they have no direct data at all on the results of the policy (banning cheap handguns) that they are arguing for.

" "I would say that it's very good evidence that those guns are problematic," said Stephen Teret, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University and a good friend of Wintemute."

This is Round Two
(adapted from a usenet post of mine)

This is really the second round of the battle over statistics between economists and sociologists, criminologist's, et. al., the first being fought over Isaac Ehrlich's work on the effect of the death penalty and more generally over the issue of deterrence. In each case, if you look at the history of the articles, you find the same pattern:

Time A: Statistical work is being done by non-economist non-statisticians, typically criminologist's, sociologists, physicians etc., and is relatively primitive--on the order of comparing average murder rates in all states with the death penalty to average murder rates in all states without, or selecting a small sample of counties, without offering any basis for choosing those instead of others, and reporting what happened in those counties after a shall issue law was adopted, without controlling for any other variables. The results of this work--that the death penalty does not deter and that laws permitting concealed carry increase the murder rate--are routinely reported as scientific facts by people in the field.

Time B: An economist (Ehrlich, Lott) does a study an order of magnitude more sophisticated, using both time series and longitudinal data, controlling for relevant factors insofar as data is available, using techniques such as second stage least squares to try to control for problems with unobservable variables, etc. It produces a result that the people in the field don't like.

Time C: People in the field publish furious attacks on the economist and on his study; the latter, insofar as they are legitimate, are arguments showing that there are possible explanations for his results other than the one he gave--which is almost always true, to some degree, of statistical results. These attacks apply a standard of proof enormously higher than that applied to the Time A studies--which the same people happily accepted.

David Friedman's Home Page
Back to my page of links relevant to the controversy

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Gov. Bush Gets It Right!!!

Gov. Bush Gets It Right, Says CCRKBA; Armed Citizens Reduce Crime

7/12/2006 2:41:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Alan Gottlieb or Joe Waldron, 425-454-4911, both of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

BELLEVUE, Wash., July 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush "nailed it" when he told reporters in Tallahassee - in reaction to the state's drop in crime - that armed citizens are part of the equation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

Gov. Bush was quoted in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel noting, "Law abiding citizens that have guns for protection actually probably are part of the reason we have a lower crime rate."

Florida is one of 40 states with "right-to-carry" statutes that give citizens the ability to carry concealed handguns with the proper license. Last year, Florida also passed legislation that enables citizens to "stand their ground" and fight back when attacked in a public place where they have a right to be.

"Gov. Bush has once again demonstrated progressive thinking, and a clear understanding about what works to stop criminals in their tracks," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "Legally-armed citizens are a threat to nobody but criminals, and Florida's crime statistics prove that the presence of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens benefits the entire community. In explaining why crime rates have dropped, we think Gov. Bush nailed it."

"Isn't it ironic," added CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "that while Florida, with an armed citizenry, is enjoying a drop in crime, Washington, D.C., where citizens are legally disarmed, is experiencing a crime epidemic? In the nation's capitol, where the Second Amendment has been literally suspended by municipal government fiat, armed assaults are up 18 percent in the past month and robberies have jumped 14 percent. Yet law-abiding citizens cannot arm themselves for protection. It's an outrage."

"No matter where they live," Gottlieb concluded, "American citizens have a right to defend themselves. Progressive states like Florida with sensible concealed carry and self-defense laws will lead this nation out of the Dark Ages of insane gun control and broken justice systems. This new data shows that the gun control and criminal rights extremists have been wrong, something we've known all along."

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ( http://www.ccrkba.org ) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Monday, May 29, 2006

Memorial Day

This Memorial day, we should all take a moment to reflect on the sacrifices that our veterans have made for our great country, and for us. Those of you who favor the chant of "support our troops, but not their mission," need to realize, if you DON'T support the mission, you're NOT supporting the troops.

Regardless where our military forces are, they all have a mission. If you want to criticize the government, fine, do so. But don't disrespect our troops by not supporting them 100%.

Ask yourself, where would we be today, if in 1944, we chanted "support the troops, but not their mission?" I'll tell you where, we'd either be speaking German, or Japanese.

Friday, May 05, 2006

An oldie, but a goodie!

As much as I found it hard to believe at first, view the statistics below, and make your own judgement.

Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year = 1,500 (all age groups)
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)

Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Taken from the Benton County News Tribune of November 17, 1999.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

FINALLY got to the range!



Well, I finally took this to the range to try it out. IT worked GREAT!!! It fired every round I put through it, no jams, stovepipes or any other type of malfunction, and it appears to be more accurate than I am! I think I'm going to really like this pistol!

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Well, I bought it

Yup, I bought an EAA Witness. Only it's not in 10mm caliber. I couldn't find one of those. It is in the "Wonder finish." And I'm going to order a 10mm conversion kit for it. But overall, I like it in .45ACP. The barrel has a full feed ramp, similar to Para-Ordnance pistols. This makes feeding hollow point ammo easier, and usually without any problems.

Everyone I've talked to on various forums, suggests getting heavier springs. Frankly, I'm thinking of getting lighter springs! The springs in this weapon are HEAVY!

I'll post range report as soon as I get it to the range.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

10mm or .40 S&W

I'm thinking heavily of getting a 10mm auto-pistol. I'm thinking real heavily of getting an EAA Witness Steel frame Wonder Finish 10mm Auto-Pistol. It looks like this.



I know, it looks a lot like the CZ-75B. Well, gee, so did the Bren Ten. The first 10mm auto-pistol was based heavily on the CZ-75 series. I'm told this is a good pistol, not real expensive, and it works!

Monday, January 02, 2006

Bloomberg is after ALL guns

From the New York Post, we get the following.
In what aides said was a swipe at the National
Rifle Association, Bloomberg said, "To those who
distort our laws and aid and abet hardened
criminals, know this: We will not rest until we
secure all the tools we need to protect New
Yorkers from the scourge of illegal guns."

Now, Mayor Bloomberg says he's after "illegal guns." If that's the case, then why do his aides say the above was a swipe at the NRA? The NRA doesn't support the proliferation of "illegal guns." The NRA certainly doesn't distort our laws. Not like the Brady bunch tries to distort our Constitution anyway. The NRA seeks laws that punish the lawless. Bloomberg seeks laws that punish the law-abiding gun-owners of NYC, NY state, and if he can do it, the entire nation. Someone, please send this guy a message that what he seeks is NOT what the rest of the nation wants.

Keep his anti-constitutional NYC laws in NYC. If the rest of us wanted them, we'd all live in NYC.

Saturday, December 31, 2005

MTV on guns?

Thursday night, MTV ran a program called "True Life." The episode for Thursday night was called, "I'm a gun owner." They interviewed 4 people. A gang banger who packs a weapon illegally, a hunter, a victim of crime who now has a permit to carry concealed, and a former gang member who's disabled, and no longer packs a gun, and in fact preaches against guns.

What I don't get is how do they pretend to represent "true life" when you use FOUR subjects, two of whom are or were convicted felons to represent gun owners in America?

When someone mentions "gun owners" to me, I think of the typical law-abiding citizen. In my opinion, anyone who uses a firearm for illegal purposes, such as rape, robbery or homicide, is not a "gun owner." They are a criminal!

Now, I do make an exception for those citizens who live in states with draconian gun laws, who feel a need to protect themselves, but otherwise go about legitimate business. If you live in a place like NYC for instance, it's darn near impossible to get a permit for protection. Unless you're like the Mayor's cousin or something.

But if you're like the scumbag gang-banger, in my opinion, you're not a gun-owner. You're a criminal and should be locked up. Preferably in Siberia.

Friday, December 30, 2005

The gift that keeps on giving part deux

Below is my leg. This is over a month after I've come back from New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, I think NO is probably a very fun place, under different circumstances. But pay attention here. If you take a security job for down there, you are taking your life and health into your own hands. I would recommend that if you are diabetic like I am, stay away.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

The gift that keeps on giving

Well, here it is, more than a month since I left New Orleans, and my right leg is STILL infected. Only now, they tell me I have MRSA. It's some sort of super infection that is immune to most anti-biotics.

This is just fantastic, isn't it.

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

What's keeping this bill from the Governor's desk?

It's called House Bill 4643, or HB4643. This bill would extend a concealed pistol license for up to 180 days if its renewal or denial were not completed in 60 days. This bill was voted on in the Michigan House and passed on July 13, 2005 by a vote of 100 to 5, with 5 others not voting.

It went to the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee on August 31, 2005, and that is where it has sat ever since.

I have been told by an anonymous source that a certain state Senator is "sitting" on this bill as it was put forth via the efforts of SAFR (Shooters Alliance for Firearm Rights) and GLSSA (Great Lakes Shooting Sports Assoc.), and apparently not with any help from MCRGO (Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners), a once great, grass roots Pro-2nd amendment organization that has fallen on hard times.

It's either that, or he doesn't like Rep. Rick Jones. But I find that difficult to believe.

And while we're at it, what about HB4642? This bill would allow people to transport other individuals' licensed and inspected pistols. Like say, your wife, or husband.

Well, what about it Sen. Cropsey, are you going to get off these bills and have a vote on them, or what?

Maybe we need to get out the anal probe and see what's keeping these bills from passing out of committee.

Monday, December 05, 2005

US cop quits 'too risky' UK force - The Sunday Times, UK

US cop quits 'too risky' UK force

David Leppard

A TEXAN patrol officer who became the first foreigner to join the British police is to resign after three years because he says policing is too dangerous here compared with America.

Ben Johnson, a 6ft 4in former paratrooper nicknamed Slim, has written to his chief constable asking to carry a Glock 17 handgun on his routine beat in Reading.

He said officers are dying unnecessarily because they are less well equipped and trained to protect themselves and the public than their American counterparts.

“The risks required to be taken by unarmed and poorly trained British police are too great for me to continue being a police officer and I will be resigning my commission in a few weeks,” said Johnson.

“I am tired of my colleagues dying when, if they were better trained and equipped, they would have a fighting chance of survival.”

Johnson’s decision was prompted by the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, a mother of three children and two step-children, who was shot during a robbery in Bradford last month. He said her death demonstrated the lack of training and equipment given to British police.

“Beshenivsky did the one thing that officers in America are trained not to do. She walked up to the front entrance of a business during an alarm call. If the incident had happened in America, she would never have done that. She would almost certainly have been alive today.”

Last week Johnson wrote to Sara Thornton, acting chief constable of Thames Valley police, asking to be armed on patrol. “If the chief authorises me to carry a pistol, then I will not be resigning,” he said. “But that is an impossibility. I now have the choice of continuing in a dangerous job, ill-trained and ill-equipped, or leaving the profession I have loved.”

Johnson, 34, served as a paratrooper in the American army before joining the police department in Garland, a Dallas suburb. Like other officers he carried a Glock 22 pistol as a sidearm, supported by a 12-bore shotgun and an AR15 semi-automatic rifle in his patrol car. In America he routinely confronted armed criminals and received 10 commendations for his bravery.

He came to Britain three years ago to live with his fiancée Louise, an IT consultant. He was able to join the Thames Valley force because of a change in regulations that lifted the bar on foreigners.

The couple are now married and Johnson has taken a short career break to look after their 18-month-old daughter Catherine. He said fatherhood had changed his perspective. “It would not be fair [to my family] to continue in a job that is being made more dangerous by a refusal to modernise,” he said.

It was an incident earlier this year that first caused Johnson to consider handing in his warrant card. He was on plainclothes CID duty when he was called to the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading to interview a victim of domestic violence.

A woman had jumped out of a first-floor window to escape her violent boyfriend, paralysing her from the waist down. The boyfriend, a member of a drug gang, was already wanted by the police for attempted murder, after shooting someone in the back of the head in London.

Johnson and other plainclothes officers who went to the hospital were alerted that the boyfriend had telephoned to say he was coming to see her. They also received a warning that he might be armed.

According to Johnson, he wanted to arrest the man when he arrived, but was ordered by a senior officer not to do so because of the risk. The suspect escaped and it was two days before he was arrested.

“That was the first time I’d ever let someone wanted for attempted murder simply walk away from me,” said Johnson. “It went against everything I knew. I thought it was my duty to arrest these people.
“It seems that in Britain ordinary officers are instructed not to engage with dangerous criminals. But if police officers can’t engage with them, who can?” He is critical of Charles Clarke, the home secretary, who says he can see “no evidence” that arming officers would reduce the number of police fatalities. “With all respect to the home secretary, he has never answered a 999 call,” said Johnson.

Of Beshenivsky’s murder, he said: “I have been in exactly those situations on patrol in America and I have managed to arrest and disarm offenders without being harmed.”

In America, officers spend weeks learning how to cope with armed incidents. But in Britain, Johnson said, he was never shown how to handle or unload a firearm or told how to respond to an armed robbery. “Officers spend more time learning about how to process paperwork than dealing with violent situations. We are trained more like social workers than police officers.

“The training I received in Britain in dealing with armed incidents was virtually non-existent. It consisted of a 30-minute lecture from a firearms officer who said: ‘If you see the business end of a gun or anyone holding a gun . . . turn, run and get away as quickly as possible’.”

This apparent complacency was reinforced at his swearing-in ceremony when a senior Thames Valley officer told him and colleagues that they would not face the sort of dangerous incidents portrayed on The Bill, the television programme.

“I was surprised that he said we wouldn’t come into harm’s way. This went against everything I had learnt during my career,” said Johnson.

By contrast, the chief officer of Garland police department tells new recruits that it is his task to ensure they are prepared and equipped to face any threat.

Johnson accepted that America is more violent than Britain, with a gun culture contributing to a murder rate 17 times higher than here. He recognised, too, that many more police officers are murdered in America — 57 last year compared with just one here — proportionately about 11 times as many.

But he maintained that British police are far more exposed to danger when confronted with armed offenders than their US counterparts. He said he did not want all police armed — just the “first responders”, officers who, like Beshenivsky, are first on the scene of crimes. He believed this would mean arming about half of Britain’s 140,000 police.

A spokesman for Thames Valley police said: “PC Johnson is currently on a career break. These are his personal views and he did not discuss them with anyone before going to the press.”