This morning, I woke up really early and was chatting with a buddy of mine who is a graveyard patrol sergeant with my former agency. He was telling me about something that happened with his shift last night. This is something the public absolutely NEEDS to hear!
We cops, or former cops in my case, know this to be true, but unless you see it first hand, you would never know because these stories are NOT reported by the media, unless of course they publish the story of the “poor, innocent person who was harassed by the cops” as if it were gospel, and without any opportunity for the cops to tell their side.
Rather than me retell the story, with his permission, I am just going to put the transcript of the conversation here, other than removing the names of people involved.
Me – Hey bro, what’s up?
Sarge – It’s 4:30 why the hell do you get up this early?
Me – I can’t sleep. Haven’t been able to for years. I’m lucky if I get 5-6 hours. I went to bed last night at about 9:30 because I was beat tired. So here I am, wide awake at 4am.
Sarge – You’re going to love this…
Sarge – A fine example of how the media lying and pushing a false narrative causes problems……tonight one of my guys tried to stop a car driving real fast with no headlights. The driver failed to yield so several more units jumped into it as the driver continued to refuse to pull over.
We followed him to a ghetto apartment with a dark parking lot where he finally stopped. The initial deputy approached the car (we discussed this after) and directed the solo driver (young black male) to get out of the car. Right away the driver is yelling “fuck you what did I do wrong” blah blah blah.
Deputy pulls him out dude wont cooperate as two deputies try to cuff him. He gets twisted up but no more than needed. He is screaming for help in the complex because we are “going to kill him”. He didn’t stop because he was afraid the cops would shoot him
22 yrs old, driving home from his Walmart job……suspended license but no criminal history. His girlfriend came down and we had a long discussion about why there were so many cops and her boyfriend’s poor choices. She said “well he’s scared cuz white cops be killing black men”……
Anyway dude got a bump on the head and expensive citation….his girlfriend and I left on good terms but she still thinks cops are out killing black men…..
Thanks media you’re fucking chaos has created this!! Dumbass kid probably would’ve gotten a warning Had he stopped……
Me – Kevin ****** and I almost shot a Hispanic kid one night back in late 2014. He would not put down a knife because he knew we were going to kill him just like we did Mike Brown.
Me – Thank God we finally convinced him to put it down
Me – Kid was only 14 or 15 years old
Sarge – Yup had one or two of those….seems so much worse right now…..this chick tonight was convinced we are killing people. I told her I’d be happy to sit down and talk to her about it…..but tonight we agreed to disagree
Anyone with knowledge of the actual facts knows cops are not running around killing young black men, especially those who are not doing anything wrong. The statistics, at least during my entire lifetime, have NEVER supported those claims. In fact, the statistics prove the exact opposite, but thanks to the mainstream media insatiable desire to air stories that cause societal discord, because it makes them money, and thanks to racist, criminal sympathizing anti-cop groups like Black Lives Matter, huge portions of the population, and sadly it is the portion that is most likely to come into contact with law enforcement, do not know the truth because they only see what they are being spoon fed.
In the story recounted by my buddy, had the young man driving the car not been poisoned by the media and BLM, he likely would have just pulled over when the cops lit him up (activated their lights to pull him over), and at worst, he would have gotten a ticket for driving on a suspended license and potentially had his car towed. Instead, he ran from the cops, got twisted up, cuffed, got to sit in a cop car for a while, and he got a MUCH more expensive ticket.
The following was written by an academy classmate of mine who not only did a full career in the military, but is still continuing his long career in law enforcement. Because he is still on the job, it requires that this be published anonymously.
So, after two thorough, exhaustive, expensive investigations (Sacramento County District Attorney and California Department of Justice), the feds are now launching a third investigation specifically into whether Stephon Clark’s civil rights were violated.
Let me just throw some fuel on the fire… Clark’s death was entirely his own fault.
This does not mean his family isn’t grieving his death, but it is time that society at large, and politicians in particular, stop pandering to people (to be clear I am referring to a socioeconomic group, not a specific race) who have been told for generations that they are victims, have no hope and must rely on the government to help them.
My question is, when do folks wake up to the fact that that help will never come from the government? There may be band aids applied, but the doctor is out, the surgeon isn’t coming.
Now, with the victim mentality drilled into them so deep it is essentially part of their DNA, they feel as though they can tear cities apart if things do not go their way.
This unfortunate shooting was not due to a lack of training on the part of the officers. Experience teaches us the dangers faced by officers, and they are taught to respond appropriately to those dangers.
There should be NO DOUBT in the minds of anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty these officers were in fear for their lives and fired in self-defense. Not in aggression, but in DEFENSE! And why were they defending themselves? Because of CLARK’s ACTIONS.
The race of the suspect is completely irrelavant when you are in pursuit of a felony suspect and that suspect suddenly becomes a (justly) perceived threat to your life.
Not only that, I submit to you that cops get more training in “implicit bias,” biased based policing, and other racial issues than just about any other profession.
So exactly why is the US Attorneys office opening an investigation? Is it to appease people who will never be appeased because emotion rules and facts don’t matter? Is it to show that the Federal Government “cares?”
I don’t know, but I do know it is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars and further victimizes an entire community who abide by the law, who don’t assault their girlfriends or wives, who do not get drunk or high and run around disrespecting their grandparents by smashing up their neighbors’ property, then confront cops in their backyard.
The simple truth is Clark is not the victim.
The officers, who had to make a sudden decision in fear for their lives are now affected for the rest of their lives, their wives, girlfriends, children and other family are affected. The community has been hugely affected, large sums of taxpayer dollars have been spent (and yes, a thorough investigation must be done to ensure the officers acted within the law), and why? The sad truth is because Mr. Clark continued his pattern of poor life choices.
And now two officers who acted appropriately are under tremendous scrutiny, lawmakers are pushing very hard to make it even more difficult for all officers to do their jobs and go home safely. If and when that happens, and officers can’t chase, can’t apprehend criminals, or are concerned with the consequences of doing something to defend their lives, only to be second guessed by attorneys or activists sitting in comfortable chairs in a well lit office, with their chosen beverage sitting on the table in front of them.
Who is it that pays in the long run? Winning answer is, the law abiding public.
Is it harsh to call out Mr. Clark? Maybe it is, but we have gotten so far away from speaking the (sometimes ugly) truth in the name of appeasement that the moral compass is spinning like a top. Time to stop spinning and call it like it is. Things will only get worse if we continue to lie to ourselves and allow the agenda driven politicians and media to lie to us.
Some cop hating asshole murdered Officer Natalie Corona of the Davis, CA Police Department last night, for absolutely no reason other than he hated cops.
The war on cops continues.
According to a friend who was there assisting Davis PD through the night, the piece of shit murderer who I will not name, ambushed Officer Natalie Corona while she was working a car crash. He rode up on his bicycle and shot her. I am told he dumped two whole magazines at her. Then he pedaled his piece of shit ass home.
A short while later when the cops showed up to deal with him, he continued his fucking cowardly behavior and offed himself.
Rot in Hell for all eternity you cowardly mother fucker!
I did not share this on social media last night because I could not bring myself to type this. I went to bed to let my feelings temper, but sleep was elusive as my mind would not stop, and my anger and sorrow only grew. This incident happened in Davis, CA, an ultra-liberal town located just west of Sacramento. During my college years, my friends and I spent more than a few nights in Davis at a bar called The Graduate. I know the town fairly well.
Davis, from a law enforcement point of view, is a pretty safe little town. Natalie is only the second officer from the department to be killed in the line of duty, and the last one was killed in 1959.
Officer Natalie Cordova was only 22 years old. She was just a kid. She went through Sac PD’s academy, from where she just graduated last year.
She had only been a cop since August 2nd when her father pinned her badge on her. She was barely out of FTO training, by only 2 weeks. She was serving her community. And for that, she was senselessly murdered.
The picture of her that is sticking with me is the one of her in the blue dress holding the thin blue line flag. She took that photo two years before she became a cop. This is what she said when she shared that image on social media:
I would like this photograph to serve as my gratitude for all those law enforcement men and women who have served, who are currently serving, and those who have died in the line of duty protecting our liberties in this great country. #LawEnforcement#Blueline#Thankyou#Lausphotography
She was a beautiful young woman with her entire life ahead of her, all snuffed out because of what she was wearing, her uniform. Her loss is senseless and tragic.
Her father, Merced Corona, served 26 years as a deputy with the Colusa County Sheriff’s Department. Only five months ago, he proudly pinned her badge on her when she was sworn in. Now, sadly, for no reason, in a week or so, he will be burying her.
No parent should ever have to bury their kid, especially one murdered for no other reason than the profession she chose.
Natalie was only a few years older than my oldest kid. Her father was a deputy and served only a few years longer than I did. More than one of my sons has at one point or another expressed interest in being a cop. I cannot help but put myself in Merced Corona’s shoes. I cannot imagine what he is going through right now.
My sincere condolences to all who knew Natalie. My thoughts and prayers go out to Natalie’s family and friends. And when I say family, I mean not only those related by blood, but also the members of her blue family. I did not know Natalie, but she was my sister.
The fascists at Facebook just cannot help themselves. Over the last few days, news has reached the national level, once again, about their lopsided enforcement of non-violations of their community standards. Specifically about them removing posts and banning people who are sharing images that show the distinct difference between Corporal Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant who achieved his American Dream of becoming a cop, and the illegal alien criminal gang member who murdered him.
Facebook reversed their decisions on all of the previous incidents that I know of, but now they are apparently going after other people for the very same image, an image they have already, repeatedly said does NOT violate their policies. Just last night, New Years Eve, they deleted a post from the page Conservative Cops and they banned the user who posted it.
This just goes to show how deeply ingrained it is in the people who moderate Facebook that if they don’t like something, they can just consider it “hate speech” and remove it. What should I expect from a company run by a bunch of millennial snowflakes? If these dipshits cannot moderate a social media platform and follow its own rules, what does the future hold when they get put in positions of power in the government? Honestly, that prospect scares the hell out of me.
UPDATE: In further news, it would appear now that the fascists at Facebook are removing posts sharing this very article, about them removing posts. The page mentioned in the removed post pictured above, Enough is Enough, shared this article this morning. There are only two administrators of that page currently, and neither of them removed the post, but it is no longer there. It also appears that Facebook is doing this in shadow mode as neither of the administrators nor the page itself were notified the post was being removed.
Excellent way to disprove the claims that you are silencing people, by further silencing them…
On Christmas night, about five hours after taking photos with his wife and infant son, Corporal Ronil Singh of the Newman, CA Police Department was shot and killed while making a vehicle stop on a suspected drunk driver, who happened to be an illegal immigrant. Unless you live under a rock, none of that is news to you.
It will also come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying even the slimmest sliver of attention over the last few years, but Facebook management is extremely left biased, despite all their claims to the contrary. They are also very anti-law enforcement. I know, shocking…
I am a member of a group of people who all administer Facebook pages that are pro-law enforcement. Some are run by cops, some are former cops, some are spouses of cops and others are just LE supporters. We are all pretty accustomed to the one sided censorship from the fascists who run Facebook, so much so that most of us have second and third FB accounts we use to administrate our pages when we get banned by FB in their efforts to silence us. It just goes with the territory. We are essentially operating behind enemy lines on that platform.
Well, today one of the members of that group, a man that administrates the very large pro-LE page Enough Is Enough, was banned and his post was deleted because it was determined to be “hate speech.” What, you ask, was the horrible crime that he committed?
Well he dared share the following image with the following text accompanying it:
“Purely heartbreaking and sickening.”
The two images that follow are the messages that he received from Fascistbook when they silenced him.
Now, I am sitting here scratching my head trying to find anything hateful about what he said, or what in this image is hateful. Can someone help me out there, anyone?
The facts are the facts. Corporal Ronil Singh was born in Fiji, legally immigrated to the United States, worked his butt off to accomplish his goals, and became a cop where he protected and served the community he lived in. Alternately factual, the piece of shit that murdered Corpral Singh (who I will not name) was an illegal immigrant, with multiple prior arrests for drunk driving, and was a self admitted sureno gang member. He was in California due to the ridiculous “sanctuary state” laws enacted by leftist politicians. He was stopped for drunk driving by Corporal Singh and rather than go to jail yet again, he chose to murder Corporal Singh.
The differences between the two men could not be more stark.
One man’s life had honor and value. The other had neither.
Corporal Singh is not remotely the first cop to be killed by a man here illegally due to liberal policies. Sadly, he won’t be the last either.
But to the fascists at Facebook, facts are hate speech, which is why they continually silence those they politically disagree with.
Screw leftists and their censorship!
UPDATE: As of 10:30 PM last night (12-29-18), Facebook apparently partially pulled their heads out of their collective asses and admitted that the photo that they deemed to be a violation of their policy against hate speech was in fact NOT a violation of that policy. They notified the FB user of such, as you can see in the following screen shot of the message he received.
One would think that was the end of the story, but it is not, because Facebook…
As you can see above, they clearly admitted they were wrong, BUT the deleted post was never reinstated on their page AND the user who posted it still is banned for the remainder of his 30 day ban. Yes, you read that right. Even though Facebook now admits he did nothing wrong, he is still being blocked from using the service.
That is like, “Hey, sorry you were falsely convicted of murder, our bad. But yeah, you are still going to have to serve out that prison sentence though. Thanks for pointing out our error. Have a nice day.”
So I say again, screw leftists and their censorship!
What is the reason so many people demand “universal background checks?” I mean private citizens who want them, not the politicians who push that crap. Because they do not want bad guys to get guns, right? As good, law abiding gun owners, neither do we. Despite what the NRA hating, anti-gun politicians and anti-gun organizations constantly scream, exactly no one wants to unwittingly put a gun into the hand of a criminal, not even us “heartless gun owners.”
First, before we dive into this topic, we must clarify what a “universal background check” is because many people out there who are in favor of them really do not understand what they are calling for. They hear emotional appeals for them from people who are pushing gun control, purportedly as a means to save lives, and they just accept what they hear. What a “universal background check” means is that every single gun transfer (change of ownership) goes through a background check. No matter if it is a gun dealer selling a gun to a customer or if it is your grandmother giving you your deceased grandfather’s old hunting rifle. ALL transfers would have to have a background check.
In theory, that does not sound totally unreasonable, until you understand what is actually involved in that, especially based on the current background system. Most proponents of “universal background checks” do not have the slightest clue what is involved in making that happen, whereas most gun owners are intimately aware of the difficulties involved.
Why Gun Owners Resist “Universal Background Checks” If no one wants bad guys to have guns, then why do gun owners fight against universal background checks? One of the reasons, a big one to some of us, is because we do not trust the government, and yes, that absolutely includes me, a career government employee. In order to ensure every gun sale is processed through a universal background check, the government needs to know what guns you and I all own. Without that knowledge, I could sell any gun I wanted to whomever I wanted and there would be no way to track the sales to ensure a background check was performed. “So what?” you say. “Why does it matter if you have to register your guns?”
Because registration always, always leads to confiscation. If not for all people, most definitely for some. You can see it happening right now in California. The CA DOJ has teams of agents running around the state confiscating registered guns from people. Some of those people were merely in the process of trying to register their guns in order to comply with a new law when the DOJ showed up, arrested them and took their guns. Long before that, in Washington DC way back in 1965, they passed a law requiring the registration of all handguns. Then, a decade later in 1976, they outlawed handguns completely. Since the government knew who had what handguns, it made it easy to ensure they were all eliminated. As a gun owner, it is very easy to look around and see what governments have done once they take away all the guns, and the first step in taking away the guns is knowing who has them.
Then when you consider some of the gun laws they are proposing, it should be even easier to understand why gun owners are paranoid. California already has a “gun violence restraining order” which allows law enforcement and family members to seek an ex parte (only the accuser, not the accused) hearing to take away the guns of a person. They want to expand that law to allow practically anyone who knows a person to file for one. I am a law abiding gun owner and a retired cop, but I absolutely worry that some anti-gun acquaintance of mine might go run to a judge, and based upon their completely irrational fear of guns, say whatever they could to convince a judge to grant an order calling for my guns to be confiscated. I know how the court systems work, including in regards to restraining orders. It is not remotely beyond the realm of plausibility to think someone would lie to a judge to get a restraining order granted, especially someone who is not entirely mentally stable.
Call us gun owners paranoid if you will, and maybe we are, but being mildly paranoid served me well in my career as a cop; it kept me alive. There is an old saying that goes, “just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren’t out to get you.”
So, if we are being honest here, whether or not you think gun owners have a valid point in fearing the registration that would be required in order to ensure “universal background checks” were performed, I would hope that you can at least see the basis for our concerns. History, both ours and abroad, is chock full of governments abusing their people once they have disarmed them.
Getting beyond the simple desire to not let the government know what guns we have, there are some other factors which we gun owners also see as further infringement on our rights. In order to process these universal background checks, it is a requirement to have a gun dealer process all gun sales because currently they are the only people who can. Even transfers that involve no money such, as a gift or trade, would have to be processed by a gun dealer. This not only inconveniences the gun dealers who charge a “nominal fee,” because now they are taking their time to process a sale that does not benefit them at all, but it requires the parties involved in the sale to seek out a dealer to perform the transaction. Let me explain these infringements by using my home state of California as an example.
California’s Universal Background Check System
As a California resident, where we already have “universal background checks,” if my father, a law abiding, retired government employee with nothing more serious than a speeding ticket in his long past background, wants to give me, a retired cop with nothing more serious than a speeding ticket some 25 years ago on my record, a gun he owns, any gun, but for sake of this example, say a 100 year old Winchester rifle (a cowboy gun for those who know nothing about guns), he and I must take that rifle to a gun dealer who not only must process the transaction for us, run the background check, but then since he is a gun dealer, he must complete a DROS (dealer’s record of sale) for that antique rifle. So now, not only do I have to pay the dealer their transfer fee, which CA has limited to $10*, but I also have to pay a DROS fee which is another $25. Once the DROS is completed, there is now a record of that rifle, including its serial number, make, model and caliber, and who it was transferred from and to. In California, that DROS information is then entered into a state database and that information is maintained indefinitely, in other words, it becomes a de facto gun registry (enter us paranoid gun owners again…).
(*In California, that poor gun dealer must now hold onto the gun for the mandatory 10 day waiting period, for which there is only one exemption for active cops who have a letter from their department head, even if we both already own other firearms. So, the dealer must take time from his other customers to process the transaction, which will take a minimum of 30 minutes in my best experience, then he must store the gun for 10+ days, and all he is allowed to collect for those troubles is $10? Not that I want to pay through the nose for a transfer, but I absolutely understand why gun dealers are not happy to process private party transfers as it is a losing proposition for them and hits them directly in the pocket book.)
The way the laws in California works, it inconveniences not only both parties transferring the gun, it inconveniences the dealer processing the transfer and actually costs them money, and it creates a gun registry. If you are okay with all of that, then you clearly are more interested in attempting to prevent legal gun sales than you are with trying to keep guns away from criminals. Artificial delays and levying fees to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right sure sounds like infringements to most of us. If that does not sound like an infringement to you, imagine having to pay a fee and wait 10 days before you can exercise your right to free speech.
Setting Ground Rules But there has to be something we can do, right? Well, I think I might have a solution, one that would pass the stink test with gun owners and one that might appease the anti-gun folks demanding the “universal background checks.” However, we must agree on a couple things before my plan makes sense, some of which I have already discussed.
1) Criminals do not obey laws – Can we all agree that criminals, by their very nature of being a criminal, do not obey the law? Criminals are not walking into a gun store to buy a gun, nor are they going to a dealer to process their private party transfers. If that is too much of a stretch for you to make, then my proposal will not make any sense.
2) No one wants bad guys to get a gun – Not even we die hard second amendment supporters. If you cannot concede that even those horrible, gun owning NRA members do not want criminals to have guns, then we are all just wasting our time, not to mention that you are also completely delusional.
Now, for those rational enough to accept that criminals do not obey the law, and that law abiding gun owners do not want criminals running around with guns, we can proceed. If the purpose behind “universal background checks” is truly to prevent bad guys from getting guns, and no one wants bad guys to get guns, then why not make a publicly accessible website on which any gun owner can run some basic information of the person seeking to purchase a gun from them, that would access the NICS system and give them a simple yes or no answer to the pertinent question: Can this person legally possess a gun?
The internet did not exist when the NICS system was created and what used to require a decent amount of time to process back then can be completed (with proper access to the proper databases) in a few seconds now. An “instant background check” can truly be instant.
A system like this would allow private party sellers to be reasonably certain that the person they are selling a gun to is not a prohibited person. If they don’t care about that fact now, you can rest assured they are already going to ignore the law requiring the background check anyway.
This system would not inconvenience gun dealers by forcing them to process a sale that not only does not benefit them, but actually hurts them.
From a paranoid gun owner’s perspective, this system would have no information about the firearm being transferred so there would be no need to worry about the government building a registry.
Finally, use of this system should be 100% voluntary, leaving it up to the seller whether or not they feel it necessary. So, like in the example I gave above, with my father giving me an antique rifle, there would be no need at all to use the system. However, if I were selling a gun to someone I do not know, I could quickly check to make sure I was not selling a gun to a prohibited person.
But What About The Gun Show Loophole? First of all, that is utter crap. There is no “gun show loophole.” All laws regarding firearms sales outside of gun shows ALSO apply in a gun show. If the transfer is a private party transfer, currently no background check is required (unless the individual state requires it like California does), but if the seller is a dealer, the sale must go through all the same steps that it would if it were taking place in a brick and mortar store. As for my proposal in relation to gun shows, gun shows would be no different than any other sale.
Not only could there be a mobile version of the system in the form of an app for folks with smart phones and tablets, but for those “old guys” who refuse to carry a smart phone, there could be a kiosk at the gun show that would allow anyone to check a potential buyer’s legal gun owning ability.
While my proposal would not prevent criminals from selling other criminals guns (absolutely nothing can do that – look at the prevalence of illegal drugs if you think otherwise), this would allow people who are concerned about keeping guns away from bad guys a way to do so that would not cost a ton of money, inconvenience an uninvolved business, or create a gun registry.
I absolutely encourage people to comment on this topic, but please do so in a polite, thoughtful manner. People calling names, throwing insults, or spewing anti-gun propaganda will just be banned. Keeping guns away from bad guys is in everyone’s best interest. The only way to improve our ability to do so is if we can have an actual conversation about the topic with everyone who the issue concerns.
My worst post-election fears are seemingly coming to fruition. California lawmakers, with no opposition, are off an running with their anti-gun agenda and are likely going to turn me into a felon within six months.
For those that do not follow California politics closely, let me explain. During the last election, Democrats managed to take a veto proof super majority in both the state Assembly and Senate, as well as putting Gun Grabbing Gavin Newsom in the Governor’s chair.
December 3rd was the first day back in session for the California state legislature. On that very first day back, three gun control bills were introduced.
AB 18 – Firearms Excise Tax – by Marc Levine (D) “This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that imposes an excise tax on the sales of handguns and semiautomatic rifles and would require the revenue collected from that tax to be used to fund grants through the CalVIP program.”
So the plan here is to tax the law abiding citizens as punishment for acts performed by criminals?
It is still very early in the life of this bill and at this date, they have not even set the proposed tax rate, but rest assured, CA lawmakers would never levy exorbitant taxes on the citizens without their consent. Oh, wait…
AB 61 – Gun Violence Restraining Orders – by Phil Ting (D)
California already has passed these very worrisome “gun violence restraining orders,” but current law apparently is too restrictive for lawmakers. Currently, only family members and law enforcement can file an ex parte (in other words, the accused is not even in court) petition to a court that enables law enforcement to forcibly remove guns from someone who legally owns them.
If you are a gun owner or a cop, or God forbid, a gun owner who is a cop, you are probably aware of the recent shooting in Maryland where cops went to a home to serve a gun violence restraining order and ended up shooting the gun owner. I am not faulting the cops in that situation because other than very generic information, I know nothing about the order or what occurred in that incident, but this is exactly the type of thing I predicted would happen when these laws started getting passed.
With all that in mind, apparently this is not good enough for the anti-gun liberal politicians in California because now that we have that law, it is time to start tweaking it to make it easier for just about anyone to go before a judge and get your guns taken away.
Here is the proposed change that this bill would enact. Bear in mind, currently only a family member or law enforcement can petition the court to have your guns removed.
“This bill would similarly authorize, an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.”
So now your boss, a coworker, or anyone who knows you from college can request that the state take your guns away. Why stop there? Why not open that list up to friends, neighbors, persons who live in the same state, or anyone on the planet who might not want you to have a gun?
AB 12 – Firearms: Gun violence and mental health – by Jacqui Irwin (D) “This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence and mental health.”
This is a veritable Pandora’s box in the making, because this bill does not say anything specific. This was an “ooh, ooh, let me be the first to get an anti-gun bill on the books even though I have no specific issue to address or any plan on how to address it” bill.
The text of the bill is merely an emotion tugging, anti-gun screed that says nothing more than “guns are bad.”
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:
(a) On November 7, 2018, in the city of Thousand Oaks, a tragic and senseless act of gun violence at the Borderline Bar & Grill resulted in the deaths of 12 Californians, including Sergeant Ronald Lee Helus of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office.
(b) This act of gun violence injured many others who fled the Borderline Bar & Grill and has deeply impacted the surrounding community that is known for its safety and low level of violent crime.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to gun violence and mental health, in an effort to prevent future acts of gun violence in California.
I really have no idea what the purpose of this bill is, other than to get another anti-gun bill on the books as early as possible.
Which brings me back to where I started, life in California just got very scary for law abiding gun owners. Not only are all the same Democrats coming after us, but now there is no one in place to stop them.
Hi there, my name is Matt Silvey. I have been a deputy sheriff with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department since September 1996. If you have followed me on Facebook or Twitter, you know me as Deputy Matt. To date, I have not been able to use my real name on social media because of concerns by management that if someone in the media knew where I worked, they would try to attribute my comments to the department, which would be completely insane but you know how the media can be. But now, I can proudly tell you where I worked, because I have decided to retire. In fact, today (11-28-18) was my last day.
I love my department. I am proud to wear the uniform. I love being a cop and almost everything that comes with the job, even though it is a very difficult job. As I have gotten older, and gotten to the point that I can retire, I am much less tolerant of stupid crap. It is that stupid crap that causes many of us to leave, and I am no exception.
My Career Overall, I have no serious complaints about my career. In 1996, I started working in our jail, a place I never wanted to work but after having done so, know that it is the absolute best place any new cop can work because you learn to deal with the criminal element in a semi-safe environment. From there, because of my previous job experience in the automotive industry and my computer skills, I got a job as the assistant fleet manager for the department. At barely three years on the department, I was working in an office five doors down from the Sheriff on the administration floor of our headquarters. That job had a lot of perks, including a take home unmarked cop car.
I enjoyed fleet management, but I wanted to be a cop and was dying to get out on the streets, so on my weekends while working fleet, I would go out with my buddies who were working patrol. One of those good friends who I rode with as often as I could was a guy named Alan. He was a funny, energetic, quick witted shit magnet, and I learned a lot about doing good cop work from him. Sadly, Alan had a pretty rough career and was involved in an inordinate number of shootings in a very short time frame, and he medically retired very early due to PTSD, but he and I are still friends and we talk on a fairly regular basis.
Once I was finally allowed to rotate to patrol, I hit patrol training and knew everyone there because I had been working for free a couple days a month for the previous couple years. I breezed through training, took my test and was finalized. I looked forward to my first day as a finalized, all on my own, brand new patrol cop. That day was September 11, 2001. I think you all know what day that was. What an absolutely surreal day to have as your inaugural day as a patrol cop.
I worked patrol for the next 15 years, and I really enjoyed the job. I was a training officer for a while, but eventually some of the BS involved with training got to me, so I quit training. I worked as acting sergeant quite a few times, back when we used to do that. I was directly involved in two officer involved shootings, one with my handgun early in my patrol career, and one with my rifle, which I have written about in the past. I was involved in countless pursuits and have been the primary unit performing a PIT (pursuit intervention technique) in two of them, and assisted on several others.
I have held pressure on bullet wounds of gunshot victims, I’ve done CPR more than once, and proudly can say it actually worked once and I saved a guy. I even evacuated a gunshot victim off the front porch of a residence with the suspect still inside. Ironically, of the 5 cops who pulled that woman off her front porch, I somehow was the only one ignored when it came time to hand out lifesaving medals. Later, during that same incident, I was captured by news cameras pulling a small child off the suspect who was refusing to follow commands. Heck, I even got an episode of COPS under my belt (Season 28, Episode 4). Side note: One thing I found out when filming COPS, you cannot say “dildo” on national television. Who knew?
After missing out on the job at air ops the first time around, an opening at EVOC (emergency vehicle operations course) was announced. I’ve always loved driving, especially driving a car hard, and I get along very well with the only other full-time deputy at EVOC, so I put in for it, and got it. I have been assigned to our EVOC facility for the last three (3) years. It is a great job, and the wife is very happy about it because I am not getting shot at anymore, but the only downside it that I do not feel like a cop anymore. That said, it is a great job and I have a great coworker. But…
The Crap During my 22 years as a cop, I have lost a number of coworkers who have been killed on the job. Some were lost to accidents, like when Joe and Kevin were killed when our helicopter, Star 6, suffered a catastrophic engine malfunction, and sadly quite a few others who were murdered. The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department has been hit pretty hard as of late. In the last four years, three of my coworkers were murdered, and I have written about each incident. The one that hit me the hardest was Bob French. I wrote about it the night Bob died, but attributed it to “an unnamed Sacramento deputy” because I could not say where I worked. Bob and I went to the academy together. I had known him more than 20 years, and I was there at the scene of the shooting and watched the paramedics working on him. Bob’s death really hit home, hard.
Additionally, during my career, the political landscape has changed dramatically. While the Sacramento Bee has never been friendly to law enforcement, most of the news stations used to give the cops a pretty fair shake in the news. But sadly, the political left decided to wage a war on cops. Very early in his presidency, Barack Obama got in on the act and never relented. Quite a few other politicians have also joined the fray, slinging mud at law enforcement as part of their stump speeches or just making comments on social media.
In the meantime, Black Lives Matter sprang up, and then Antifa. Now it is cool and hip to hate the cops. While all of us in law enforcement understand that those groups are the vocal minority, it still wears on you because they are in the news, slamming law enforcement, almost every single day, and law enforcement essentially just sits there quietly and takes it. Hell, some law enforcement administrators have started bending over backwards to try and placate the cop hating assholes. Thankfully, I work for a sheriff, Scott Jones, who will not play that game, but he will not be around much longer, and in fact was set to retire this year but stuck it out.
Add all that on top of the normal BS that is part of the daily grind at any job, throw in a few law enforcement specific things, a dash of department specific annoyances, a desire to flee my home state, all mixed together with being both fully vested in my retirement and old enough to start collecting and you end up on the “two bad days” retirement plan. That is where I was until one really stupid thing at work happened, and then…
The Final Straw The last election here in California finally convinced my wife of something I have been convinced of for about 10 years: California is too far gone and is never coming back. She, like I, had held on to a tiny sliver of hope that John Cox would win and thus we would avoid having the cop hating, gun hating, criminal loving, homeless enabling, pro-drug, open border slime ball Gavin Newsom as governor. Not only did Cox not win, but the kicker for my wife was watching the idiot voters in California vote to keep the higher gas taxes the politicians had slapped on us because they misspent the money they already collected for road repairs.
I have for years been saying California was lost, and she finally has come to the same conclusion, so we are getting out!
Now What? I am looking forward to my next endeavor. I have been writing for blogs and other online outlets now for about six years, and during that time I have had a couple things published in a magazine. I have been lucky enough to have some of my pieces end up being read on a radio talk radio show (in a good way), and one even ended up being republished by the New York Post. As much as I never would have imagined it during my time as a student, I have found I enjoy writing, and I especially enjoy writing about guns. I have been doing this all for free for the last six years, but it is time for that to change.
I will soon be taking the reins as Managing Editor at The Firearm Project, a new website devoted to pro-gun content and related news from a law enforcement perspective, brought to you by the people who run Blue Lives Matter. I will still be running my own blog and social media as well, but will be stepping back somewhat and letting some of the other admins take a larger role there.
Initially, The Firearm Project is going to be a part-time job so that I can get my home ready to sell, find a new state to call home, buy a house and move my family. Once we get settled into our new home, I will transition the writing job over to full-time, and may even take on another writing project I have been considering for some time.
Thanks To those who have followed my social media pages, I want to thank you for your support over the years. Not only has it meant a lot to me, but my coworkers, both those on my department and from other agencies, truly are thankful for your support. Our job can be quite taxing at times, and without the support of you, the general public, we would be hard pressed to carry on.
To my coworkers at the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, you are some of the finest men and women I could imagine sharing a career with. In my 22 year career, you have continued to impress me with your professionalism, caring, and love of the job and our community.
To Sheriff Jones, and the other supervisors I have worked for over the last several years, thank you for your support of my first amendment rights by allowing me to run this page. There are many cops who do not work for a boss who would allow them to run a social media page like mine. I specifically remember reaching out to you after my open letter to Mayor Kevin Johnson went viral, and was expecting you to have me shut down my social media pages, but you read what I wrote and told me that not only did I have the first amendment right to free speech, but that I had also done so without violating any department policies or dragging the department into it.
Sheriff Jones, I also want to thank you for your steadfast support of the men and women who serve under you on a daily basis, and by extension, the men and women of other law enforcement agencies in the area, who have not always had the support of their own leadership. While you and I have not always agreed on policy issues, your outspoken support of law enforcement in general has been very reassuring, and this goes for members of those other local agencies who have specifically told me how much they appreciate and respect you for that support. Law enforcement is the favorite punching bag of some of the local media outlets, and you have always stood strong to defend us, and we all appreciate that, no matter the color of the uniform we wear.
So, as I close one chapter of my life and open another, I am met with feelings of pride, joy, sorrow, anticipation, angst, worry, loss, but most of all, hope. Hope for a better future for my wife, myself, and most importantly, for my kids. Now I get to make sure my kids will grow up in a state that respects individual rights, freedoms, and most importantly, is pro-America, the greatest country to ever grace this planet.
Holy crap! How is it actually possible for someone who is college educated to be this stupid?
Hey Shaun, dipshit, the term is “less lethal,” not “non-lethal.”
LESS, as in not always, not necessarily, not designed to…
Here, maybe this will help. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
LESS – adjective
1 : constituting a more limited number or amount
– less than three
– less than half done
2 : of lower rank, degree, or importance
– no less a person than the president himself
3a : of reduced size, extent, or degree
b : more limited in quantity
– in less time
To put that in context, Tasers and other electronic control devices are designated “less lethal” because they are 1) not designed to kill and 2) in normal conditions, do not kill. This phrase, “less lethal,” is specifically chosen because it differentiates Tasers and other “less lethal” devices from lethal weapons, such as firearms. Items such as a beanbag shotgun are also designated “less lethal,” but that does not mean they cannot kill you, it just means they are not designed or intended to cause death.
Now, for Shaun, and for Ebele Okobi (the Facebook exec), and all the others out there who are slow on the up take, Tasers are not the cause of death. In almost all instances where someone died after being Tasered, the cause of death was a heart attack, which is what happened to Chinedu Okobi. The reason they are suffering a heart attack is from extreme physical exertion, usually a pre-existing heart condition, and more often than not, illicit drugs on board. That extreme physical exertion, that is the part where they are fighting the cops, which is what causes them to get Tased.
Coincidentally enough, many other people suffer heart attacks during extreme physical exertion, even world class runners have been known to have heart attacks while exercising. But I digress…
Back before we had Tasers, you know how cops handled someone who was violently resisting arrest? They beat them into submission, with batons, fists, and boots, and whatever else, because we had no other way to stop them. You know what used to happen a lot more back before we had Tasers? People died from heart attacks while being beaten by the cops while they violently resisted arrest. You know what happens far less now? I’ll give you one guess…
So let us examine this specific case since King seems so happy to lay all the blame on the “racist white cops” and their “police violence.” As King so accurately points out, while unnecessarily drawing out his Okobi’s race, “He was a big Black man, a dark-skinned Nigerian who was 6 feet, 3 inches tall and weighed 330 pounds.”
He was a big dude, a very big dude. What King does not tell you, intentionally, is that the first officer to contact Okobi was attacked by him and called for cover. That officer was later treated at the hospital for his injuries. Five cops struggled with Okobi trying to get him in custody, but were unable to get him to comply until they used a Taser.
Of course, King tries to draw a correlation between deploying a Taser and shooting him with a gun, because theatrics sell and that is what King does. “Let me phrase that another way: Chinedu was still shot, but by guns that electrocute people to death instead of tearing apart their flesh and organs with bullets.”
King rambles on for a few paragraphs blaming everyone but the violently resisting guy, and then he drops this pile a steaming horse hockey:
“That such dangerous shocks would be administered to people with mental illnesses is especially upsetting. Every single day in this country, hundreds of thousands of nurses treat adults and children who are living with mental illness. Those patients are regularly in crisis, and nurses consistently face them down without ever having to electrocute them into submission.”
So, let me get this straight, just because a guy has mental illness, that means he is not a danger? A 6’3” 330 pound guy, who happens to be mentally unstable, is not a threat? Am I getting that right Shaun? Oh yes, by all means, draw a comparison to hospitals. Fine, we can go there, seeing as my wife is a nurse and I have spent quite a bit of time sitting in an ER while on duty with arrestees. You know what they have in hospitals, you freaking idiot, they have sedatives that they administer to violent patients. You know what else I have seen done in the ER was the staff calling the cops for violent patients who have assaulted staff, and the patient then got Tased by the cops in order to get the patient back under control, strapped down onto the bed, so that they could be SEDATED.
King is an idiot, and he draws comparisons that are not remotely comparable, all the while blaming it on skin color.
You know what King does not address is just how many people were saved by the use of a Taser. “What the hell is this guy talking about?” you are asking yourself. Think of all the people who were armed, and instead of shooting them with a firearm, the cops managed to use a Taser to get them to drop their weapon or stun them until they could be subdued.
In my career, I personally have Tased three men who all would have been shot had we not had a Taser. One was a suicidal guy standing in the middle of a cul-de-sac holding a handgun. With plenty of lethal cover, I approached him from the side until I was in range and deployed the Taser, causing him to drop the handgun. He went to the hospital and lived to see another day.
On another occasion, a crazy guy in a care home lit the apartment on fire and armed himself with a butcher knife. All of the staff and the other patients fled, but the crazy guy remained inside, and the fire department refused to enter to fight the fire because there was a crazy guy armed with a knife. So two of my partners and I went to the apartment, kicked open the door and there he was, standing 20′ inside the smoke filled, burning apartment holding the 10” butcher knife. I deployed the Taser, he went to the floor, we got the knife away, dragged him out alive and fire saved the building.
And on the last occasion, which happened to be caught on dashcam, a suicidal retired firefighter with terminal cancer, was sitting on his front porch, facing sideways to the house, holding a handgun. He was refusing to drop the weapon and would not comply with any directions. He wanted us to kill him, he was hoping for suicide by cop, and it was starting to look like we were going to oblige him. I told the deputy who was calling out the commands (he is a Lieutenant now…) that I was going to circle around, come up behind the guy and Tase him, which I did. As I hit him with the Taser, he dropped the gun, rolled forward out of the chair, and my partners rushed forward and detained him. He left that situation alive, but eventually the cancer got him.
In all three of those instances, people’s lives were saved, and a cop did not have to live with the aftermath of taking someone’s life, because we had a Taser. And that is just the experiences of one cop in one jurisdiction. Imagine what those stats are like nationwide.
So, go ahead, scream, clamor, demand that cops stop using Tasers. When cops start killing more people because you took away one of our more effective LESS LETHAL options, I’ll be here to say I told you so.
Has Facebook figured out yet another way to censor pages with whom they disagree? Conservative leaning pages and pro-LE pages have often found themselves on the receiving end of what appears to be censorship by the Facebook overlords, but in most previous cases, it was pretty obvious. Facebook would artificially limit the reach of your posts, or they would deny you the ability to advertise by saying your content did not meet their criteria or that it violated some rule. Hell, most folks I know who run pro-LE pages, and I know quite a few, all have multiple Facebook accounts so that when Facebook bans one of their accounts, they can use another to run their page.
All of that is stuff we have been dealing with for years, but just recently I began getting comments and messages sent to my page all telling me essentially the same thing, whenever they click on a link to an article I’ve shared, or they click on a long post in order to continue reading it, Facebook shuts down. While some people say they only experience this when trying to visit my page (Deputy Matt & Others Who Serve) others have told me it happens to them on several conservative pages.
So, it appears to me that Facebook has found yet another way to secretly censor conservative and pro-LE pages. I fail to see any explanation that would adequately explain how an accidental glitch would ONLY effect certain pages and not others. Seems awfully intentional to me.