Denver, CO vs Canton, OH

Denver, CO and Canton, OH both had great entries in the "Cops Gone Wild" category.

Denver was a strong contender with this one:
A Denver police officer fired for driving 88 mph above the speed limit while intoxicated has appealed his dismissal, arguing that the penalty is unfair and overly harsh.

Derrick Curtis Saunders, who had previously been cleared of charges he pointed a gun at a McDonald's employee in 2009, was arrested for speeding and DUI by the Colorado State Patrol. He couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

Saunders was traveling 143 mph in a 55-mph zone on June 17, 2010, according to the order terminating him, issued by Manager of Safety Alex Martinez on Dec. 7.

Source: Denver Post

Canton brought out their big guns with Officer Harless :
Officer Daniel Harless, who is currently under investigation for threatening to execute a concealed handgun license-holder during a traffic stop, and for a separate incident in which he threatened to send the suspects "to the grave" if they moved, adding, "I will shoot you in the face and I'll go to sleep tonight," is now also under investigation for a THIRD incident which was also caught on tape.

Source: Buckeye Firearms Association

So, to summarize:

Denver - a Denver cop drives drunk at a massively high speed (143 mph in a 55 mph zone) and gets fired, sentenced to five days in jail, fined $300 and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. Seems a bit lenient to me, but at least it was some form of punishment.

Canton - a Canton cop threatens to execute people on THREE separate occasions and gets to keep his job while awaiting the results of a "hearing" and the only reason the hearing even happened is because of the publicity surrounding the THIRD incident. Had that youtube video not gone viral, it's likely that Canton would have swept this under the rug AGAIN.

So, what's the lesson we learned? If you're a supreme, power-mad asshole of the highest order who threatens to beat, torture, and execute a man ON CAMERA (like Officer Harless), then you should choose the Canton, OH police department over the Denver, CO police department.

Eric Holder - Beltway Bob

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!" - that was quote from Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Minister of Information, during the initial phase of war in Iraq. He was brutally, and deservedly, mocked for his inane and obvious lies.

It appears that, even here in America, we have our own version. Our own Beltway Bob.

His name is Eric Holder, US Attorney General.

Attorney General Eric Holder insists "nobody at the Justice Department has lied" about the gun-running scandal Fast and Furious. That in itself is a lie, as his deputy's emails prove.

- Investors Business Daily
And, much like Iraqi Information Minister, Eric "Beltway Bob" Holder is the mouthpiece for a corrupt and evil bureaucracy that engages in, covers up, and glosses over the very criminal actions for which they're so eager to prosecute others.

Big Week for Officer Harless ... Maybe

Looks like Officer Daniel Harless, a Canton Ohio police officer, may FINALLY get his disciplinary hearing. Buckeye Firearms reports that, after being postponed several times, it is currently scheduled for December 15th. The reason for previous postponements? He's on sick leave due to a PTSD disability.

As I've said before, Officer Harless is a supreme, power-mad asshole of the highest order who threatens to beat, torture, and execute a man ON CAMERA. He's the one making threats like this:
I swear to God this little bull crap you pulled has me so hot. You know what I should have done? I tell you what I should have done. As soon as I saw your gun I shoulda taken two steps back, pulled my Glock 40, and just put ten bullets in your ass and let you drop. And I wouldn't of lost any sleep. Do you understand me? And he would have been a nice witness as I executed you because you're stupid.

- Buckeye Firearms article
- YouTube video of the incident
Officer Harless should be jailed for threatening and intimidating someone as an officer of the law. At the very least, he should be fired and never employed as a police officer again. Of course, that's what should have happened the last time Officer Harless went nuclear on the job. Good luck, Canton Ohio. Hopefully the thin blue line won't sweep this one under rug ... again. And hopefully Allen Schulman has stopped crying in his wheaties.

PLCB: Pot, meet kettle

So the debate about kicking the state government out of the business of selling alcohol is pretty heated here in Pennsylvania. Of course, the union (UFCW Local 1776) is lobbying very strongly against privatization and one of their arguments is that, since there is no profit incentive, the government employees are better at preventing sales to minors and intoxicated people.
A 39-year-old Liquor Control Board enforcement officer was charged with driving under the influence after a crash in downtown Pittsburgh late Thursday night.

Tyrribea Flood was drunk when she crashed a state vehicle at the intersection of Ninth and Penn avenues shortly before midnight, according to Channel 11 News reporter Lori Houy.
Source: WPXI - Liquor Control Board Officer Charged With DUI After Downtown Crash

Right. Maybe Ms. Flood was just doing work-related research. So what exactly makes the PLCB a better watchdog again?

Allen Schulman, Canton City Council President, is unclear on the concept

Allen Schulman, President of the City Council of Canton, OH, cries in his Wheaties. He's unhappy that one of Canton's police officers, Daniel Harless, was caught on camera threatening a man, numerous times, with death and serious injury. Officer Harless informs the man that he should have stepped back, drawn his gun, and put ten rounds in the guy. He goes on to say that he would have executed the man and slept soundly that night. All of this while being filmed by the camera in his own patrol car.

Let me say this again: Officer Harless, a supreme, power-mad asshole of the highest order, threatens to beat, torture, and execute a man ON CAMERA. And, as these sort of videos are prone to do, the dash cam video went viral, bringing well-earned shame and ridicule down upon the town of Canton, the police department, and Officer Daniel Harless.

One would think that Allen Schulman, the President of the Canton, OH City Council, would be angry and outspoken after this incident. And you would be correct! However, Council President Allen Schulman is NOT speaking out against Officer Daniel Harless nor his behavior. He's angry that people from outside of Canton have been calling him to complain about Officer Harless and his atrocious, criminal behavior.

I'm sorry Allen Schulman, but having a Canton mailing address and voter registration is not a requirement to observe and be outraged at the behavior of a psychopath such as Officer Daniel Harless. Rather than stand up, acknowledge, and condemn the outrageous behavior of one of your town's officers, you've chosen to circle the wagons and attempt to divert attention away from Officer Harless by whining and complaining about the very people with whom you should be agreeing.

I'll take 'Will cause an increase in false arrests' for $400, Alex

U.S. Appeals Court: OK to check DNA of those arrested
In an 8-6 ruling, the circuit judges found that people who are arrested have "a diminished expectation of privacy in their identities." Outweighing their privacy, they found, is the importance to law enforcement of correctly identifying people who are charged with crimes, determining their criminal history, potentially linking them to unsolved crimes and promptly ruling out involvement in a crime in cases in which the DNA does not match that found at the scene.
So the cops get to take your DNA in order to increase the speed of investigations and to "potentially" link you to unsolved crimes. All for simply being arrested. It's a good thing the cops never falsely arrest anyone for nefarious reasons.

Am I right, David Briddle? Oscar Mendoza? William Bartlett?

Apparently White Men CAN Jump

Appears Wesley Snipes is going to spend three years in prison for three misdemeanors for failing to file taxes over a three year period.

Facing prison, Snipes pins hope on 'prayers,' Supreme Court

Snipes claims that he thought his financial advisers had been taking care of his taxes as part of their task of helping Snipes manage his money.
he initially failed to pay ... taxes on income he received ..., and then repeated the error in the three subsequent years, despite the help of an accountant. Apologizing ..., he took responsibility for what he called "careless" and "avoidable" mistakes while insisting they were unintentional.
OH SHIT - WAIT! That paragraph isn't about Snipes, it's about Tim Geithner, the puss-filled, tax-dodging weasel who not only was forgiven, but WAS APPOINTED AS TREASURY SECRETARY!

Not only did Geithner skip paying taxes for FOUR years, compared to Snipes THREE years, but after being caught, Geithner only paid two of the four years worth of back taxes because the other two years had had their statute of limitations run out. Only after the Treasury nomination seemed likely did he finally pay off the other two years of back taxes.

So, Wesley Snipes is going to jail, on three misdemeanors of failing to file tax returns, after being prosecuted by the IRS, a department that is overseen by Tim Geithner who was appointed to that position after it was discovered he had failed to file taxes for four years.

What a fucking travesty.

If She Weighs the Same as a Duck ...

It looks like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is channeling Monty Python in its latest editorial.

That's pretty consistent with the logic (or lack thereof) present in this editorial:

Into the moat: Rendell should drop this reckless castle expansion

Before legislators adjourned their lame-duck session in Harrisburg, they managed one last piece of mischief. They sent to the governor a bill that expands the so-called castle doctrine of self-defense for no good reason.
Seriously? Did they steal lines from a 5th grader's writing assignment? At least they're not trying to hide their bias.
The castle doctrine reflects the idea that a person's home is his castle and can be defended with deadly force against intruders. Pennsylvania law already incorporates a castle doctrine, although it imposes on the person being threatened a duty to retreat under certain circumstances. That wasn't good enough for supporters of House Bill 1926, even though the law has worked fine. As the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association explained in a letter to House members, "A resident never has the duty to retreat if he or she is threatened inside of his or her home or place of work, regardless of whether the person can safely retreat." While supporters of the bill cited the alleged threat of lawsuits against law-abiding people who choose to use a gun to defend their home, this legislation is a solution to no obvious problem. It also takes the concept of a home that must be defended and expands it to a garage, a porch or deck, a driveway, a backyard or front yard and a personal vehicle. In short, it is an invitation to trigger-happy behavior.
Right. That's exactly how it works. I'm in the driveway changing the oil in my car while my kids are playing nearby. Sumdood decides that my wallet really should be his and proceeds accordingly. I can tell you that, no matter what the law says, my mind is not going to be considering whether I have a duty to retreat or not. It's going to be determining the best way to stop the violent act against me and my family. All this law will do is cover my ass from a career-building prosecutor using me as a stepping stone or Sumdood's family deciding to sue me. And that's only if, IF, my actions were warranted.
This was done not just for no good reason but for a dangerously bad one -- the notion that guns are the remedy to violence in society-- when, in fact, they are one of the main enablers of violence. The bill is opposed by most of the state law enforcement community, including the district attorneys association. A letter to Gov. Rendell from the Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Gun Violence Policy Group, a coalition of police chiefs, makes a solid case for a veto: "The proposed expansions of the castle doctrine will make the job of prosecutors -- working to get stiff penalties for violent offenders -- more difficult."
Actually, they got part of this right: Guns ARE enablers of violence. Where they go wrong is assuming that all violence is equal. The criminal using a gun to take my money/property/life is using violence for evil. My wife or I shooting the criminal until the threat is stopped is an example of using violence for good. And that last line about making it harder for prosecutors going after violent offenders is absolute bullshit. This only covers my actions if I'm acting as a law-abiding citizen and protecting myself or others from serious injury/death. Had the editors actually read the bill (or, more likely, cared about the truth), they would have seen this:
From HB 1926: 1 (2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under
2 this section unless the actor believes that such force is
3 necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily
4 injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force
5 or threat
Nowhere does it say that being trigger-happy is a valid defense from prosecution. Now for the Post-Gazette's elementary closing:
It is shocking the Legislature should thwart the law enforcement community's wishes by finishing work on this bill just days after Game Commission Wildlife Conservation Officer David L. Grove was killed, authorities say, by a convicted felon with an illegal firearm. Although this bill passed both houses by wide margins, Mr. Rendell, who must decide by Saturday, should take out his veto pen and stand up for what is right and not what is popular.
What a way to use the death of an officer as political capital. Especially when it is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Officer Grove was killed by a convicted felon possessing an illegal firearm (I'm assuming they mean illegally carried) - that's two crimes already. Add to this the fact that the murderer was not in a residence or vehicle, was committing another crime (poaching) already, and attacked a person he KNEW to be a police officer - he's already violated three of the requirements for the Castle Doctrine to apply.

No, the travesty is that the editors at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent, law-abiding citizens in order to advance a political agenda.

The Only Ones

Via The Truth About Cars blog, we're treated to jackass Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood talking on NPR about pushing a Federal ban on using cell phones while driving:
LUDDEN: Okay. Let’s take another phone call. Jesse(ph) is on the line in Hartford, Connecticut. Go right ahead, Jesse.

JESSE (Caller): How are you guys?


Sec. LaHOOD: Good.

JESSE: Good. First, thanks for taking my call. I do live in Hartford, Connecticut, and I have received a ticket for talking on a cell phone while driving. I’m just wondering because I see officers in Hartford constantly on the phone while they drive. What would that have an effect on their actions and their behaviors if this law will become a national regulation?

Sec. LaHOOD: Well, in the states that have passed laws, law enforcement people are exempted because of the jobs that they have, and that the ability that they need to be able to talk on cell phones. I believe they are trained to be careful when they’re doing it. But the truth is, they’re exempted because of the safety because they’re public safety officers and they’re required to have that kind of communication.

LUDDEN: All right. Jesse, thanks does that answer your question?

JESSE: I guess I would just prefer that. I mean, obviously, the interest of the public safety is important. Ill tell you, if I’m an entrepreneur and I have 45 people who depend on my performance, and Im in the car five hours a day, would you support offering some type of class or training where I could have similar training and be able to use my cell phone while I drive, because I produce output from being on the road and being on my phone?

Sec. LaHOOD: Absolutely not. Driving and talking is dangerous. Using a cell phone or a BlackBerry is dangerous while you’re driving.

Silly Rabbit, of course you can't have the same special training - that's a perk of being an "only one"!