Gunfighter: A Modern Warrior's Life

Today in Confederate History (6)

Dude, really?  In April, 1865, things had gone as bad for the Confederacy as they could have.  Robert E. Lee had gotten badly mauled at Gettysburg, and was using his “Army of Northern Virginia” to defend Richmond.  Well, it was at this time that things went from bad to worse… I mean FOR REAL!

 

One of the keys to the defense of Richmond was an area called Five Forks, which is southwest of Petersburg.  This major road crossing was a vital escape route to the south in case Lee’s forces had to break out of the Richmond encirclement.

 

In command of the defenses of five forks was a dapper chap named George E. Pickett.  You’ve heard of him, haven’t you?  He is the person for whom the famed “Pickett’s Charge” at Gettysburg was named.  Well, Pickett, despite his fame, was a mediocre officer at best, who graduated dead last in the West Point Class of 1846.

 

Despite his poor showing at West Point, Pickett was sent to Mexico to serve the American Army and participated in the battle of Chapultepec, earning a bit of glory for himself.

 

Pickett was later posted to the Washington territory which is where he was when he shamefully forsook his oath to the United States, and resigned his commission to travel to Virginia to offer his services to the evil empire known as the Confederate States of America.

 

So on the first of April 1, 1865, Pickett’s troops were defending Five Forks and waiting to receive the Union attack, while Pickett himself was attending a fish-bake some two miles away from his unit of terrorist, freedom-hating, insurgents when the attack commenced.  The results were disastrous.  Pickett’s forces were routed… and I mean routed, by the valorous forces of dashing U.S. Cavalry commander Phillip H. Sheridan.  By the time Pickett finished his fish and got back to his unit, the battle was practically over.

 

The beating that Pickett took was so bad, and so important that on the following morning, Lee had to inform the Confederate bandit-in-chief, Jefferson Davis, that Richmond must be abandoned.

 

Pickett’s incompetence was so through that the defense of Richmond collapsed, leading Lee to retreat to Appomattox courthouse, where he surrendered to U.S. Grant, eight days later.

 

Look friends, let this be a reminder to you:  Never let someone who was a mediocre student be in charge of anything (are you listening Mr. Bush?, Mr. McCain?).

 

On a current note, it must be said that as I type this, I am only a half a mile away from a street named after that incompetent boob.

 

Today in Confederate History (3)

Hey kids... let's go back in time, shall we?  Let's go back to the days of yore... before Everybody like Ike; before Ricky loved Lucy, before the League of Nations... hell, even before that whole Teapot Dome scandal.  Let's go back to the days when cotton was King, back to the old south... BACK TO DIXIE (you know... "old times there are not forgotten", right?  That place.

Let's go back, chillen, back  to the year of eighteen and sixty-two.  Oh those were some days, y'all, when the Union Army whipped to stuffin' out o' the rebs what were holed up in Fort Pulaski, which was defending Savannah.

The Union forces, led by David Hunter, employed mortars, smooth-bore cannon and even rifled cannon against the hard, thick walls of the fort.  After a thirty hour bombardment, which led to a large breach in the wall, the bandit commander Charles Olmstead was forced to capitulate when the powder magazine, containing twenty tons of gunpowder was threatened.

Despite the damage done to the fort, Union forces made repairs in six weeks, and controlled the Fort, closing the port of Savannah for rebel commerce for the rest of the war.

Although repairs were made to the breach, the outward damage to Fort Pulaski's walls remain as they were from the battle. 

 

*Note:  This battle took place on April 10-11, 1862, for you sharpshooters out there.

The Healthcare Bill: Where I stand (1)

So we have a healthcare bill. Finally. We finally have the leadership in place to make this a reality. We finally can join the ranks of civilized nations who actually give a damn (or at least sort of) about our citizens.

It's about bloody time, I say.

Now, I'm not running around pretending that this bill is going to fix everything that is wrong with our healthcare system. It won't. Not by a long shot, but it's a start. Personally I think that this bill really needed a strong public option which would have best served not the people living in poverty, but the working poor that frequently have to make the choice between going to the doctor or paying the rent. I think that this country really needs a two-track healthcare system. Not like the system in Britain, but more like the Australian model. As I say, this bill isn't perfect, but it was something that could get signed by the majority of our lawmakers. It's a start.

Most of you who read this already know where I stand on this issue because I have written about it in the past, both on my own blog and at DC Metro Moms, when I was the resident dad over there. What I would like to do now, is talk to the folks I know that were against this bill. I would really like to have a cogent discussion with them/you about your opposition.

My point is that in the press, "mainstream", "Liberal", and "Conservative" (and isn't it a shame that we can even say those things about the press?), what we hear most are the voices of extremity. I would like to ask the anti-healthcare people why they hate the notion of making sure that all Americans have access to medical care. I know that there are those who object to the expense. I know that there are those that are fiscal hawks who want to keep spending reigned in. I understand those things, and I can, in part, agree that we must be very, VERY careful about how things like this get paid for. Having said that, I must tell you that the tenor of the debate on this bill has had very little to do with expense, or the means of paying for it.

My concerns with the debate are those we see in it's forefront… the Teabaggers who scream about abuses of "liberty". The people that are beginning to advocate anti-government violence (sedition anyone?), the thinly veiled racism that is so common at the demonstrations, the cries of "Socialism", "Stalinism", "Nazism", and the like. Why is your side all about these things? Can you tell me in a way that doesn't make you seem like dangerous lunatics?

Come on, I know that you are out there. Talk to me (Goose). I promise that we can still be buddies after our argument. If you are local, I'll even buy you a beer when we're done.

 

The Hamas Assasination

Recently, a leading member of the avowed terrorist organization, Hamas, was killed in the Arab Emirate of Dubai. Many people/organizations/nations were quick to scream bloody murder about that incident because it is widely believed that the killing was perpetrated by agents of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency.

Well, whomever was responsible for whacking the Hamas leader, gets nothing but a pat on the back and a hearty "Well done" from me.

Look. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and terrorists need to be exterminated... thats what I said: exterminated, like the vermin that they are. There are those who will say "but Bill, the United States isn't clean, we kill people, too" and I'll agree to that. We aren't perfect, but the United States, despite what some of you might want to believe, doesn't blow up school buses, churches, marketplaces, for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in order to politically intimidate a person, group, nation, or group of nations.

You see, terrorists (defined as a person, group of people, or nationally sponsored entity)are murderers. Murderers. Not soldiers, who fight on behalf of nations according to civilized rules of behavior. Terrorists, especially radical muslim terrorists, can't be reasoned with. They can't be dealt with. They don't want to share with you. They want to either intimidate you into complete submission or kill you.

 

You.

 

Yes, you, the person reading this. They want to subjugate or kill you. Kill your friends. Kill your parents, and your children... and they won't quit because you try to make nice. They won't quit because you aren't American... because you're a westerner no matter where your parents or great grandparents came from. They don't care if you are Canadian or European, they love you no more than they do the United States, so don't fool yourselves.

Terrorists aren't criminals that you take to court. Terrorists are vermin. Worse than vermin... they are evil, and evil must always be confronted.   Always.  Confronted with violence and without fear, without flinching, and without remorse.

**Please note that nothing that I have written here should be construed to suggest any sort of justification on my part, for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and "Insensitive Remarks"

Here it is, straight, with no chaser:  During the 2008 Presidential campaign, in a private conversation, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), said that the facts that Barack Obama is "light-skinned", and doesn't speak with a "negro" accent would help him in his bid for the Presidency.

 

In 2010, a book about that campaign is released, with Reid's statement in it and the nation goes berserk.  Reid goes into preemptive apology mode by saying that his remarks were "unfortunate" and "insensitive".  He also calls various black "leaders" to apologize...  the effing pundits start talking about Reid's reelection prospects, and idiot Republican leaders, including that dope Michael Steele, call for Reid's ouster as Senate Majority Leader.

 

Gunfighter says:  STOP!

 

Look, Harry Reid might be a crashing bore... and he might have all of the personality of cardboard, but that doesn't make him a racist. 

 

Harry Reid might be a lackluster Senator, and a disappointment to many (including me) as Majority Leader, but those things don't make him a racist, either. 

 

Having said all of that, it must also be said that Harry Reid might, indeed be a racist.... but, you wouldn't know that from this quote.   

 

What I can tell you with all of the certainty that I can muster, is that Harry Reid's recent comments described above, don't prove that he is a racist.  Indeed, his statement proves that despite the unpleasant things I just said about him, Harry Reid knows a little something about the American political process and the pulse of the American electorate.

 

His comments about Barack Obama's Presidential prospects were spot on... and if you don't believe me, please note that we are now talking about PRESIDENT Obama, not Senator-Obama-who-lost-in-his-plucky-"black-guy-goes-to-the-White-House"-bid.

 

Had Barack Obama spoken like he was an escapee from a Jay Z video, he would never have been elected, and you KNOW that I am telling the truth... and so was Reid.

 

Racism is bad, wrong, immoral, unethical, un-Christian, un-Muslim, and un-just-about-all-religions-that-come-to-mind.  Moreover, racism is un-American.  That's right, un-American. 

 

Racism is evil, but what Harry Reid said wasn't racist. 

 

I'l tell you what, though... throwing out this tidbit and others released in the book tells us something very important about our American-selves:  Racism sells.  It's popular.  It is a growth industry.  Have you any idea how much ad copy/air time is going to be sold because the newspapers and the talking heads are all talking about this non-story?  The publishers of this book (and the authors) must be in hog-heaven.  All because of something that Reid said, that wasn't particularly bad or wrong, that was taken out of context and made into a spectacle.

 

This reminds me of the whole Skip Gates-Sergeant Crowley incident.

 

It's time to quit.

 

Disperse.

 

Return to your homes and your lives.

 

Don't feed the beast.

I'm A Little Busy....

Because, dude, I have  some senior Senate staff members coming to my range to play with guns instead of passing healthcare legislation for a firearms demonstration.  I also have remedial shooters, and have to qualify some freakin' mucketymuck from Headquarters.

I'm going to be too busy to post anything worth talking about, so I will leave you with the following topics for discussion instead:

Morning traffic, heading into Washington, DC from Virginia.

Or!

(Taken at SeaWorld, Orlando before the Killer Whale show)

The total saturation of social media in all aspects of our daily lives. 

Discuss... I'll be back later... probably in a highly agitated state.

The Stuff That I Get In My Email

You may have already seen this.... this is a letter from someone who is a WW2 veteran... a man who (according to the person to whom he dictated the letter) "Doesn't have a political bone in his body."  It sounds rather political to me, and since it cam through my email, I decided to parse the letter to get a better view of what Mr. Estes is all about.

My remarks will be in bold print.

Preface

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii
for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes
all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body,
he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.
He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert. (Not really sure about that last point, as you are about to see)

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

(Which means he is about to say stupid things, and that you have to excuse them because he is old)

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

(Supposition unsupported by facts)

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

(Because I am old and historically ignorant)

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like: " We're no longer a Christian nation" (we aren't, and we never were) " America is arrogant"  (we can be)- Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. " (if you don't believe that we can be means-spirited, you haven't been watching the Teabaggers at work, have you?) Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.

(23 generations?  Mr. Estes needs to do a better job with his math skills.  In any event, suggesting that our nations wars have been about liberation is so much bullshit.  Which ones, sir?  The War of 1812?, The Spanish American war?, the first world war, or the second?  Were those wars about Liberty?  Liberty for whom?  Maybe he meant the Vietnam war.  Iraq?  That was about Liberty?  Again, I ask... for whom?) 

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, (why? because they aren't you? or is it because they look different than you?) nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, (exactly how should this gratitude be displayed?) for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House. (Dude, were you senile during the last administration?  Talk about shamelessness)

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

(Totally out of context.  Everything anyone has said since 9/11 can be considered "after 9/11")

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? (farmers and shopkeepers?  Dude, the War of independence was fought mostly by poor irish and scottish immigrants, transported prisoners, free blacks, and slaves that served so that their masters could go on making money without risking their own skins) Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War?(the civil war had nothing to do with the ideals of liberating slaves.  It was all about smashing the traitorous, seditious rebels back into the Union.  That abolition of slavery was just a weapon) I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.  (OK, this part about WW2 was alright until you got to the "because we stand for freedom" part.  WW2 was a war of national survival.  You probably didn't know that, Mr. Estes, but there it is)

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected. (Right, the majority of the electorate, remember that.  It was YOUR generation, Mr. Estes that fought hardest against the ideal of equality.  You enlisted in the Navy in 1934 and the services were segregated throughout most of your 23 years of service.  You lived a large part of your life in a time where your generation resorted to terrorism to ensure that people who served and fought in the same war that you did, didn't have this "Liberty" "Freedom" and "Equality of which you speak")

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.  Shape up and start acting like an American. (meaning acting like an old, damn near dead white man) If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, (doing tough, unpopular things like trying to ensure that everyone, not just the wealthy, employed or or old has decent access to medical care IS leading)  apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.(Did this man notice the deep familial ties of the Bush family to the Saudi Kings?  If I remember correctly, 16 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis)

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. (I suppose Mr. Obama was thinking like a leader, so that mobs wouldn't form and become violent towards Americans who are followers of Islam.  You know those Muslims who seek liberty, equality, and freedom, that you mentioned before.  Oh.  Wait, you don't think Muslims are real Americans, either, do you?)  You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? (but he wasn't jumping to conclusions, the cop in the incident did act stupidly) You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid (I'm a policeman, I know better than President Obama that cops can be stupid.  I see it every day)  but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics (who said anything about fanatics?) by calling them what they are, terrorists.(not all fanatics are terrorists... given the fanatical tone of your letter, one would, using your own logic, have to call YOU a terrorist.)

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life (no American has fought to protect this country since 1945.  ALL of our combat deaths since then have been about American "interests".  Those two things are not the same.) , but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. (son? really?) Do your job. (he is) When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. (he is giving him 35,000... if that isn't enough, than McChrystal should be fired for incompetence)  But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. (define win) The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of. (all wars are about politics... you would think that you would have learned that in all of your years)

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. (True, but the challenges that you fail to refer to may not be the ones that really are the greatest)

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. (really?  what exactly will restore our greatness?  Personally, I believe that this is a great nation, despite our woes... I guess you don't) That's not our greatest threat. (well muslim terrorists sure as hell aren't) Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. (exactly how would you describe the American heart and soul?)

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

(the enemy?  final battle?  WTF are you talking about, old dude?)

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

Mr. Estes, bless your heart... you have proved several points with your letter:  Being old, fighting in a war, and having a lifetime of service, doesn't make a man any smarter than the next ignorant dope.

 

Tasers & The Use of Force

If you have never been to my blog before, welcome!

Let me give you a little relevant background information about myself: I am a Trainer for a law enforcement agency, and have been doing this for thirteen years. My primary focus is combat firearms and the Use of Force.

I live and work in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.

In the past several months, the use of TASER weapons by law enforcement officers nation-wide, has come under the microscope of many Americans.  The proliferation of websites (none of which I will grace with additional exposure) that spend their time ranting against cops is just one such societal indicator of the concern that is felt by so many citizens.

Today, I am taking part in a day of action... or a blog blast on the issue of TASER use in America.  This say is sponsored by my friend Wayne, from The Electronic Village.

Considering what I do for a living, It probably won't surprise any of you that I fully support the use of TASERs as an effective tool in law enforcement.  A TASER, properly employed, tends to result in less harm to a non-compliant suspect, and in increased protection for law enforcement personnel as well as the general public... but more about that later.

When discussing the use of these weapons, we use the term TASER which has become common even thought the term TASER is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle (Tom Swift being a fictional hero of the inventor of the device).  Later, the name TASER became the brand name for the manufacturer of the most commonly used version of this class of weapons.   Where I work, the term we use for this sort of product is a bit more usage-specific.  We call them "Electronic Defense Modules".  Well, no matter what you call them, the effect is the same, which brings us to our discussion of where TASERs fall in the so-called force continuum, and it's application.

Before we even get to the heart of all of this, we need to have at least some grounding in when, why, and how police officers are supposed to use force while on duty, and there is no other way to get at that than to have a discussion on the law. 

The law. 

Let me state, right from the beginning.  I am not a lawyer.  I don't claim to be an expert on the subject of the law.  What I am doing here, is giving you an overview of some legal aspects of the use of force by police officers.  Nothing that I say here should be construed as some sort of legal consultation.  Nor am I acting in my official capacity as a lawman... I am merely having a discussion with some friends on a subject that I know something about.

How's that for a disclaimer?

Oh.  Wait, there's more:  Nothing included in this post should suggest that I am speaking on behalf of any U.S. governmental agency or organization, or that my opinions reflect those of any agency, organization, or official.

Are we clear? Ok, let's get down.

It breaks down like this: The use of force by police officers in the U.S. is governed by two particular Supreme Court cases. Those cases are Graham v. Connor (use of force in general), and Tennessee v. Garner (the use of deadly force by police). These decisions are at the heart of all discussions on whether or not a particular instance of the use of force was lawful. Please note that lawful doesn't necessarily coincide with "authorized".

In the case of Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the use of force by an officer, upon a "seized, free citizen" will be based on the standard of "objective reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The court stated that "based on a totality of circumstances the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than the 20/20 vision of hindsight and the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowances for the facts that police officers are often forced to make split second decisions in circumstances which are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving."

The reasonableness of the officer's decision will be based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time force was used. What was determined or discovered after force was used cannot be used to justify or condemn the use of force.

Please understand something, right from the start, no law in this country requires that a cop has to be right when he or she uses force on whatever level. That's right, we don't have to be right. We only need to be "Reasonable". That's the law, friends. Was a particular use of force reasonable for the officer given the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the incident?  That's it.

Let's talk for a little while about some of the things that will drive an officer's decisions on the use of force. These things include, but are not limited to the severity of the crime; was the suspect an immediate threat; was the suspect actively resisting arrest, or evading arrest by flight? Those are some of the things that might drive the decision of whether or not to use force.

Some factors that may drive an officer's decision on how much force to use are listed here:

Use of alcohol or drugs

Mental or Psychiatric History

Size, weight, age, condition of the officer and/or suspect

Availability to weapons

Officer to suspect ratio

History of violence

Previous use of force resulting in injury

Duration of the action

Presence of bystanders

These things (and more) are what an officer has to make decisions about when deciding what level of force/she may have to apply.  I could talk about each one of these things individually, but that would take more time than I have to type them.  Having said that, if you should need further explanation on any of those factors, please ask me either by comment or email, and I will explain more fully.

OK, now would be a good time to talk about the early application of force.  There are times when an an officer may, and indeed should, use force early on in a confrontation.  The early application of force generally results in less force used by officers, fewer injuries to the officer AND suspect.  The early application of force should happen when a suspect becomes non-compliant, or gives any pre-assault indicators, such as assuming a fighting stance.

Remember... "force" can mean different things, so let's pause for a moment to talk about them.  Where I work, there are five separate levels of force, and the are:

Officer Presence - The ability to effect or change behavior based on presence/appearance alone.

Verbal Commands - Firm, clear, concise directions

Soft Techniques - Minimal chance of injury eg; "come along" holds, Pressure points, electronic defense modules, chemical agents.

Hard Techniques -Greater chance of injury, eg; Strikes, kicks, blows, throws, take-downs, & impact weapons

Deadly Force - Any force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

As you can see, electronic defense modules, or TASERs, for our purposes, fall under soft techniques, because when properly used, they generally result in minimal (if any) injury.

Now, having discussed the levels of force, let's talk about what so many people refer to as the "Force Continuum".  That term usually refers to some sort of matrix that shows what an officer's reaction should be to certain behaviors by a suspect.  There are many variations of the continuum and I have added an illustration here to give you an example of what they look like:

The diagram that you see above, used to be in common use in federal law enforcement, but is now a relic.  It is a relic because it gave students that notion that each step in the "pyramid" had to be exhausted before an officer could move to the next level of force.  That notion couldn't be further from the truth. 

Now, this is where the discussion frequently gets ugly, and strays from the factual into the realm of perspective and strong opinion.  There are people who believe TASERs to be weapons of torture, used by police officers as punishment... as a "torture" device, based on the fact that it's use causes extreme pain.  I disagree vehemently with this assertion. 

When using TASERs (a soft technique), cops are no more using them as a torture devices than they would use an expandable steel baton (a hard technique) to strike someone.  It's that simple.  Yes, simple.

Let's move a little further and talk a little more about deadly force, since the number of TASER-related deaths are at the heart of the wider discussion on TASERs and their use.  Many of the folks involved in this discussion want TASERs banned.  Many want TASERs to re-classified as "near deadly force" weapons.  I say that these things are unnecessary because TASERs rarely kill.  Yes, I know, any unintended death is a bad thing, but generally speaking, TASERs rarely result in the death of a suspect.

Let's talk a little more about what deadly force is... and ins't

Deadly Force

• The use of any force that is likely to cause death or

serious physical injury.

 

Serious Physical Injury

• A substantial risk of death

• Extreme/protracted physical pain 

Protracted and obvious disfigurement

• Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily

member, organ, or mental faculty

You see, when force is used and it unexpectedly results in death, the force level hasn't necessarily changed.  For instance, if I were to get in a fistfight with a subject, and a punch in to his face caused a sudden stroke which killed him, I haven't used deadly force... I have used a hard technique that resulted in unexpected death.  An unexpected death isn't deadly force just because someone died.

The point that I am trying to make with all of this is that all sorts of weapons can kill.  All sorts of empty hand techniques can kill, weapons designated as "less lethal" (not NON-lethal) can kill... but it is important to remember what deadly force is:  Force which is LIKELY to cause death or serious physical injury.  TASERs don't fit that description.

TASERs aren't the devil.  Cops that use them aren't the devil, either.  If fewer people entered into public disturbances or violent confrontations, TASERs wouldn't be used as much, subsequently reducing the number of TASER-related deaths, nation-wide.  

TASERs save lives.  Sometimes they take lives, too.  It's sad, but there it is.

I regularly give our officers and agents a presentation on the Use of Force... it is an annual requirement where I work.  The presentation is about ninety minutes... I hope that the shortened version tat you see here helps in some small way.  If you have questions, contact me via comments or email.

 

Dear President Obama (2)

Dear President Obama,

I hardly know where to begin this letter... so I thought I would tell you that I am not writing to you as a committed Democrat.  Nor am I writing to you as an outraged citizen.  I am writing to you as a very troubled veteran of eight years enlisted service in our armed forces.

The young Marine that I once was, is now trapped inside of a man in early middle age, but still thrills to the sound of the trumpet.  By that, sir, I mean that I still want our armed forces to do what they are designed to do:  Go forward into battle and crush our enemies, and drive them before us.  The middle aged man that I have lived long enough to become still wants that, but I want to do it wisely.  I don't think that your proposed new strategy is wise.

As I understand your speech, the idea is to send these thirty thousand Marines and soldiers to Afghanistan in order to stabilize the country and give the Afghan government the time and space it needs to get it's act together and take care of it's own security, right?

In other words, it's the George Bush "surge".  OK, I know you don't want to hear that, but that is what it is:  A surge.  A ramping up of forces to quell violence so we can declare "VICTORY"... and then leave a vacuum for the Taliban to fill from their havens in Pakistan.

I know that you are a smart man, sir.  I know that you have to be aware that a reconstituted Taliban can be the only result, right?  I mean, you can't actually believe that in the face of an additional 30,000 troops, and an as yet undetermined number of allied soldiers that the Taliban will waste time and lives in pitched battles that they can only lose.  Right?  You do know that they will cross the Pakistan border and wait us out, right?  I know that you know this, because I refuse to believe that you think that the Pakistani army is going  to crush them... despite all of the military aid that we give them.

This is my quandary, Mr. President.  We are going to pacify the trouble spots in Afghanistan, temporarily, to allow us to declare honorable victory, and then let that country descend back into chaos.  While I understand it, and while I am ok with departing and leaving the Afghan government to handle their own security, I am terribly concerned about the number of American and allied lives that will be spent in order for us to feel alright about the terrible cost of this war, that in the end will gain us little, if anything in terms of national security.

As I said in an earlier open letter to you, I can't support this.  I can't support it because it ignores the strategic facts.  I can't support it because it flies in the face of military reality.  I can't support it because of the cost (in blood and treasure).  I can't support it because of the lack of honesty.

We need to withdraw from Afghanistan now... not two years from now.

Very Respectfully Yours,

Gunfighter

Presidential Haiku

POTUS says we surge

We ignore long histories

GF calls "BULLSHIT"