Don’t talk to the police

by Greg Farber

This is excellent, I agree with it. I have played the tongue twister word games with the police before though, it can be fun if you know how to do it.. I have frustrated more than one cop in my day. BUT, this Lawyers advice is some darn good advise.. The best thing to do is never talk to the police, ever.

Are you proud America ?

by Greg Farber

Cops are professional liars. In fact all Roman Centurions are professional liars. From the building inspectors, police, game wardens, judges, right to the top of the UnConstitutional heap of thieves burning down this country from within.. These are not public servants, their the mafia forcing their agenda onto their slaves.

Police Brutality: Cops Plant Drugs On Suspect & Lets Dog Attack

Hold onto your retirement savings!

by GunRights4US

A story with a happy ending

by GunRights4US This isn't in English, but it doesn't need to be.

Cops brutalize fan... Fans whip Cop ass! What's not to like?

Too bad that here in America we don't have enough backbone to reassert ourselves over the "public servants" who have abused their power.

You DO know that officer safety trumps YOUR rights don’t you?

by GunRights4US From the inimitable Vin Suprynowicz's blog:

Charlie Mitchener is a 61-year-old general building contractor with an office near Patrick Lane and Fort Apache in Las Vegas. He holds permits allowing him to legally carry concealed weapons in Nevada, Florida, and Utah.

Over the past three years, his office has been broken into five times. “Three of those occasions involved me interacting with Metro,” he wrote to me last week. “Each of the occasions began the same: my introduction, my presentation of my Nevada drivers license and my Concealed Firearms Permit. Prior to today, each Metro officer simply replied thank you, proceeded with his work and then when complete there was a conversation about firearms.”

Things were real different at 5:30 a.m. Sunday morning Jan 3, however, when Mr. Mitchener called the Metropolitan Police Department to report the fifth break-in at his office.

“Vin, I hope I did not see the future this morning,” Charlie e-mailed me. “Today was drastically different.”

The responding officer was a lady cop, Officer J. Rogers, badge number 13525.

“Upon presentation of my CFP, the officer asked if I had the weapon on me to which I replied yes. She then said to spread my legs and put my hands behind my back. I complied and she then handcuffed me. While doing so, she said that she wanted to make certain “that we were all safe.”

Officer Rogers stripped Mr. Mitchener of the Glock 19 he was carrying, took the weapon and locked it in her patrol car.

Read the rest of this travesty here!

Profiling And Racial Profiling

by Tom Remington

Since the terror attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by the “Pantie Bomber”, much of the discussion has turned to profiling. Those that fear profiling wrongfully call it racial profiling.

Wikipedia, a publicly compiled usually biased site, can give us a publicly compiled, usually biased definition of racial profiling.

Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a “predictable” manner.

Amnesty International describes racial profiling this way.

Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.

Profiling without the race is defined also by Wikipedia.

the extrapolation of information about something, based on known qualities

Racial profiling ends up being simply a subset of profiling in general. I suppose from that perspective we can have gender profiling, intelligence profiling, interests profiling, educational profiling, character profiling and so forth.

Whenever we label something as racial, it nearly always ends up as being interpreted as something bad. And it very well can be but does not have to be. The truth is, we learn or are trained, however you want to describe it, to profile from infancy. It is all a natural part of life otherwise how would we function?

We profile – “the extrapolation of information about something, based on known qualities” – based on our own developed qualities, ideals, morals, etc. Profiling directs us in our everyday lives; where we live, who our friends are, the kind of job we want, the college we choose to attend, who we buy a house from, etc., etc. In short, isn’t profiling just an everyday part of our lives? And aren’t we kidding ourselves if we think that we can make a law prohibiting profiling that it will stop what’s bred in us?

Let’s be honest. Racial profiling in its simplest definition is wrong. Nobody should look at a Muslim and declare them to be a terrorist simply because they are Muslim. It’s wrong and does nothing to stop terrorism.

Race is only one part of profiling. If we focus on profiling at airports, train stations, etc. as part of a routine to thwart terrorism, it would not only be wrong to suspect only Muslim or “Muslim looking” people because of race but because not all terrorists are of “Middle Eastern” decent.

Police have used profiling for years to help solve cases. Years of collected data has helped them to be able to profile a suspect, even when they don’t know who that suspect is. Behavior patterns are determined from the same data. While not a perfect system, it can help solve crimes and solve them quicker.

Law enforcement officials are trained and have learned from experience what to look for when patrolling or searching for suspects etc. Police can recognized the position of a person driving in a car and make a reasonable determination whether that driver is intoxicated. When police ask people questions, they’re not just seeking an answer. They observe behavior patterns, body language, etc.. They can then tell if someone is lying or hiding something. Without this kind of profiling, crimes would never get resolved.

Should we be profiling at airports and other venues that attract terrorists? Absolutely, but exclusively profiling only race is not only wrong, it’s stupid and does nothing to deter crime, no more than pulling aside a 90-year old grandmother and strip-searching her.

One of the problems with airport security is that screeners are scared to death that if they select the wrong person to screen, they will get into trouble. This has to stop.

Authorities continue to collect data about terrorists. With this information they then can extrapolate that out to determine a profile, complete with behavior patterns.

We need to stop labeling the efforts to screen passengers on planes as racial profiling. It’s profiling and yes, a person’s race is all just a part of the entire overall picture.

It’s a shame that our lives have had to come to this. Flying stinks, especially since 9/11 and presently after the Pantie Bomber’s success in getting explosives past security. This leaves us with the choices of either not worrying about security and we can all take our chances when we fly or do the best job we can to screen passengers, including all those that fit a profile. If this is an infringement on your rights, then don’t fly. If we can’t make flying safe, there won’t be any flying therefore it won’t matter anyway.

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Maine’s Vanished Deer Herd: “Fact Finding” (5)
• Janet Napolitano: Everything Worked Correctly (0)
• If You Pee Before Flying You’ll Save The Planet (1)

WFT does the FBI need with a 20 mm canon?

by GunRights4US


Yeah... you read that right! Who exactly would be on the receiving end of such a weapon? Remember we a have a military just in case Russian tanks come rolling in.

Here's the source.