Recently the criminal violence of citizens - some armed with guns - has made the local news. A 40+ year old man shot and killed a 17 year old teenager who was allegedly in a dispute with the older man's nephew. A 21 year old man, defended himself from a robbery, killing a 22 year old man (who was accompanied by two conspirators) when the criminals pointed a gun in his face. The citizen was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and used it to protect his life.
Blade
Greater regulation of the law abiding citizens will do nothing to stop the crimes of the non-law abiding citizen. However, legal gun ownership, responsible use, and freedom will.
“On Sunday, Victor Wiggins, 22, of 2433 Glenwood Ave., was shot in the chest by a man he was attempting to rob, police said.” Mr. Wiggins was shot and killed by another citizen, same race and nearly the same age, who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and defendned himself when Mr. Wiggins and two associates, pointed a gun in his face.
What caught my eye after reading a recent post on Glass City Jungle on this topic, was the lead in “Irresponsible gun ownership creates scenarios over and over again where the circle of violence is played out.” The criminality of the offenders (yes plural) created the violence.
Had the deceased been hit with a hammer, stabbed - like a recent high school student - or clubbed with a baseball bat, the post would not have lead with; “irresponsible athletic equiptment storage creates scenerios over and over again where the circle of violence is played out.”
But the “victims” would still be dead, and the tragedy still a reality. A gun is an assemply of metal and plastic parts, designed for legitimate purposes, which, like many other tools, gets misused. No one is calling for a ban on Mr. Gagnon’s Ford F350that killed a family of 5 on the highway recently, they are holding him responsible. Although there has been a cry for more street signs.
The A-Hole.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Safety?? The Real Purpose?
Toledo City Counsel is getting ready to vote on the proposed increase in the fines for red light camera violations and stationary speed violation systems which includes increasing the percentage of the fine that goes to the city as apposed to the national manufacturer.
A recent Blade article, details the proposal, and cites to the fact that it appears it will not face any opposition from counsel members.
Notice what is not in the article, any MENTION of increased safety. It appears it is simply a matter of increasing revenue to help balance the budget while other aspects of the law enforcement and criminal justice budget are slashed.
At least the Blade and the administration aren't even trying to hide the ball. Its all about the CASH.
The A-Hole.
A recent Blade article, details the proposal, and cites to the fact that it appears it will not face any opposition from counsel members.
Notice what is not in the article, any MENTION of increased safety. It appears it is simply a matter of increasing revenue to help balance the budget while other aspects of the law enforcement and criminal justice budget are slashed.
At least the Blade and the administration aren't even trying to hide the ball. Its all about the CASH.
The A-Hole.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Red Light Camera Due Process
The Ohio Supreme Court upheld local rule statutes that allow red light camera enforcement as a civil penalty, as not conflicting with State criminal laws. While accurate the ruling did not address the myriad of due process issues that remain. The link to the decision can be found on the right hand column of the blog.
Locally -
Can you challenge the technology in the Toledo appeal system? No. Is the video running at the proper speed? When was the last time it was certified/maintained? Was the yellow light time the standard time or was it reduced after the camera was installed? Does the video angle create an optical illusion and does it give a accurate representation of the incident?
If I was not driving, does the spousal privilege protect my right not to identify my spouse as the driver? If I was not driving, do I know actually who was, or must I assume it was my spouse/child? Do I have to conduct an investigation to find out if the vehicle was loaned to a friend, or if perhaps a friend was driving my spouse/child at the time?
If I conduct such investigation, does my testimony satisfy the rules of evidence - IE do I have personal knowledge of the event, or am I reciting to the hearing officer hearsay - what someone else told me happened in an event I did not witness? Should that burden of proof be mine?
Yes I want safe streets for my family, but if the systems do not increase that safety, do not have a deterrent effect (such as the presence of a marked patrol cruiser) and do not have the protections inherent in our system of criminal and civil justice - why use the that method?
The pro-law enforcement conservative A-Hole.
Locally -
Can you challenge the technology in the Toledo appeal system? No. Is the video running at the proper speed? When was the last time it was certified/maintained? Was the yellow light time the standard time or was it reduced after the camera was installed? Does the video angle create an optical illusion and does it give a accurate representation of the incident?
If I was not driving, does the spousal privilege protect my right not to identify my spouse as the driver? If I was not driving, do I know actually who was, or must I assume it was my spouse/child? Do I have to conduct an investigation to find out if the vehicle was loaned to a friend, or if perhaps a friend was driving my spouse/child at the time?
If I conduct such investigation, does my testimony satisfy the rules of evidence - IE do I have personal knowledge of the event, or am I reciting to the hearing officer hearsay - what someone else told me happened in an event I did not witness? Should that burden of proof be mine?
Yes I want safe streets for my family, but if the systems do not increase that safety, do not have a deterrent effect (such as the presence of a marked patrol cruiser) and do not have the protections inherent in our system of criminal and civil justice - why use the that method?
The pro-law enforcement conservative A-Hole.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tragedy, Assumptions and Conjecture - The Lima Shooting
The facts are yet to be known, and truthfully we may never know exactly what happened in the seconds before the Lima SWAT officer made the decision to shoot.
As I discussed previously, this raid could and should have been planned better. There does not seem to have been an emergent situation making entry into the home necessary at 8:15 on a Friday night to prevent the destruction or distribution of large amounts of drugs or other evidence etc. Knowing children lived there, and the boyfriend being the subject of a long standing investigation, other options were available.
But, once the decision was made to execute the warrant, it had to be done tactically to protect EVERYONE. Cops, residents of the house, neighbors, and yes even the subject felon. Serving warrants is dangerous business (of this I know what I speak). Family members, or other residents of the houses, pose a real threat to cops serving warrants. We do not know what actions this mother took to trigger the situation that ended her life.
Reports stated that she ran upstairs upon the police’s entry. BAD decision. For all we know the officer was pursuing her up the stairs, into a room, she reached down with her back to the officer - despite his commands to stop - and spun quickly toward him holding……….unfortunately….her son. She could have as easily been holding a shotgun. In that split second the officer had to make a life and death decision which he will never forget.
I am not a citizen of Lima. I have never been contacted by, pulled over by, or spoken to a Lima police officer. But, to make this case about race (the officer has a Hispanic name), call it MURDER, and make statements that citizens are insulted because the FBI did not send a black agent to investigate, is counterproductive.
Investigate fully. Hold ANYONE AND EVERYONE properly responsible, yes including the deceased, try to make Lima a better safer place to live.
The A-Hole.
As I discussed previously, this raid could and should have been planned better. There does not seem to have been an emergent situation making entry into the home necessary at 8:15 on a Friday night to prevent the destruction or distribution of large amounts of drugs or other evidence etc. Knowing children lived there, and the boyfriend being the subject of a long standing investigation, other options were available.
But, once the decision was made to execute the warrant, it had to be done tactically to protect EVERYONE. Cops, residents of the house, neighbors, and yes even the subject felon. Serving warrants is dangerous business (of this I know what I speak). Family members, or other residents of the houses, pose a real threat to cops serving warrants. We do not know what actions this mother took to trigger the situation that ended her life.
Reports stated that she ran upstairs upon the police’s entry. BAD decision. For all we know the officer was pursuing her up the stairs, into a room, she reached down with her back to the officer - despite his commands to stop - and spun quickly toward him holding……….unfortunately….her son. She could have as easily been holding a shotgun. In that split second the officer had to make a life and death decision which he will never forget.
I am not a citizen of Lima. I have never been contacted by, pulled over by, or spoken to a Lima police officer. But, to make this case about race (the officer has a Hispanic name), call it MURDER, and make statements that citizens are insulted because the FBI did not send a black agent to investigate, is counterproductive.
Investigate fully. Hold ANYONE AND EVERYONE properly responsible, yes including the deceased, try to make Lima a better safer place to live.
The A-Hole.
Red light Cameras and Speeding Tickets
Maggie Thurber had a great discussion last night on Eye on Toledo. Her guest was one of the hearing officers who preside over appeals of red light camera, and electronic speeding tickets. I found my self yelling at the radio, wishing I could get in line to talk to her and her guest.
Please take advantage of her pod cast, on www.wspd.com and listen. She and her callers made great points, gave valuable information, and provided insight into the thought process of the hearing officer.
I found many problems with way the gentleman presented his position. First, just because you wash a pig, and re-name it a flower, it remains a pig. Traffic violations have always been under the criminal code and carried criminal implications. Just because the city re-named these violations "civil" did not make them flowers.
The hearing officer's answers were generally qualified by "as I understand it," "well I don't know about that," and "I would think a citizen can/could....." I know he has limited power as a hearing officer, and did not write the statute as it exists; but for him to base a decision on whether to uphold or dismiss a ticket on so much conjecture, or issues he simply feels "are not in his loop" is preposterous. As Maggie pointed out, once the ticket is issued, the owner is presumed guilty, and it falls upon the citizen to prove otherwise.
The hearing officer relies on the statutory language that the ticket itself is "prima facia" evidence of GUILT. Not evidence of the potential for a violation, but guilt. That evidence is bolstered (in his mind) by testimony from a lieutenant from TPD, that the systems are accurate, are tested quarterly, and working properly. A citizen, testifying in the same manner as this police officer, is NOT sufficient to call into question the prima facia "evidence" the ticket provides. The hearing officer stated he expects every day citizens to bring any evidence related to the mechanical accuracy of these systems to the hearing, and he "believed" a citizen could do so through a FOI request to the city. This seems unreasonable for a citizen to attempt for a $95 ticket, with no notice of their right to do so written on the ticket.
When I was a police officer (in a different state), my traffic radar had to be certified by the manufacturer quarterly, and tested daily. If I issued a ticket that had been verified by the radar, I had to testify that it had been so certified and bring in the records to the court. Additionally I testified that at the beginning of my shift, and immediately following issuance of the subject ticket, the radar passed its internal test, and my manual test. This testimony had to be supported by my patrol log notes showing I performed those two tests at the beginning of my patrol, and immediately after issuing the ticket. My sworn word as a police officer was not enough.
But, in these cases, the sworn word of a police officer who was never at the scene and has never personally tested the equipment is enough, because its "civil."
Hopefully this issue will be resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court and/or legislature, but I will not hold my breath. Dispute every ticket. Make the process too expensive for the City to continue the use of these systems.
The A-Hole.
Please take advantage of her pod cast, on www.wspd.com and listen. She and her callers made great points, gave valuable information, and provided insight into the thought process of the hearing officer.
I found many problems with way the gentleman presented his position. First, just because you wash a pig, and re-name it a flower, it remains a pig. Traffic violations have always been under the criminal code and carried criminal implications. Just because the city re-named these violations "civil" did not make them flowers.
The hearing officer's answers were generally qualified by "as I understand it," "well I don't know about that," and "I would think a citizen can/could....." I know he has limited power as a hearing officer, and did not write the statute as it exists; but for him to base a decision on whether to uphold or dismiss a ticket on so much conjecture, or issues he simply feels "are not in his loop" is preposterous. As Maggie pointed out, once the ticket is issued, the owner is presumed guilty, and it falls upon the citizen to prove otherwise.
The hearing officer relies on the statutory language that the ticket itself is "prima facia" evidence of GUILT. Not evidence of the potential for a violation, but guilt. That evidence is bolstered (in his mind) by testimony from a lieutenant from TPD, that the systems are accurate, are tested quarterly, and working properly. A citizen, testifying in the same manner as this police officer, is NOT sufficient to call into question the prima facia "evidence" the ticket provides. The hearing officer stated he expects every day citizens to bring any evidence related to the mechanical accuracy of these systems to the hearing, and he "believed" a citizen could do so through a FOI request to the city. This seems unreasonable for a citizen to attempt for a $95 ticket, with no notice of their right to do so written on the ticket.
When I was a police officer (in a different state), my traffic radar had to be certified by the manufacturer quarterly, and tested daily. If I issued a ticket that had been verified by the radar, I had to testify that it had been so certified and bring in the records to the court. Additionally I testified that at the beginning of my shift, and immediately following issuance of the subject ticket, the radar passed its internal test, and my manual test. This testimony had to be supported by my patrol log notes showing I performed those two tests at the beginning of my patrol, and immediately after issuing the ticket. My sworn word as a police officer was not enough.
But, in these cases, the sworn word of a police officer who was never at the scene and has never personally tested the equipment is enough, because its "civil."
Hopefully this issue will be resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court and/or legislature, but I will not hold my breath. Dispute every ticket. Make the process too expensive for the City to continue the use of these systems.
The A-Hole.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Tragedy in Lima - for all involved.
I intended to delay posting about this subject until more information came to light, but given the seriousness of the event I wanted to make some points on both sides of the issue.
1) Serving warrants is a dangerous business. Cops are injured and killed when serving warrants every year, often by by-standers or other occupants of the houses they enter, and not by the felon sought.
2) We do not know the facts of the situation which led to the shooting, the article states the deceased ran upstairs when the police entered, but we do not know what led to the officer making the decision to shoot.
However - There are troubling facts already known.
1) There was a lengthy investigation into the sale of drugs at this house. Thus, plenty of TIME was available to plan and execute this warrant. Why go into a house, known to have children residents at 8:15 on a Friday?
2) No large amounts of drugs, cash, or guns are reported as being seized, thus, it does not appear to be a situation where it was known that a large "shipment" had been received and the police were worried about losing the evidence if they waited. It appears proper planning could have avoided this tragedy.
3) Investigate the felon, document and collect evidence against him and ARREST HIM OUTSIDE OF THE HOME or when it is known through surveillance the children are gone. Then approach the house, knock on the door, and announce - We are searching this residence, Mr. Felon has been arrested, everyone may leave once searched, or stay and be cooperative.
Make no mistake; this is a tragedy for all involved; the family of the deceased, the officer who shot her, the community as a whole and the police department. There are facts we do not know, may never know, and a full investigation is needed. The investigatory, planning, and tactical process will be scrutinized, and someone needs to be held accountable. Which "someone" is appropriate we don't yet know. The felon, the deceased, the landlord, the chief, the officer, ......we do not yet know.
I have no doubt that the officer did not leave the station that night thinking, "I'm gonna kill a woman tonight, a black woman, and wound a child." I am sure in the blur of the tactical situation he did not point his weapon at her, think - don't shoot, wait, she is black, shoot.
I am sure in the planning meeting, the officers and sergeants didn't say, "We are serving a warrant on a felon's house tonight, keep sharp, and oh guess what - he's a black guy - woo hooo."
It is time for thought, reflection, and investigation, not rash decisions, fuelled by emotion and based on conjecture.
1) Serving warrants is a dangerous business. Cops are injured and killed when serving warrants every year, often by by-standers or other occupants of the houses they enter, and not by the felon sought.
2) We do not know the facts of the situation which led to the shooting, the article states the deceased ran upstairs when the police entered, but we do not know what led to the officer making the decision to shoot.
However - There are troubling facts already known.
1) There was a lengthy investigation into the sale of drugs at this house. Thus, plenty of TIME was available to plan and execute this warrant. Why go into a house, known to have children residents at 8:15 on a Friday?
2) No large amounts of drugs, cash, or guns are reported as being seized, thus, it does not appear to be a situation where it was known that a large "shipment" had been received and the police were worried about losing the evidence if they waited. It appears proper planning could have avoided this tragedy.
3) Investigate the felon, document and collect evidence against him and ARREST HIM OUTSIDE OF THE HOME or when it is known through surveillance the children are gone. Then approach the house, knock on the door, and announce - We are searching this residence, Mr. Felon has been arrested, everyone may leave once searched, or stay and be cooperative.
Make no mistake; this is a tragedy for all involved; the family of the deceased, the officer who shot her, the community as a whole and the police department. There are facts we do not know, may never know, and a full investigation is needed. The investigatory, planning, and tactical process will be scrutinized, and someone needs to be held accountable. Which "someone" is appropriate we don't yet know. The felon, the deceased, the landlord, the chief, the officer, ......we do not yet know.
I have no doubt that the officer did not leave the station that night thinking, "I'm gonna kill a woman tonight, a black woman, and wound a child." I am sure in the blur of the tactical situation he did not point his weapon at her, think - don't shoot, wait, she is black, shoot.
I am sure in the planning meeting, the officers and sergeants didn't say, "We are serving a warrant on a felon's house tonight, keep sharp, and oh guess what - he's a black guy - woo hooo."
It is time for thought, reflection, and investigation, not rash decisions, fuelled by emotion and based on conjecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
