DesertExile: March 2006

30 March 2006

If we say they are O K--Why don't we.......

Photo from

Phony ID from apprehended offenders.

If we allow Illegals all PRIVILEGES of a U.S Citizen (Notice, I said PRIVILEGES. Not RIGHTS. Our glorious Supreme Court says they have "Rights". )

Why should you ask your dentist if he graduated from Dental School? Aren't these people just proclaiming themselves Citizens?

Why should you question a law enforcement officer if he has been certified by the Peace officer Standards and training Commission? These people want all the Perks that go with Citizenship. No stinking tests, no learning English.

Why shouldn't you just go to your city hall, County Admin building, or State Capitol, and refuse to move until they fully fund YOUR life style. Isn't this what the Illegals are demanding?

Firemen:Legends in their own minds

Six-figure salaries soar in city work force

Most people regard fireman as fearless heroes, ready to climb heights, and dash into raging fires to save lives. BS!

Firefighters Accused of Ignoring Blaze,1,4937417.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

This is what can happen to you if you aren't in their Union.

From my observations, as a former law enforcement officer, Firemen of this generation bleed taxpayers. They are self-absorbed, nacissitic, and ignore rules. The picture above is the self-image most of these firemen have of themselves.

Yes, they earn $100,000 PLUS from their employer, and then, they have second jobs and businesses. One fireman, with his Union sticker--(get out of jail free pass, they think) on his back window, was towing a loaded trailer to his next carpet laying job at 85 miles an hour. Another was using his four days off to take his blond girlfriend to Mexico in his Corvette at 110 MPH. He first stated that he was not going to take this ticket as he wasn't going that fast. [He didn't have a clue--he had been totally involved in conversing with the blond]

You see their illegally lowered vehicles, with illegal tint on the windows and altered exhausts racing down the freeway, with their get out of jail Union sticker on the back window. The message is from Homer Simpson" Get outta my way--I'm a Hero!".

27 March 2006

Criminals defending their pass to be criminals

The best writing that I have found that fits my outlook is the one that follows. Previously, I wrote of my negative contacts with Illegal Aliens.

Are Illegal Aliens a Privileged Class?
By David J. Stoddard
I challenge any of you to take an unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured automobile onto our highways. Do something stupid like change lanes without signaling in front of one of our state cops.

Now, let's really make it interesting. Drive on the highway in an unlicensed automobile with no insurance and no driver's license and no identification.

See how fast you end up with your vehicle confiscated, and a stack of citations that would make IRS forms seem like child's play. (You may even in up in jail.)

Do you think everybody on our highways is treated equally? Wrong!

Illegal aliens, even without any form of identification, are merely cited and released, if they are cited at all. Cops are reluctant to cite illegal aliens. If the alien doesn't show up to court, the state has to serve a warrant. Cops are loath to attempt to serve a warrant on Jose Rodriguez who was Javier Madrigal in Acapulco yesterday and will be Jaime Garcia in Chicago tomorrow. citation, just a wink and a nod or at worst get issued citations with the privilege of continuing on down the highway in an unlicensed vehicle, driven by an unlicensed driver with no insurance.

A few years ago there was a big stink sent up by Mexico because Port officials where checking Mexicans at the Ports for seat belts and Arizona Automobile insurance. The practice stopped. Now, if you are so unfortunate as to get into an accident with a car bearing Mexican license plates you most likely will need your uninsured motorist coverage on your own insurance and the other driver will be cited and released never to be seen until you appear in a civil court having to prove that you are not at fault and that you don't have to pay his disability payments for the rest of his life.

How would you like to finance a home? You will need to fill out numerous forms listing your social security number; present and past addresses and a myriad of otherwise private and personal data before you will even be CONSIDERED for a mortgage.

Now the Federal Government is behind an effort to assure that "migrants" are able to buy homes even if they have no credit history and are able to present ONLY a Taxpayer Identification number. Never mind that they are here illegally and should be deported. TIN's are issued upon request. IRS cares not about the origin of the applicant, nor is any background check performed. nor does IRS care whether the correct name has been given. Our senior citizens and native-born poverty-stricken are denied housing and financing while foreigners who sneaked into this country are given privileges.

Do you live in a nice neighborhood? Do you keep your yard well? Did you buy your home because the neighborhood is clean and the neighbors well behaved? Did you have a reasonable expectation that your property would appreciate or at least retain its value?

In San Rafael, California, there was a ordinance that prohibited junk cars in residential neighborhoods. Illegal aliens love old cars. If the alien is in an accident, he can just bail out and leave the car. If, for some reason, the car is confiscated, it is no big loss. If the illegal alien can drive the car until it no longer runs, the car is still good. Parts can be removed from the old car and it is still good. It is better if it is unregistered. It is better yet if it is still registered to a former owner two or three owners removed. The old car can be used to store anything. If nobody knows who owns it, the car can be used to store dope, guns, food stamps, stolen goods and whatever will fit into it. There are no rental fees or storage charges. Illegal aliens had the perfect deniability.

San Rafael did not enforce its ordinance against "abandoned" cars until residents began to complain. When the city began to crack down on the old cars on city streets, the illegal alien advocates complained. They said it was "racist". They said it was a "cultural" thing that is perfectly alright. The illegal alien cheerleaders won. The city fathers backed down. The illegal aliens won. The neighborhoods look like junkyards, but nobody wants to be a "racist".

The city of Costa Mesa, California has an ordinance against farm animals kept in the city. Illegal aliens are keeping goats, chickens and no doubt other animals in their back yards. On weekends loud Mexican music echo through the neighborhoods while goats are slaughtered in back yards. Clothes hang on fences in front yards. Corn grows on former lawns. Garages have been converted into apartments without bathrooms or kitchens. One and two bedroom apartments hold three or more families. But, hey! Let's not enforce any of those "racist" ordinances or require any of those "Anglo conceived" permits. After all, we must practice "cultural relativity". We must adapt to the mores, culture and politics of those sneaking across our borders or we are "intolerant", "xenophobes" and "not good global citizens".
I dare you to open a church in your home. Hang a sign out advertising Sunday services. I dare you to open a small business in your garage. Either endeavor will bring you citations, orders to cease and desist and fines. Government thugs will visit you to see if you have the proper "business license and zoning". But, if you are an illegal alien, you can park a junk car in front of your apartment to use as storage for illegal drugs and guns.

You can pack a family of 10 into your garage and charge them rent. You can raise a goat in your backyard.

The City of Los Angeles likes to set up "roadblocks" to check motorists for insurance and driver licenses. But, these roadblocks must not be set up before 10PM. Too many illegal aliens driving home from work were being inconvenienced between 4PM and 7PM.
What if you have a sudden illness? You go to the nearest emergency room and if you are fortunate enough to have a good friend or a family member with you, your financial history, assets, insurance card, social security number and other information is taken by a hospital worker while your insurance company is consulted to see if they will pay the costs. If you are uninsured or the insurance won't pay for certain treatment. You may still get the treatment you need if you take out a loan or make a deal with the hospital to put up your assets as collateral.

If you are an illegal alien, you don't even have to give your correct name. You will get all the treatment you need. You will get follow-up care and medication at no cost to you. Hospital personnel won't even notify the Border Patrol. The medical community will give you first class service, while a senior citizen waiting in the lobby has to choose between food and medication. The hospital will even fly the illegal alien to another facility while the U.S. citizen whose insurance won't pay has to find alternative transportation. (This happened to me a few years ago. I showed up at Sierra Vista Community Hospital with severe chest pain. After many tests the doctors found that my left lung was filled with blood. They agreed that I had a pulmonary embolism and should be evacuated to Tucson. However, for some reason unknown to me to this day, I had to get to Tucson on my own. My wife drove me to Dorado Hospital in Tucson where I remained for 10 days. On the way to Tucson I was coughing up blood and every bump in the road felt like I was getting kicked in the chest. Had I been an illegal alien, I would have been flown in a helicopter.)

I became aware a few years ago of an incident in Phoenix in which several illegal aliens were discovered walking across a vacant lot at night carrying AK-47's. The Phoenix P.D. called INS which didn't respond. The police officers released the aliens with the AK-47's because nobody could determine alienage and the AK-47's were not reported stolen. It is a violation of federal law for an illegal alien to buy or be in the possession of a firearm. (ANY kind of firearm.) If the aliens were Egyptians, Kosovars or even Canadians, they would have been interviewed and detained by I&NS. But, they were Mexicans. Everybody knows that Mexicans are just looking for a better life. So..they were released and presumably are still in Phoenix with their AK-47's.

Every night armed Mexicans cross our borders with dope and sometimes fully automatic weapons. Most of the time, these armed smugglers cross public land. Do you ever hear of BLM or Forest Service Treehugger Rangers arresting them for carrying a weapon on federal land? Do these treehuggers even try to detect and arrest armed foreigners on public lands? (That's rhetorical. In my 30 years of government service, I've never known of a case in which Cactus Cops, Treehuggers, or Fish Petters have arrested anyone except U.S. Citizens on public land with a firearm. In every case, that I know, of a U.S. Citizen being arrested on public land with a firearm, the "violation" was either accidental or committed in ignorance of the zealous way in which our green police protect the public.)

What happened to the 2nd Amendment? Chris Simcox had a CCW. As I understand it, the weapon he had was in a holster in plain sight, although he could have carried it concealed if he wanted.
Chris was taken down at gunpoint like a common criminal and charged with several violations, among them being on public land without a "special use" permit. I own the public land. You own the public land. It is legal to walk down the streets of Sierra Vista with a .38 strapped to your hip. Yet, if you set foot onto "public" land where armed traffickers, bandits and other thugs are known to frequent, (and operate with de-facto impunity), you can be arrested for having the means to protect yourself as per your Constitutional right.

Additionally, I defy you to go onto BLM or Forest Service land. (Be sure to go during daylight hours so you won't encounter any of the privileged class with packages of white powder.) Do something really crass like empty your ashtray in the parking lot or throw out some bubble gum wrappers. Some clown wearing a tan and green uniform and a puny little badge will come UNGLUED. You will have committed the unpardonable sin.

But, while you are on that "public" land, take a look around at the papers, feces, clothing, empty bottles and other debris left behind by illegal aliens. When was the last time you heard of an illegal alien being punished for creating an environmental disaster on OUR public land that is so zealously guarded against you, me and those dastardly radicals who actually want to carry a handgun while enjoying the great outdoors?

When was the last time one of our great politicians lodged a complaint with the Government of Mexico about Mexicans turning our public lands one of the greatest hazardous waste dumps in this century? When was the last time you heard the Mexican Government complain to the U.S. Government about U.S. Citizens carrying guns onto OUR public property? Let me see. Was it yesterday? The day before?

Are you a property owner? Do you have valuable equipment on your property? Do you have a diamond in your house? If Fred Barnes tried to break into your house, you could intercept him and hold him at gunpoint until police arrive. Burglary is a felony. Fred having committed felony in your presence entitles you to make a citizen's arrest of Fred Barnes and detain him for the real cops. You may not beat up on Fred Barnes but you may "use the amount of force necessary to make the arrest". If you encountered Fred before he has had an opportunity to burglarize, you could order him to leave your property and if he refuses, he has committed a criminal trespass, a felony. Theoretically, since criminal trespass is a felony, you could still make a legal citizen's arrest under Arizona State Law.

However, take the identical set of circumstances above and change the name to Jose Pacheco-Medina who sneaked into the United States last night. If you detain Mr. Pacheco, or if you prevent him from leaving or touch him in any way, you could be opening yourself up to criminal charges for Threatening, Kidnapping, Assault, Intimidating or practically any other asinine charge the liberals can think of. For certain, you will be reported to the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Mexican Consul. The Mexican Consul will demand criminal charges against you and will turn the case over to a civil attorney who will file a civil case on you. If you don't win, you will still be bankrupt and wishing you had just let the Mexican have whatever he wanted.

Do you have a dependant wanting to attend college? You can send the "child" wherever you want. If it is at an institution in Arizona, you will likely have the privilege of paying "in-state" tuition. If the college is in another state, you certainly will pay "out-of-state" tuition. However, the child of an illegal alien, who is an alien himself, can get a break in many states and pay as if he or she is a legal resident of that state. However, your child who was born and raised in the United States, and you, who may have served in the U.S. military, paid taxes all your life, has tremendous equities and by any definition is a stakeholder in America, will pay the higher tuition rate in another state than someone who isn't even entitled to live and remain here.

When I was a teenager, I worked in a grocery store. To do so, I had to go to the County Health Department and get issued a "Food Handler's Card". I didn't actually prepare any food for anybody. I just stacked cans and boxed groceries.
When was the last time you ate in a restaurant? If you were away from the border area, you likely ate food that was prepared by an illegal alien. You ate from dishes likely washed by an illegal alien. Do you think they actually pay attention to the sign in the bathroom that says, "Lave las manos despues de usar el bano"? Do you think the County Health Department inspected the illegal alien kitchen help for T.B.? Intestinal parasites? Hepatitis? Chagas Disease? Do you think the illegal alien who likely came from an ejido with an outdoor privy has accustomed himself to actually washing his hands after using the toilet? Next time you go to Tucson or Phoenix, or even in Sierra Vista and decide to eat in a restaurant, please enjoy your salad.

Are illegal aliens a protected class? It appears so. No longer is there a benefit for being a U.S. citizen. Illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican aliens, can have all the benefits of being a U.S. citizen without even being a legal resident. They can even vote very easily and without consequence.

Speaking of being a legal resident, why bother going through all the paperwork and hassle of getting an immigrant visa? Just sneak across the border, get free medical treatment, free education for your kid, the U.S. government will give you the means of purchasing a home of your own, the State will give you benefits that have been set aside for our senior citizens and poverty stricken, the cops won't hassle you and the U.S. government won't bother to kick you out. Even if you are insane, disease ridden, criminal, unable to support yourself and want to "reconquer" this land for Mexico. Jim Kolbe will make it impossible for you to be arrested and deported. If he can't do it by crippling the Border Patrol's enforcement efforts, he will do it by making you a "guestworker" who never has to go home and who can bring in his entire family.

Is this a good country or what?

Are illegal Mexican Aliens a protected species in the United States?
You decide!

Response from Bonnie Eggle
Excellent comparisons, David. Each of your pointed facts make perfect sense.Even though we are a good country, and have the best form of government, there is still so much lacking that used to be part of our legal system. Now we have the victimology theories than run rampant. The regular folks pay for all the other people's problems, including the illegal alien problems. For them it is a win-win situation; for us it is a lose-lose situation.Thanks for your thoughtful insights. I will be sending this on to many email friends for their perusal and opinions. I agree with you that our country is in "deep trouble" because rights are supposedly now given to anyone who crosses the border, legally or illegally.When we were growing up it was our right as Americans to benefit from our form of government. No one automatically earns that right. If they want to become American citizens the legal way, the correct way, than we welcome them as immigrants waiting to be processed in the correct manner. When they work toward it, respect it, and earn it the legal way, then they too can claim the rights of being American citizens. The illegals are not justified in demanding rights just because they are here and neither should our politicians do so for them. What a travesty to our Bill of Rights and our Constitution of the United States of American. It is also a travesty to all the men and women who have sacrificed their lives to keep our country free so we, the legal citizens, can still have these rights. My son Kris was one of those sacrificed to keep the drugs, weapons,lawbreakers, and criminals out of our country. I REFUSE to allow his death to be in vain - what a callous slam against his blood and the spilled blood of all those who have been martyred before him and after him.Bonnie Eggle, Kris' mom (how many more have to die before we wake up and demand our rights once again?) []

25 March 2006

Why do they do that?

I have wondered why the Radical and Liberal Democrats unswervingly support the Islamo-Fascists and unceasingly denigrate and deride our troops.

Let's go back in history to Vlad the Impaler, AKA Count Dracula. Everything you have been told paints him as a vampire, sucking blood from hapless citizens.
But, Vlad was an enemy of Islam.

Click on photo to enlarge
Turks as such were Turkish-speaking Sunni-Muslims."
During the 14th Century, their hordes began to move westward, gulping down at first only small states within the Eastern World, those belonging to other nomadic peoples. Spreading out, they soon infiltrated Western borders, seizing Bulgarian lands and penetrating the corps of the Holy Roman Empire. By the time of Dracula's birth, in the winter of 1431, the Ottomans ruled a vast territory that stretched from the Occidental East to the corners of Western Europe. Their first inroad into accessing Europe was none other than Romania.
Plans to make further ingress, however, would be thwarted. Often inflicting unspeakable terrors on the inhabitants of their conquered countries, a strategy to make even the bravest Catholic knight wobble in his armor, the Turks were in for a shock of their own.Of course, in 1431 they could not have foreseen their encountering a quarter-century later of a certain Romanian named Dracula who would outride, outthink, outsmart and outfrighten them – right out of their sandals.

Frustrated and angered by his army's setback, Sultan Murad called several top-ranking Europeans, including the Dragon, to Turkish Gallipoli for a parley. No one but the Dragon answered the summons. He took with him his two sons, 13-year-old Dracula and nine-year-old Radu, believing it to be strictly a call under truce. When he entered the sultan's salon, he and his sons were promptly arrested.
Held captive for days, the prince was finally released under conditions set forth by the Turkish court:
that he swear by both the Bible and the Koran to avoid the engendering of further hostilities;
that he deposit 10,000 ducats in the sultan's treasury; and,
insuring he is a man of his word, that he leave his two sons as hostages in Turkey for an indefinite period of time. The Dragon reluctantly consented.
It was not the first time that the Turks pressed into service youths wrested from European nobility. As a body, these captives were placed in what was called the Janissary Corps. The scholastic Turkey: A Country Study, explains: "Expeditions were regularly organized to collect a tribute of Christian boys from the Balkan provinces. Those taken became Muslims and underwent training that instilled in them a corporate identity. These 'slaves of the state' were...prepared for admission into the Ottoman ruling class...where they engaged in Islamic studies, learned Persian and Arabic, and received advanced military training."
But, all these had inflicted physical harm to the Ottomans. And since when had physical pain and suffering stopped the Turks? Dracula knew from experience that only one thing would cause them to stop in their tracks, to hesitate, to maybe abandon their mission. And that was to throw open the gates of Hell before their eyes in all its putrescence. To attack them where it stung most. In their imagination.
For years, the Wallachian had been capturing Turkish soldiers and spies, wisely keeping them on hold as a bartering mechanism. His dungeons at Tirgoviste, at his castle and at other outposts amid the Carpathians bulged with them, some 20,000 captives. Now, with the defeat of Wallachia a possibility, Dracula decided that he had nothing to lose, all to gain. He went for the tool that worked before, to cut deep into the psychological edge.
When the Turks arrived outside the walls of Tirgoviste, they paused. And they trembled. Some wept. Many vomited. Encircling the town were the bodies of their very own comrades, 20,000 of them, their long locks and robes fluttering in the breeze, their eyes staring vacantly down, their mouths emitting the sharpened point of a spike hammered up their backsides. There was no sound from inside the enemy's walls, no movement from within. But, the volley of silence was deafening.The Turks buckled their steeds, reigned and bolted for the Danube. Cries of "Allah, protect us!" on their lips, they dashed from the devil whom they couldn’t defeat.

The first guy to scare the crap out of Islamo-Fascists.

Let us fast forward to 1900. Motor cars had just been invented. To power them, one needed a liquid fuel. Gasoline came into being, and pritive oil companies sprung up. One of the largest finds, a seemingly unending supply, was found in the Mideast.

Oh, yes, that mideast. Controlled by Islamo-Fascists. Being traders since recorded history started, they made deals for their oil with civilized nations. And the dollars, pounds, and francs flowed in.

To keep their oil going out and the money coming in, thesuppliers in Saudi Arabia, i.e. the royal family, has been known to "contribute" to established leaders in " The Civilized World".
GOAL: Keep the demand in place.

Now, lets look at what Democrats have as demonstrated history in their positions:
Against Offshore drilling--to save the environment, don't you know.
Drilling in Anwar--Ditto as above
Hybrid cars. Yes, to keep from producing "green house gases". BUT--the energy has to come from somewhere. Most often, it is from oil, producing electricty to charge up the Hybrids.

All this tells me that, in all probability, the Democrats are taking money from the Saudis. The Dems get the money, and the deamnd for Mideast oil continues. Additionally, 19 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi. The Wahabi ism originated in Saudi. To speak out against Islamo-Fascists would offend the Saudis.

Ponderings on Parasites

20,000 march in Phoenix; largest in city's history...(link)

Why? Because Congress may, for once, do something remedial. One authority says we have 10 million or more Illegal Aliens in the US.

First, as a State Law Enforcement Officer, I was limited as to what I could do. I could not arrest them for being illegally here, becuase it is a Federal Civil Offense. All the Feds could do was to "Catch and Deport". The law being considered by Congress would make it a Felony to Invade.

Second, Illegals have nothing but contempt for US law enforcers. Why? Because of groups like the ACLU, touching an illegal can be violating their Civil Rights. Illegals kicked out windshields on my patrol car, stomped radios to compete damage, spit on me, and urinated while sitting the front seat. They think that because you try to treat them like human beings that you are dealing from a position of weakness--which you are. Both criminal and civil law keep you from using almost any force. In Mexico, or their home latin American country, they could be shot be the authorities, and there is no action available against these authorities.

How did they get these "Rights"? U S Supreme Court awarded them, in a judicial decision.

They come here, and invade neighborhoods like cockroaches.
The Federal authorities refuse to do anything because Top Officials in Washington DC put out an order that if they were more than 50 miles from the Mexico-US border, they were not to be touched. Last summer, in Ontario, Rialto, and San Bernardino, a Border Patrol unit collected 400+ Illegals in FOUR DAYS! Anybody give them an "Atta-boy"? HELL NO. US Congressman Baca descended on top Homeland Security Officials and DEMANDED that his constituents not be "harassed".
The neighborhood soon looks like Tijuana, with junkie cars in the front, live chikens being raised beside the house, and gang graffitti. You think:"There are several city codees being violated. Why doesn't the City enforce them?" Why? Because: a. City fathers expect Illegals to vote--for them. b. The City does not want be considered as "racist".

The same holds true about getting welfare benefits and Worker's Compensation. Their "web" tells them that they can make a Claim, and good old State of California and Uncle Sucker will not do anything to them for leeching off the taxpayers. Getting these benefits requires documents. Most "Webs" have a go to person to buy your forged documents, If you have to, spontaneously make up a name and a Social Security Number, as it is acceptable to lie to a Gringo or Norte Americano.

You wonder why more and more Republicans are not sympathizing, trusting, or believing George W. Bush. This is why. His administration's BIG thing is Homeland Security. But, any Juan, Julio, or Akmed can walk across the border, and if they get inland, not be bothered.

A recent item passed on the Internet states:
Try This!
Go to Mexico, and take up residence ( You will be arrested for IllegalEntry, and forfeit all your immediate possessions)
Fly the US flag, and claim "Its a Cultural Thing!"
Apply for free medical care (there is none)
Apply for benefits-ditto.

23 March 2006

Marathon Medical thoughts

The best account of what happened at the Los Angeles Marathon on March 18, 2006 is posted at:

On Saturday, March 19, 2006 beginning at 4:42 AM, twenty-one Companies of Los Angeles Firefighters, twenty-four LAFD Rescue Ambulances, six Bicycle Paramedic teams, three "Gator" teams (6 wheel ATV's with 2 Paramedics), one Arson Unit, two Hazardous Materials Teams, eleven EMS Battalion Captains, four Battalion Chief Officer Command Teams, the LAFD Medical Advisor, one Division Chief Officer Command Team, and a variety of addition support staff, all under the direction of Assistant Chief Michael Fulmis were pre-deployed along the Los Angeles Marathon route.The Los Angeles Fire Department, in conjunction with other City agencies, volunteers, and event organizers spent a significant amount of time preplanning the various aspects of the 21st Annual Los Angeles Marathon. A Unified Command with LAPD and LAFD command staff was implemented and strategically positioned at the City's "Piper Tech" facility. A Forward Command Post was placed at the Bonaventure Hotel to assist in overall management of the incident.

Under the Forward Command post, Divisions, Branches, and Groups were established to handle various aspects of the incident.In an effort to provide rapid Paramedic intervention during a medical emergency, the LAFD deployed six Bicycle Paramedic Teams and three "Gator" Teams. The "Gator" Teams consisted of two Paramedics operating a six-wheeled All Terrain Vehicle. The "Gator" was outfitted with Advanced Life Support tools, a stretcher, and other necessary equipment. The size and configuration of the Bicycle Paramedic Teams, and the "Gator" teams provided paramedics the opportunity to navigate crowds, circumvent traffic, and deliver critical patient care faster.Throughout the day and all along the twenty-six mile route, seventy-five patients were treated by Fire Department personnel for various medical problems including, heat and exhaustion complaints, musculoskeletal injuries, and other medical problems.
Of the seventy-five patients treated, thirty were transported to local hospitals for further medical evaluation. Unfortunately, three runners did suffer a sudden cardiac arrest during the run. Regretfully, two of the runners did loose their lives during this event.
At 8:30 AM, at mile marker one, 15th Street and Figueroa Street, a 70 year-old male runner suffered a full cardiac arrest. Fortunately, personnel from the Los Angeles Convention center were able to immediately utilize a Public AED (Automatic External Defibrillator) on the patient, delivering one shock to the patients heart. Paramedics arrived immediately, continued CPR, provided Advanced Cardiac Life Support, and transported to California Medical Center. The patient was subsequently admitted to the hospital and is listed in critical condition.

At 9:00 AM, at approximately mile marker one, Exposition Boulevard and Figueroa Street, a 60 year-old male runner and retired Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy James Leone, suffered a full cardiac arrest. Paramedics immediately began CPR and provided immediate Advance Cardiac Life Support. The patient was transported to California Medical Center where the patient was pronounced dead by hospital personnel.

At 1:30 P.M., at approximately mile marker twenty-four, Olympic Boulevard and Westmoreland Avenue, a 53 year-old male and an "active member" of the Los Angeles Police Department, Raul Reyna, suffered a full cardiac arrest. The LAFD Medical Advisor arrived first on scene and immediately began administering advanced airway support and directed on scene medical procedures. Firefighters and Paramedics, pre-deployed along the Marathon route, provided immediate Advanced Cardiac Life Support and rapid transport to Good Samaritan Hospital. Unfortunately, the Paramedics and Hospital staff were unable to revive the Officer and he was pronounced dead at the hospital.
Submitted By Ron Myers, SpokesmanLos Angeles Fire Department

Thoughts on marathoning:
1. Cold will get you as quick as heat will. The temperature at Start was 50-52 degrees. One year at Big Sur Marathon, the temperature was 44 degrees at Start, and we hit rain and hail from mile 2 to mile 5. It was very surreptitious, but from Mile 20 to Mile 26, one could notice that energy was in the "Gone" Zone.

2. Medical aid has come a long way. My expreience with marathons started in the early 1980's. Every five miles, there was an "Aid Tent". If someone went down, you would report it at the Aid Tent, and an ambulance would TRY to thread its way through the runners. In 2004, at the Marine Corps Marathon, they had Navy Corpsmen ( THE BEST EMTs IN THE WORLD) on these Gators. I saw several hapless runners get their butts hauled off.

3. To a marathoner, the biggest disgrace is NOT FINISHING. A secondary, related cause for disgrace and ostracism is finding out that one cheated, usually by taking a short cut. Instead of 26.2 miles, the disgraced runner ran anything less than the full 26.2.

4. Don't mess with a marathoner. We may not do 4 minute miles, and when you are running, you are only competing with yourself, or trying to keep your finish time at the same as you get older. But, marathoners know that anyone can do 20 or 21 miles. From mile 22 to finish, you have to employ self-discipline and kick your own ass to keep going. It would be SO easy to QUIT and let that van take you in. BUT--you would never show your face at a race ever again.
The only thing lacking to a marathoner who does not finish is a Hari-Kiri blade to stave off the disappointment.

5. Does anyone know any sport, concert, or assembly that has 19985 people who complete the event. Noramaly, there are acouple of hundred who sign up, but do not show up to start. Additionally, there about four hundred who do not finish.

22 March 2006

Pro-active Discipline

Yesterday, George Bush held a press conference.

The thing that encouraged me was the appearance that President Bush was "telling them how the cow ate the cabbage", and old phrase meaning an explanation of "The Rules", and how they were to be followed.

I watched the verbal exchange live on FOX news.
The President shut Helen Thomas off. He came very close to saying " Oh, Bulls--t!"

A reporter asked him about "Violence in Iraq". The President explained that:
--the thugs who are trying to keep Iraq as a dictatorship are doing it by cowardly bombing.
--the thugs COUNT ON the news to put the video on their evening news, which tends to demoralize folks here at home, and as a foreseeable result, the troops trying to bring order in Iraq.

The President declared that Democrats are against Security. He told of Democratic Sentor Harry Reid, Senate Democrat Leader, bragging that " We just killed the Patriot Act".

People want discipline. They want the Rules to be there, and they want them enforced. One of the most demoralizing things I've witnessed is a softening of the Rules, and no penalty for some who break the Rules because the Superior DOES NOT WISH A CONFLICT!

An additional demoralizing slam psychologically is the existance of EXEMPT persons and Groups.

In the agency I worked for, it became a career killer to have a EEO complaint lodged agaianst you by a female. In many cases, a female would have some disciplined for a transgression. She would retaliate by filing an EEO Complaint. The disciplining superior would have the Complaint placed in his (never a Female superior) personnel file, which would kill any chance at promotion.

One of the aspects about Illegal Immigration is that these Illegals move into a neighborhood. The neighborhood starts to look like the neighborhood they left in Mexico. There are some GLARING violations of city and/or County Codes. You thing anyonme is going to write a citation to these people? About a day after Hell frezes over.
First, they don't want to lose one Hispanic vote and
Two, they do not want to be called Racist.

18 March 2006

The Libs want it both ways

This item sparked a pondering by me.
Deleting officers' names now back on front burner

Supporters of the Police Commission's move to reverse a long-held policy and remove officers' names from use-of-force reports have said cops' identities will still be made public right after violent incidents.
A Daily News review of city records, however, found that the Los Angeles Police Department issued public statements with officers' names in less than one-third of serious-force cases in 2005.
The findings are drawing renewed concern because without the full reports, news releases are the main way for the public to learn the identities of officers who shoot at, strike, choke or otherwise seriously injure members of the public.
While the LAPD investigated 91 such incidents in 2005, it put out public statements with officers' names in just 23 instances.
"It reinforces the need for disclosing those names," said Catherine Lhamon, racial justice director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which opposed the commission's decision to omit officers' identities.
Chief William Bratton defended the department, saying it is not withholding any information, just publicizing only the most serious incidents.
"We only put out press releases for officer-involved shootings," Bratton told the Police Commission recently.
The chief compiles a detailed report for each serious use of force. Before the officers' names were taken out, the news media and civil-rights groups used the comprehensive accounts to track possible misconduct.
Now the public is left with a patchwork of information gathered through the press releases the department issues, as well as possible lawsuits, certain disciplinary hearings and the now-anonymous force reports.
That piecemeal approach could lead to people confusing incidents and drawing the wrong conclusions, said Councilman Bernard Parks, a former LAPD chief.(Who lost all respect while he was Chief)

The conflict I see is this: While the Libs and Communism USA ( ACLU) wants to know every detail of what a police officer does ... they are foaming at the mouth when an authority finds out anything about a "Citizen". Ah, yes, we have to have "Privacy".

Lib Lie#!: Bush ( The National Security Administration) spied on citizens.
TRUTH: Only if you called Akmed in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq.

Lib Lie#2. They just want information to make the police department(s) better. B S!
TRUTH: They want to tear down all authority, and be the sole arbiter on how people live.
Their goal is there is NO WRONG,IMMORAL, or CRIMINAL conduct---unless you are a Conservative.

In my opinion, "Privacy" was invented by Liberals to shield criminals and parasites. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care if someone knows what you bought, who you called, etc. If you have children while you are married, you want a birth announcement. If you have kids as a single parent for another source of a Welfare Check, then you want "Privacy".

Another thing that irritates me. An accustation of "Excessive Force" is only that. Most of those who are not police or military assume that since an accusation was made, it happened, and the officer/soldier DID IT.

Personal experience is that about 80 per cent of "citizen" or "activist" complaints are total contrived, created BS. BUT-police departments and military units have to record these complaints. This is why I carried a tape recorder for 26 years of my 31 year career. You find that people caught diong illegal things are very talented at LYING.

Defense Attorneys KNOW that they have to allege an incident of "Excessive Force" BEFORE they can go exploring an Officer's record. Most attorneys have no problem with making this stuff up. Their goal is to see that the arresting/investigating officer has a "Record" of "Excessive Force". Their argument than is " Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury--My client has already been punished. He/she was brutally___(name the mistreatment the officer allegedly committed) --and you should find him/her "Not Guilty"."

15 March 2006

Should Pursuits Be Banned?

Just how dangerous are they?

The following was written by DAVE STORTON, Emergency Vehicle Operations Instructor for San Jose Police.

My comments are injected into the text.

Mrs. Smith arrives home to find a strange van with no license plates parked in her driveway. She goes to the neighbor’s house and calls the police as she sees two men putting her stereo and TV in the back of the van. An officer arrives just as the van is pulling away. He turns on his emergency lights, but the van speeds away. The officer turns his lights off again, and parks in front of Mr. Smith’s house. She runs out and yells, “That’s them! Go after them!�
The officer tells Mrs. Smith, “Ma’am, it’s just a property crime. We do not chase criminals who only commit property crimes.�
“Those guys were in my house!� she yells. “They stole my things! You are a police officer, do something!�
“Ma’am, I will take a report for you,� the officer explains. “I will look for fingerprints to try and identify who the men were, and try to arrest them.�
“Who these guys are? You could have figured that out by asking them had you bothered to do your job and catch them when you had the chance,� Mrs. Smith said, dumbfounded that the officer allowed the men to escape.
“Ma’am, I’m sorry, but my department policy does not allow me to chase criminals who commit nonviolent offenses,� the officer explained.

Uncommon? Not if a lot of police administrators had their way. You kill two birds with one stone: A. You will not have to do the paperwork after a collision resulting from a pursuit. A(1). You will not have the costs of a lawsuit resulting from that collision. B. You do not have put the same amount of manpower in the field. Right now, many police Departments WILL NOT respond to a car crash UNLESS one or both of the parties claims an injury. In my opinion, this is nurturing fraud, as it is your word against the other guy--if he/she stops, and if he/she gives you the correct information.

Is this what we as a society expect from the police? Increasingly, the answer is yes. It is an emotional argument on the side of people who have lost loved ones, and on the side of officers who think they are being hamstrung by overly restrictive laws and policies. Like many emotionally charged debates, however, perspective is lost in a flurry of statistics.

It is argued that if a ban on pursuits saves one life, it is worth it. If they mean that it is not worth one innocent life lost in an accident stemming from a pursuit, then the police should not pursue anyone for any reason. There is always the law of unintended consequences, however, where the criminal not pursued then commits a crime, as happened in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. The officer there is still living with the fact that he was required by policy to discontinue a chase of two suspects in a suspicious vehicle seen casing some auto dealerships. Later that morning they kidnapped, raped, and murdered a girl waiting for her school bus in front of her house. Crimes committed by criminals who are not chased cannot be tracked most of the time, so the victims created by a restrictive pursuit policy will rarely be known.

Many restrictive pursuit policies prohibit pursuing nonviolent offenders, so if a drunk driver flees they are let go. If that driver later kills someone in an accident, are the police held responsible for this death as they are for pursuit accidents? As of this writing, most agencies will still pursue such violators, but the scale is slowly tipping with the weight of political and media pressure.

There is an often-used statistic that almost one innocent person per day is killed in the United States from police pursuits. This is technically true since every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and the criminals who are killed trying to evade the police will never get their day in court. Of the 350 people killed by pursuits in 2003, 104 were innocent bystanders. The rest, 70%, were occupants of the vehicle being chased. Although unfortunate, when one flees from the police, one should know they risk serious injury or death.

Lest we minimize the loss of innocent people in 2003, lets put this number in perspective by comparing other accidental deaths.
Deaths in 2002
Falling over furniture: 785
Falling down stairs: 1,598
Falling off of ladder: 406
Drowning in bathtub: 352
Drowning in swimming pool: 636
Choking on food: 819
Bee, hornet, wasp sting: 54
Struck by lightning: 66
Accidental poisoning: 17,550

You are about 7 times more likely to be killed by an inert piece of furniture than by a pursuit, yet we do not see web sites devoted to changing the law on what kind of furniture can be made and how you must arrange it in your house. You are almost 8 times more likely to die from choking on your dinner, yet nobody is trying to pass a law saying we must all put our filet mignon in a blender. Even if the number of pursuit fatalities is underreported as claimed by the watchdog group Pursuit Watch, the numbers are still comparable to other accidental deaths.

Many times, the "Innocent bystander" is not so Innocent. He/she ignored flashing lights and sirens. He/she was not paying attention, talking on a cell phone, drinking a soda, or lost in thought of events in their lives.

We are a risk-averse society, and we increasingly expect to eliminate all risk from our lives. Any time you see a story about an innocent person killed or injured by a pursuit, our natural inclination is to try to make sure it does not happen again. But we need to look at any public safety issue rationally, and not make decisions based on a few incidents that get media play. If the media reported all deaths occurring from bee stings, we would be hearing about a new death about once a week. The public would develop an unreasonable fear of bees.

This is not to say the police should have completely unrestricted policies regarding pursuits. We are professionals, and we know the risks involved. The police need to weigh those risks in each circumstance, and act according to their own best judgment.

Every Law Enforcement Officer KNOWS that if something goes wrong in a chase--regardless of how reckless the pursued drives--the L.E.O WILL BE BLAMED. The LEO knows that immediately after the stop of the pursuit, the second-guessing, the critiquing, the "coulda-woulda-shouldas" will begin. Every Officer does a balancing act, and will "Break Off" (end) the pursuit if the risk to others is increased.

Lawmakers, community leaders, chiefs, and sheriffs struggling with the question of how much to restrict pursuits need to look at the numbers in a rational manner. If, after a reasoned debate about the actual risks, not the perceived risks, the community for which we work wants to end police chases, then we must abide by their decision. That same community must then accept the possible consequences of having an incident occur like the one in Lee’s Summit. Although we may never know how many people were later victimized by criminals not captured, ignorance, as they say, is bliss. It is also politically safer than a front page pursuit accident.

I knew in writing this article that I may sound insensitive to those injured, or to the families of those killed by a pursuit. I assure the reader this is not the case. I advocate policies that encourage officers to use sound judgment, and I advocate more and better driver training for law enforcement officers. If an agency does not properly train its personnel, it should not be chasing anyone. I do not agree with laws written by well-meaning people who rely on an emotional argument supported by incomplete statistics. Today’s law enforcement officers are highly trained professionals, so let them put this training to use by having them use their judgment within guidelines set forth in a well-reasoned and balanced policy.

All in the Same Fraternity

This story was in the L A Times today:,1,6531683.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Striking another blow to term limits for Los Angeles County officeholders, a judge said Tuesday she would toss out voter-approved caps on the district attorney and assessor.Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Soussan Bruguera hasn't finalized her ruling, but it is all but certain that District. Attorney. Steve Cooley and Assessor Rick Auerbach, like Sheriff Lee Baca before them, will be free to serve as many terms as they — and the voters — please.

Anytime you deal with Courts, Judges, or attorneys., keep this in mind:
A Judge is an attorney in a robe.
They are in a fraternity that covers for each other.

In the late 60's, the Supreme Court decided that if a person was to be a judge, they first had to be an attorney.

14 March 2006

Components of Coercion

Yesterday, this weblog commented that the Federal Government forced agencies to hire persons who were not really qualified.

You ask..."How can they do that?"

Two primary ways.
Way 1. The ACLU will "shop" for a judge. That means that the ACLU will look around various jursdictions until they find a Socialistic-Indoctrinated judge, who went to a Socialistic approved Law School, such as Georgetown, NYU, Berkeley, or Columbia. Then, they will file for (and get) a "Consent Decree", that is, an order by a judge to do a required action. EXAMPLE: LAPD had a Consent Decree against them that required them to hire women on the force until they were 15% of the total force. In the meantime, no men could be hired until the magic 15% was reached.
To be one of these judges means that you came from a wealthy family. People who work can not afford the cost of one of those big name law schools. So, they are fully convinced when law professors inundate them with Socialistic BS. That also means this kid was protected all of his/her life. They were never in any danger of getting their ass kicked. Consequently, they believe that all you have to do issue a writ or a restraining order, and there will be peace in our time.

Way2: You have POLITICIANS running the Federal Government. A lot of them pander to their constituencies. If your supporters are minorities who frequently run afoul of the law, you cripple the law enforcers so that not too many of them are arrested or go to jail. One method is to deny federal funds for projects that can not be funded from the low or no tax base of your voters. The politicians make sure grants to police agencies do not get there or are stopped in progress.

In a police agency, you have two primary types. Road Warriors or Politicians. In the military, you have a similar situation with Staff and Field.
Road Warriors are just that. To get promoted, you must prove to a Promotion Board that you do not want to be a Road Warrior anymore. You must prove that you want to move into an office job, and not have contact with the public and bad guys any more.
The Politicians have one goal: Get that next promotion. They are fixated on getting there, and to
get there, they know that they have to please people that can get them there, and not to displease anyone who might stop them. A complaint from a "Minority", which is always investigated and documented, can stop them, even if the examining authority found no violation.
A complaint from an influential member of the public can stop them.

A complaint from a Road Warrior will simply be answered as " Just enforcing Policy", and be readily dismissed.

Politicians will ALWAYS obey a Court Order. Defiance of a Court Order will stop you from getting that next promotion. So, your jeely-spined "Leaders" will cave to a court order every time.

13 March 2006

Measuring up

Sign at Disneyland, advising of a height requirement in order to ride a list of amusements

Military Shuns Many of Recruiting Age
The pool shrinks to 13.6 million when only high school graduates and those who score in the upper half on a military service aptitude test are considered. The 30 percent who are high school dropouts are not the top choice of today's professional, all-volunteer and increasingly high-tech military force.
Other factors include:
_the rising rate of obesity; some 30 percent of U.S. adults are now considered obese.
_a decline in physical fitness; one-third of teenagers are now believed to be incapable of passing a treadmill test.
_a near-epidemic rise in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Potential recruits are ineligible for military service if they have taken such a drug in the previous year.
Doctors prescribe these drugs to about 2 million children and 1 million adults a month, according to a federal survey. Many more are believed to be using such stimulants recreationally and to stay awake longer to boost academic and physical performance.
Other potential recruits are rejected because they have criminal histories and too many dependents. Subtract 4.4 million from the pool for these people and for the overweight.
Others can be rejected for medical problems, from blindness to asthma. The Army estimate has subtracted 2.6 million for this group.
That leaves 4.3 million fully qualified potential recruits and an estimated 2.3 million more who might qualify if given waivers on some of their problems.
The bottom line: a total 6.6 million potential recruits from all men and women in the 32 million-person age group.

This all started in the 1960's. It became in vogue to advocate "Diversity", and "Inclusion". The move was launched to include people into places where they should not be.
Police forces. ..After the Civil Rights Act and Equal Employment were put in place, the Federal Government came along to force police Departments to accept women and "Minorities" on the Force.
It was patently obvious that a large number of these were not qualified under the existing standards. SOLUTION-Lower the Standards. When I applied to a State Law Enforcement agency, there were three tests: 23 situps, 2 chin-ups, and to jump 0ne foot higher than a standing position.
Women could not do the pull ups. In a short time, one unqualified candidate showed up with an attorney, failed the test, and filed a lawsuit. A multi-million dolar study was done, and the chin ups went away.
When I applied, you had to be between 5'8" and 6' 4 ". An Asian male from San Francisco challenged the requirement because he was 5' 4" tall. After a lawsuit, as one wisecracker said" Like the height requirement, he was out of there" . This led to ridiculous cadets coming to the Academy. One was nicknamed Micro-Chip. She couldn't see over the dash board of a police car, and instead of a PR-24 baton, she had a PR-20, because the 24 dragged on the ground.

In the LAPD's case, they took candidates that would not have otherwise been accepted. This was the direct cause of the Rampart Scandal. As one psychologist wroteafter extensive interviews of those concerned," The police officers did not become gangsters--Gangsters became police officers".

The Catholic Church took in men as preists that were not screened as strenuously as before. RESULT: Child Molest perpetrators.

In the case of the Agency I was with, Training became relaxed, and affected by retention quotas and "Politically Correct" regulations, several persons were sent to the Field who were not qualified or a source of embarrassment to many. EXAMPLE: One Hispanic cadet heard Instructors teling a Hispanic joke. He made a straight line to the Commander's Office, and lodged a Discrimination Complaint. The two Instructors were banished to the Field, never to be promoted, and the Hispanic became a sacred cow. He is now the commander of a Division.

If this idea was universally enforced, we woulf have 5'0" females playing in the NFL, and 5'6" basketball players in tyhe NBA.

If I were in the military, I would want to know that the person next to me was as qualified as I am. An inferior person will get you killed.

09 March 2006

No labels apply

The picture above is your typical wall of mailboxes. Each one has an address.

As far as my mail, yes, I have an address.

As far as my label applies, I do not have one.

There are some things that apply, but those are things I was born with and grew in to, and things I can not change: White, Male, Adult. We have some people in our society that think we should not have these. One man I served with told of being a police officer in a Wisconsin city, and being banned from stating a racial label --Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian--on the radio. All they could say about a perpetrator was a "Large (presumably Adult) Person".

Previously, I felt that I was a Catholic. Converted at age 18 from a Protestant church following, I accepted all of the Church's teachings. As time went on, I became aware that priests (Supposedly the most holy of people) were all becoming Child Molest suspects. This put an element of doubt in my belief.
The decision to not describe myself as a Catholic was bolstered by a statement by a convention of Archbishops that we should accept wholesale illegal immigration.
At this point, it was apparent that any donation I made would go to lawsuit settlements or illegal immigrants.
Last week, Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles decalred that Catholics should rebel against law(and common sense) and aid illegal immigrants.

Sorry, Cardinal, you are leading a group that I'm not in.

Growing up, my parents were Conservative, and generally the candidates that espoused this view were Republicans, even in the WWII era, when Democrats were in vogue.

In the 1980's it became popular to advocate that Illegal Immigration be decriminalized, and consequently, not enforced. Ronald Reagan bought into this and declared an Amnesty, which was touted as the stopper for further Illegal Immigration. Those who were to be given Amnesty had to prove that they had been in the United States--illegally--for three years. One District attorney said,"They can do that by showing their records of DUI convictions"

In my experience, I saw the Border Patrol demonized, from within and without. Internal sanctions were taken on Agents who dared to touch Illegals aside from the arrest process. Illegals often had on their person business cards from attorneys in Santa Ana, California, who would readily take their case against Agents for "Violating their Civil Rights". The Border Patrol was denied or shorted on their resources. They never had enough personnel to adequately handle the problem.

One of the truths I formed as a Law Enforcement Officer was: "Statistics do not mean Jack--unless you are one". There are many citizens in Southern California who have been hit by a vehicle driven by an Illegal. The Illegal fled, either by driving away or on foot. When--and very seldom--caught, you found that Illegal had no license, and no insurance. If jailed by a conscientious Officer, a Judge would release them on "OR" [Own Recognizance], which means, they didn'y pay any bail, and would usually be gone to Mexico or another part of the state, using another name.

If you think I am "Dramatizing" go to:

The citizens of the United States are paying the bills for these Illegals.

In contacts with Illegals, I was kicked, spit on, called a variety of obscenties, had my police car repeatedly damaged, and the seats soaked in urine. One illegal tried to take my sidearm. Why? Illegals have nothing but contempt for U.S law enforcement. Why? In Mexico, and other "Latin American" countries, Police have life and death power. Police can shoot, beat, and imprison these illegals--without fear of retaliation, lawsuits, or criminal action.

Big Republican contributors argue that we should welcome these people. Why? They will not say this, but to the Big Contributor, these people are "Cheap Labor". Their pay covers bare necessities. Their Health Care, their Schooling, their incarceration costs--are on the U.S.citizen's tax dime.

The Republican's refusal to even give lip service to this issue moved me to change my Party Affliation to " Independent".

As for what groups of people I will not associate with, there are none. My decision to associate or avoid is based on Character, not a profile or an "Address"

08 March 2006

Hit and Run--your reaction

This article was written in the LA DAily News:
Hit-and-run crashes on rise in Valley; most stay mystery.
Fatal Valley hit-and-runs in 2005 all still unsolved

First, a hit and run (H/R) crash does not mean that the driver is able to drive te car away. A H/R means that one party fled, either in a car or on foot, before exchanging information. Many times, the car is disabled by crash damage, but the driver gets out and literally runs away.

What a H/R really is consists of a refusal to take responsibility for one's own action.

Many times, the person takes off because he/she:
Is drunk.
Is an Illegal Immigrant.
Has warrants for other crimes, or has just committed another crime.(robbery murder, assault) Will be found doing something that is not public information, i.e., a cheating husband.

The article states that the number of H/R crashes are increasing. So, your odds of being in one are growing if you live in a Border State.

What should you do?
Before you venture out onto the roads, make damn sure that you have " Uninsured Motorist Coverage". If you get hit:
1. GET THE LICENSE PLATE, write it down, or repeat it to yourself repeatedly to remember it
2. LOOK AT THE CAR. What make, model, color is it?
3. Look at the driver-if you can see him/her. Is the driver--Young, Old, Caucasian, Black, Hispanic?

07 March 2006

Big mystery--NOT!


Stefan Eriksson, who owned the red Ferrari Enzo -- one of only 400 made -- escaped the Feb. 21 crash with only a cut lip.

Engine of crashed Ferrari--front end in center of photo, ahead of Sheriff's car.

Authorities said Eriksson told them he was a passenger in the car and that the driver, a German acquaintance he only knew as Dietrich, ran into the nearby hills. Deputies launched a three-hour foot and helicopter search but failed to turn up Dietrich.

Eriksson also said the Ferrari was in a race with a Mercedes SLR, whose driver took off after leaving behind its passenger -- a friend of Eriksson that authorities were only identifying as "Trevor."

"We believe (Dietrich) no longer exists and that the Ferrari was racing by itself and there were no Mercedes," Brooks said.

Only the driver's side air bag had blood on it, and Eriksson suffered a cut lip, Brooks noted. Eriksson agreed Wednesday to submit a DNA sample but refused to be interviewed by investigators.

Eriksson's blood-alcohol level after the crash was .09, slightly more than the legal .08 limit, Brooks said. If it is determined he was the Ferrari driver, he could be charged with driving under the influence, reckless driving and providing false information to authorities, Brooks said.

After arresting somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 DUI drivers in my former career, There is no mystery to me.

This guy was probably "doing a combo", that is drinking and using a drug. Best guess here is cocaine. He would be "hyped up", and with the alcohol, he would feel invincible between a blood alcohol level at .08--.10. To get his REAL, BA level, find out:
A: When was the blood sample drawn?
B. How long after the crash was the sample taken.

So, if the sample was taken at 2 hours after the crash, multiply 2 times .025 (amount normal person burns off in an hour, so .09+ [2 x .025] = .14.

Someone got him going. He reacted to something, but I'll bet the other driver is in no way impelled to talk about it.

The invention of a "Phantom driver" is common with a DUI crash. The Phantom has only one name. "just met him/her", and so nothing is known about the Phantom other than a first name.

A dead give-away with a DUI driver crash is when you arrive, look at the remains of the car, and say," This guy is dead". You go and look in the car--no one there. You ask," where is the driver?" A bystander points out a person, usually frantically smoking a cigarette, hoping to cover the smell of alcoholic drinks on his/her breath.

A story has been created by the DUI driver. He/she was "ran off the road", or "cut off" by another phantom vehicle that can only usualy be described as "a big blue Ford".

The only mystery is who REALLY owns --or did own--this car.

06 March 2006

Actions have consequences

Jerry Brown, pictured at left, wants to run for the attorney general of California. Actually, anything would be better than the used car salesman Lockyer that we have now.
But, Liberal Jerry has " made his bed" in Oakland.
More than 20 homicides in just over two months: This is not what Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown needs as he campaigns for the state's top law enforcement job.
The dramatic spike comes just three months before the primary election, and Brown's challenger for the Democratic nomination for attorney general is already accusing the former governor and presidential candidate of being “asleep at the switch.�
Oakland police say the number of killings so far this year is nearly triple last year's rate.
“He will be held responsible for that,� said Elizabeth Garrett, a law professor at the University of Southern California. “It doesn't surprise me that he's acting quickly to appear to take charge of the situation.� Though, she said, it may be too late to affect the outcome of the June 6 primary.
Brown has created a new crime suppression unit, with 115 police officers reassigned from other areas, that will target problem areas.
“We are going to move them around the city like a chessboard, so they're deployed more strategically,� said Capt. David Kozicki, who's in charge of the new unit.

No, boys and girls, what happened was Jerry and other politicians who have been Oakland mayors went along with Oakland voters. They subscribe to Liberal themes. No one is responsible. Punishment is useless. Tax the workers and give the cash to Welfare recipients who will not work.

Here is another " Clue"!

It's not a shortage of money, but a shortage of applicants that is keeping Oakland from hiring more police officers under Measure Y, an anti-crime measure voters approved in 2004 to finance the hiring of 63 officers and bring the ranks to 803 officers.
Cities nationwide are finding a shortage of people willing to be police officers, but the problem is exacerbated in Oakland by steep housing prices and intense competition from rival law enforcement agencies and the military, according to a report the City Council's Public Safety Committee will discuss tonight. (
NO--it is your reactionary retaliation every time a police officer takes some action)
"We could expand the academies, but it wouldn't have much effect because we aren't able to attract a sufficient number of candidates," said Don Link, chair of the community policing advisory board.
Because just 5 percent of applicants meet the background check and academic and physical rigors needed to be an Oakland police officer, Link estimates the city would need 750 applicants to fill the 35 seats available in the next academy class -- a figure law enforcement considers an ideal class size. The past three classes have accepted 23 to 34 applicants after 456 to 750 applications were received.
Compounding the problem is the fact Oakland offers generous benefits that allow officers to retire at age 50, and the department loses about three officers a month.

Face it Jerry--Liberalism will destroy society.

04 March 2006

L A-Better buy you a gun.....

If you see the red car -that is what a 13 year old tried to use against an
L A P D Officer.
It is a 3000 pound weapon.

A BLACK member of the LIBERAL "Police Commission" thinks that they shot this assailant because he was BLACK.

When it is dark, 3 AM, you can not see who is driving. You do know someone is aimaing to kill you.

This "Commissioner" does not believe in self-defense.
RESULT: Only fools will sign up to be LA police Officers, and those will soon find the approach the NYPD uses to respond: Take your time getting there.
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- An investigation has been launched into the fatal shooting by police of a 13-year-old boy who was fleeing authorities in a stolen car, a police spokeswoman said Sunday.,1,4861589,print.story?coll=la-headlines-suncomment
THE LOS ANGELES Police Commission's finding last week that an officer's shooting of a 13-year-old was "out of policy" puts it on a political collision course with Police Chief William J. Bratton. More important, it places the commission at odds with a large majority of the police officers it purports to lead.After an internal LAPD investigation, Bratton concluded that the Feb. 6, 2005, shooting in South Los Angeles was a tragic but proper use of force.
When Devin Brown lost control of the stolen Toyota Camry he was driving and crashed onto a sidewalk, he backed the car toward Officer Steve Garcia, who had gotten out of his police car and was standing next to its open door. In response, Garcia shot and killed Brown.
Only later was it discovered that Brown was 13.
Responding to political pressure, the Los Angeles Police Department modified its use-of-force policy to prevent such incidents. The department now all but prohibits officers from firing at cars whose drivers attempt to run them over.
Instead, officers are trained to get out of the way of the oncoming vehicle.
The policy is widely derided among the rank and file because it forces officers to leave what may be their only available effective cover — the ballistic panels inside their car doors — and run into the open.
It also allows fleeing suspects what amounts to a free shot: They can try to run down police officers without fear of being shot at.
But the Police Commission evaluated Garcia's action on the basis of the previous policy, which generally discouraged firing on moving vehicles, and both a use-of-force review panel and Bratton found that Garcia acted properly.
As such, it was politics, not tactics, that determined the panel's ruling, because there is nothing in the background of the members who voted in the 4-1 majority that would suggest they possess any qualifications to evaluate an officer's tactics.The commission, established in the 1925 City Charter, functions as a board of directors for the LAPD, while the chief of police serves as its chief executive.
Past commissions were sometimes accused of acting as a rubber stamp for the decisions made by politically powerful chiefs. In his campaign for mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa promised to appoint police commissioners who would provide vigorous oversight to the department.But commissioners are selected much less for their expertise on police matters than for their relationships with the mayor and, of course, for their ability to fill a slot on an unwritten but steadfastly observed diversity checklist.

Interestingly, the only dissenting vote on the Brown shooting was that of Alan J. Skobin, the sole holdover from the Hahn administration. Skobin has served for more than 20 years as a reserve deputy sheriff. He is the only commissioner with any real-world law-enforcement perspective on what it feels like to face a deadly assault or to point a weapon at someone and decide in the blink of an eye whether to pull the trigger.

More galling than the ruling was its messenger: commission President John Mack, who for years has been one of the city's most outspoken police critics. Last February, before his appointment to the commission, Mack appeared on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" to discuss the Brown shooting. He stated flatly that Garcia should not have shot Brown. "The officers were out of the car and in no danger whatsoever," he said, "and Officer Garcia unloaded 10 rounds, three, four into the car, into young Devin Brown…."