How to Prevent Most School Shootings with a Proper Defense

Each time a school shooting occurs, people get terribly emotional and lose their common sense. They start demanding all sorts of new gun laws, thinking that will fix the problem. Ironically, none of the laws they demand would have prevented the past tragedies and have no substantial chance of preventing any future tragedies.

Here is a fact of life. Some people are killers. They like to kill people. They may be angry. They may be disturbed. They may be insane, but they like to kill, and they will kill. People have been killing other people since the beginning of time. Long before we had guns, people found ways to kill each other. Even if you take away the guns now, people will still find ways to kill each other.

Since some people are so passionate about killing, we have numerous strict laws against it, but killers disobey those laws. If a person is not going to obey laws against murder, why would that same person obey laws regarding to guns? Since killers do not obey laws, the answer is not more laws. The answer is defense.

The most effective way to prevent the vast majority of school shootings is to allow teachers with proper firearm training to carry secured (locked) weapons in the school. That way, when a shooter penetrates the school's defenses, the teachers will be armed and able to engage the shooter in a fair fight.

People will argue that a teacher might snap during class and shoot a child, but that is a flawed argument. If a teacher is angry enough to shoot a child, the teacher is certainly angry enough to beat a child to death. If a teacher is prone to violence, the teacher is dangerous to the children armed or not. If you cannot trust a teacher to be armed around the children, then you should not trust that same teacher to be unarmed around the children. By the way, just because administrators tell a teacher he/she cannot bring a weapon into the school, that does not mean the teacher will obey. Remember, only the law-abiding care about the rules.

For those who cannot get past the idea of armed teachers, a more politically correct solution is to station a police officer in every school whenever students are present. Since this would require an officer to be present around seven hours each day for around one hundred and eighty days each year at each school, the costs would be significant, possibly up to $100,000 per year.

All of this money does not have to be wasted, however. The officer does not need to just sit in an office or the parking lot. The officer can be around the school teaching the students during the regular school day. The officer can give lessons in traffic safety, gun safety, drug education, anti-bullying, abduction prevention, self-defense, conflict resolution, emergency preparedness, Internet safety, etc. Cops have a lot of training, and a lot of that training could translate to helpful lessons for small children. We live in a dangerous world. Why not prepare our children to survive it?

Yes, it would be expensive to station an officer in every school, but when you think about the safety of the children, would the costs be that severe? Let's say you can protect five hundred little kids for $100,000 or less each year. That works out to only $200 per year per student. In larger schools, the costs would be even less per child. When you factor in that each officer could actually be serving a legitimate educational role, the costs are really not that steep.

We do not even need to hire new officers to do the job. Just pull them from less important duties like busting massage parlors, pulling over people with expired tags or no seatbelts, and catching soccer moms in speedtraps on the way to the grocery store during the day. Which is more important: keeping the minivans from going five miles over the speed limit or protecting a campus full of little kids from a psychopath?

Well, even if people are not willing to pull cops off of non-essential duties or spring for the extra money to hire more officers, we still have the option of allowing teachers to carry weapons responsibly. The bottom line is we do not need fewer guns in school, we need more guns in the right hands in school. Think back to any school shooting that comes to your mind and ask yourself how things might have been different if some responsible adults in the school had been armed and able to properly protect the kids.

Don't ever forget, schools are one of the few places that have a full ban on guns. In theory, schools should be absolutely free of gun violence, but, in reality, how is the whole gun-free zone concept working? It seems to work perfectly for the shooter, because when he comes, he is the only one armed, and he knows it. Imagine how quickly the balance of power would shift if the shooter knows that when he starts shooting, someone is bound to start shooting back.

Police Opening Doors of Unlocked Vehicles

In another example of police overreaching into the lives of innocent civilians, police in Beverly, Massachusetts are actively looking for parked vehicles with unlocked doors. If a vehicle is unlocked, the police will open the door, lock the vehicle, then shut the door. The police are also leaving warnings for the owners informing them their vehicles are easy targets for thieves. This police action has caused some problems. Some owners left their keys in their vehicles and got locked out of their own vehicles.

This police action is just one element of a larger program in which the police are warning vehicle owners to not make their vehicles targets by leaving valuables in their vehicles in plain view, leaving doors unlocked, etc. The police are going from vehicle to vehicle and leaving written warnings on any vehicles the police feel might be attractive to thieves.

Sure, this sounds like the police are just trying to be helpful, but this is a perfect example of how governments now feel the need to get involved in even the most minute details of innocent people's lives. If people are too stupid to lock their vehicles and keep their valuables out of sight, that is too bad. Those people are taking a risk. If someone steals from the vehicle, the owner will have to face the consequences of being careless. The last thing the vehicle owner needs is some busybody cop putting a sign on the vehicle that advertises to all passers-by there are valuables in the vehicle. That is just idiotic. The cops are marking the targets for thieves.

The most troubling thing is that the cops are actually opening the doors of unlocked vehicles. These vehicles are private property, and opening a private vehicle without permission or a warrant is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. What happens if the cop opens a vehicle and notices something suspicious that might be visible only when a vehicle door is opened? Does the cop continue snooping around in the vehicle? Does the cop make an arrest or file a report if he finds something illegal?

Also, there are some good reasons to leave a vehicle unlocked. Anyone with a convertible or soft-top jeep knows to never lock the vehicle. Thieves cut through soft-tops to get in, and the cost to replace the soft-top far exceeds the value of the items inside the vehicle. Also, people know thieves will smash windows to get into vehicles. Some vehicle owners do not keep anything valuable in their vehicles, so they leave them unlocked, hoping no one will smash a window to get inside. After all, the windows are just glass and do not provide much security. They are, however, expensive to replace.

The bottom line is this. It does not matter why people leave their vehicles unlocked. If people want to do things with their private property that may seem careless, it is not the concern of the police. Here's a fresh thought. Instead of the police wasting time checking door locks, they should be out arresting thieves. The reason we have so many vehicle break-in is because the cops are not doing their jobs and putting the thieves in jail where they belong.

Shoshana Hebshi Strip-Searched After Sitting Next to Suspicious Men on Plane

Shoshana Hebshi

Shoshana Hebshi, a half-Jewish and half-Arabic woman, was strip-searched after sitting next to two Indian men who were accused of acting suspicious on a Frontier Airlines flight from Denver to Detroit on September 11, 2011. The flight crew reported the two men for spending too much time in the bathroom.

Upon landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, the plane was isolated and stormed by heavily armed police. The police handcuffed Hebshi and the two suspicious men and removed them from the plane. Hebshi was patted down and placed in the back of a police car. She was then taken to a holding cell and forced to remove her clothes for a strip-search.

Guess what they found on Hebshi. They found nothing. Shoshana Hebshi is not a terrorist. She is a mom who just happened to look a little too Middle-Eastern and just happened to sit next to some Indian men who went to the bathroom too often for some people to accept. By the way, the Indian men did not even know each other, and they were never in the bathroom together. One of the men was sick, and the other man probably had some other good reason to visit the bathroom. They were not terrorists either. There were no weapons. There were no bombs. There was no plot. There was nothing. All three people were innocent.

What happened here is three perfectly innocent people were bullied and harassed for looking a little too ethnic. It is ridiculous that Indian people are not allowed to visit the bathroom more than an average number of times without setting off some national security emergency. It is even more ridiculous a woman was singled out just because she was sitting in the wrong seat near such Indian men.

Shoshana Hebshi was robbed of her dignity for absolutely no good reason, and she--along with the Indian men--need to sue Frontier Airlines, the Detroit Metropolitan Airport Police, the FBI, and ever other bungling institution that was involved in this incredibly humiliating overreaction.

You can read the whole story on Shoshana Hebshi's blog.

Kelly Thomas Beaten to Death by Fullerton, CA Police

On July 5, 2011, Fullerton, California police responded to a call about possible car burglaries in progress around the Fullerton Transportation Center. When the police arrived, they confronted a homeless, 37-year-old schizophrenic man: Kelly J. Thomas.

The Fullerton police are claiming they wanted to search Kelly Thomas' backpack, but Thomas ran from them and resisted arrest. Perhaps Kelly Thomas did resist the police, but what we do know for sure is that Kelly Thomas received a severe beating from a gang of up to six police officers. According to eyewitnesses, Kelly Thomas was tasered five times and was being beaten even though he did not appear to continue resisting police.  Witnesses say Thomas was begging for the officers to stop beating him, and he was calling out for his father, a retired Orange County law enforcement officer, to come and help him.  (Note: Kelly Thomas' father, Ron Thomas, was not present at the scene of the attack and had no way to stop the beating.)

If there is any doubt about whether Fullerton police used excessive force in the Kelly Thomas arrest, we can only look at the result. Kelly Thomas was beaten so badly, he went into a coma and died five days later in a hospital when he was taken off of life support.

Why can't six police officers subdue a homeless man without using brutal force? Why did they taser the man five times? How could a man possibly be so severely injured and still continue to fight six policemen? Why will the police not release the surveillance video from the bus station?

Kelly Thomas may have been guilty of burglary. He may have even been guilty of resisting police at some point during the confrontation. The fact remains, however, that a mentally ill man was beaten so badly, he died. This could very well be a murder. If it is, these Fullerton cops need to spend life in prison or perhaps even face the death penalty.

If you want to see the face of police brutality, click on the thumbnail below. This is an image of Kelly Thomas after his beating. This image is graphic and disturbing. If you are squeamish, do not look at the full-sized image.



Kelly Thomas After Fullerton Police Beating
Image: fullertonsfuture.org



The National Sheriffs' Association Wants Internet Data Retention Rules

The National Sheriffs' Association wants more control over Internet service providers by requiring ISPs keep records of Internet usage for a minimum of eighteen months. This is all being done under the guise of fighting child pornography, but it could affect anyone who uses the Internet.  This further invasion of privacy, which is to be imposed on private companies and presumably at their own expense, is going to make it much easier for all sorts of government agencies to spy on you. 

Hey, here's an idea.  If child pornography is such a big problem, maybe we should stop constantly letting the sex offenders out of prison.  If we keep more perverts in jail and away from kids and computers, maybe a lot the child pornography problems will go away.

Click below to read Declan McCullagh's full article on CNET News.
"Police: Internet Providers Must Keep User Logs"

Woman Arrested in Own Yard for Recording Police; Supporters Ticketed

The Rochester, New York police arrested Emily Good for shooting video of police while standing on her own property. The charges were dismissed, but in retaliation, the police showed up on Clarissa Street with rulers and ticketed the cars of people from IndyMedia who showed up to support Emily Good but parked more than twelve inches from the curb.

Click here to see the videos on Infowars.

TSA Causes Dangerous Police Situation with Bomb Drill

It never ends. On May 12, 2011, the bungling dolts at the Transportation Security Administration were conducting a drill at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with a fake bomb to test the TSA screeners. For some reason, the TSA did not think it would be necessary to alert the police to this drill.

These fake bomb tests are fairly routine. Often, the fake bombs make it past the TSA screeners without incident. This is probably because the TSA screeners are generally just too busy hassling senior citizens who have artificial hips, feeling up little children, and gawking at the naked pictures their buddies are emailing from the full-body scanner observation center. Surprisingly, on this particular occasion, the normally inept TSA screeners were actually able to identify an object that looked like a bomb in an undercover agent's carry-on bag. The resulting TSA actions caused confusion and led to police drawing guns and evacuating the screening area.

Someone could have been killed during all of this confusion. The undercover agent with the fake bomb could have been shot by police or--even worse--a panicked bystander who could have been acting oddly due to the stressful situation could have been mistaken for an accomplice and shot.

This is another example of just how utterly incompetent the TSA is. This ridiculous agency of glorified mall cops cannot be trusted with the safety of the American people.

Indiana Supreme Court Makes Resisting Illegal Police Entry a Crime

The Indiana Supreme Court has decided that people have no right to resist police officers who attempt to enter their private homes illegally. This is a major blow to the Fourth Amendment.

Read about it here.
"Court: No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Home"

How to Record Video of Abusive Police Without Getting Caught (So Easily)

With the growing prevalence of camcorders and cell phone video recorders, more civilians are shooting amateur video of police, and more police are getting into trouble for brutality, breeches of policy, illegal activity, excessive violence, unjustified use of weapons, intimidation, etc. Of course, law enforcement officers are getting increasingly sensitive about having their bad behavior captured on video, and they sometimes abuse their power to stop people from shooting video of police activity. Sometimes, police may seize cameras, intimidate camera operators, and even use physical violence to stop the video recordings.

Here is the deal. Generally, if police activity is going on in a public place and you are not interfering with that activity, the First Amendment gives you the right to capture that activity on video. Police can ask you to turn off your camera, but you generally do not have to turn off the camera if you prefer to continue recording. Also, provided you are not hindering an investigation, a policeman may not seize your camera.

Now, just because you have rights under the First Amendment, do not assume all cops will respect your rights. In fact, the cops who are probably the most shocking subjects to record are also the cops who are most likely to have a problem with being recorded. These cops may be prepared to go to great lengths to keep you from creating a permanent record of their behavior.

Well, if you want to record police, here are several methods and tips that will increase your chances of success and help protect your rights from police abuse. Before reading further, please understand that there may be laws specific to your local area that may place limits on your rights. Being aware of those laws will help keep you out of trouble and help you properly exercise your right to record the police in public. (Note: Some localities have specific laws about recording audio. Know these local laws.)

Buddy Method
Far and away, the best method for recording police is the buddy method. Using the buddy method, you record police however you desire (but without hindering official police work). Your buddy keeps a very low profile and shoots video from a distance through a zoom lens. You may choose to record audio with a backup source, such as a small pocket digital recorder. You may need the additional audio recording if your camera is forcibly taken, damaged, or voluntarily turned off due to police intimidation. Your buddy should be able to capture good video, but his audio will be very limited if he happens to be many yards from you while your rights are being violated by the police. The separate audio will become useful to accompany the long-distance footage shot by your buddy.

Candid Camera
There are many inexpensive tiny video cameras on the market. Some are small enough to conceal in clothing. If you want to get really serious about protecting your rights to record the police and your local laws allow hidden cameras, consider investing in one. If you are recording video on a hidden backup, you can turn off your visible camcorder whenever you choose without having to miss a moment of the action.

Innocent Bystander
Just because you want to record something, this does not mean you have to personally hold the camera. In many situations, you can start your camcorder, aim it, and conceal it in a bag, box, car, bushes, etc. You can simply linger in the area while your camcorder is capturing the action. Your camera may be capturing shocking video, but you will appear to be a casual bystander. When the event is over, casually retrieve your camera and head for home.

Bait and Switch
If you happen to catch some exceptionally interesting video, it would be a good idea to change videotapes or memory cards. If a cop illegally confiscates your camcorder, he may damage whatever tape or storage medium he finds inside. If you pocket the real tape in advance, the cop will destroy the dummy tape and assume he no longer has to worry about the evidence of his violations.

Red Light Stopper
Most videographers are not used to being in front of the camera, and they usually forget about something that everyone else notices. On many cameras, when the video camera is recording, a red light shines on the front of the camera. This red light makes people nervous, because it is a constant reminder that every moment is being captured forever. If you have a red recording light indicator on the front of your camcorder, deactivate it through the system menu, disconnect it, or simply cover it with a sticker or tiny piece of adhesive tape that matches the color of you camera's body. Electrical tape or duct tape will be adequate for most black or silver cameras.

Run Silent
Many camcorders beep when recording starts and stops. You can avoid drawing attention to your camcorder by turning off the beep function. Many cameras allow users to lower the volume of the beeps or turn the beeps off altogether.

Shoot from the Hip
When shooting video of a controversial event, avoid holding the camcorder up to your face. If you have a camera by your face, the subjects will be more aware that you are recording. Instead, make use of your camcorder's view screen and record casually from waist level or chest level. The less attention you draw to your camera, the more effective you will be as a videographer.

Safety in Numbers
If something exciting is going down, enlist the other random bystanders to shoot video. A lot of people have video-enabled cell phones. You can encourage them to shoot video as well. If the cops see one person shooting video, they may feel comfortable intimidating that one person. If the cops see multiple cameras, they might be more likely to behave themselves.

Be Smarter Than Your Smart Phone
Most smart phones have built-in video cameras. When shooting video with your phone, do not hold the phone at eye level in front of your face. Anyone within a hundred yards will know you are shooting video. To remain inconspicuous, hold the phone at chest level. Get your shot by watching the screen. Do not draw attention to yourself by looking directly at the action While you are shooting video, do something casual with your phone, such as pretending to type an email, browsing the Internet, talking on speaker phone, etc. If you do not look like a problem, you probably will not be treated like a problem.

You Have the Right to Remain Seated
For some reason, people tend not to notice seated people as easily as standing people. If you have the option of shooting good video from a sitting position, do so. If you can shoot video from within your own car, even better. If you shoot video with the windows up, you will lose a little image quality and have almost no audio, but you may be able to shoot video without drawing attention.

Inside Job
If you shoot video from inside of a building, your chances of being confronted get much lower. If you happen to own or rent that building, you have all sorts of legal protections. Even though you will lose much of the audio of the event, shooting video from inside may provide you with excellent vantage points, a great deal of privacy, and tremendous legal protection.

Closing Thoughts
Of course, you need to keep in mind that cops may become angry when being recorded on videotape and illegally use vicious force against you and your property. Additionally, you are fully responsible for being aware of all of your local laws and following them, but generally, you are allowed to peacefully record police who are operating in public as long as you do not obstruct their efforts.

Stand up for your First Amendment rights and use your camcorder legally against cops who break the law by abusing their power. You can do this, but just be smart about it. You may care about your rights, but the worst cops do not. Be careful, plan ahead just a little, and you might help get an abusive cop off the streets and create a better environment for the good cops who follow the rules and respect the rights of law-abiding civilians.

Man Beaten While Filming Police from His Own Property

Mitchell Crooks was standing outside of his Las Vegas home filming an arrest of burglary suspects across the street. Even though Crooks was doing nothing to interfere with the police activity, he was approached by, Las Vegas police officer, Derek Colling. In the ensuing confrontation, Crooks was beaten, had his camera kicked by police, mocked, arrested, and had his video camera confiscated.

Mitchell Crooks Mug Shot

Read the full story and see the video of the confrontation at Las Vegas Review Journal.

Many people will harp on the fact that Mitchell Crooks answered, "Nope," when Derek Colling asked if Crooks lived at the address. It is true Crooks would have been wise to answer the officer truthfully or not at all, but Colling had no business approaching Crooks in the first place. Crooks was not doing anything illegal, and the cop should have just ignored him. Colling just could not leave it alone. For some reason, he felt the need to bully an innocent bystander.

People might try to defend the officer by saying he was trying to stop Crooks from trespassing, but that is not the business of the cops unless a property owner or resident makes a trespassing complaint or there appears to be suspicious activity on the property. Simply aiming a video camera at the police is not suspicious.

When you watch the video, you will see that officer Derek Colling completely overacted to the situation and caused things to escalate completely out of control. If Derek Colling had just done his job and not stopped to bully Mitchell Crooks, none of this would have happened.

Las Vegas Police Officer, Derek Colling

Derek Colling needs to undergo some serious psychological evaluation. When the psychologist realizes Derek Colling is too dangerous and unstable to carry a gun, the Las Vegas Police Department needs to fire that brutal bully, and then arrest him for aggravated assault.

TSA Gate Rape Resistance Gets Claire Hirschkind Arrested

On December 22, 2010, Claire Hirschkind, a 56-year-old rape victim was arrested at Austin-Bergstrom Airport in Texas after refusing a TSA pat-down. Claire Hirschkind could not pass through the full-body scanner due to safety concerns about a pacemaker-type device imbedded in her chest.

Hirschkind told a female TSA agent not to touch her breasts during the pat-down. The TSA agent insisted she would touch the rape victim's breasts. When Hirschkind refused to have her breasts touched by the federal employee, she was forced to the ground and arrested.

The story probably has a few more details that will certainly add to the reasons behind this woman being pushed to the ground. Logic says there must have been some sort of additional resistance, but this is the TSA, so logic is not necessarily applicable. Thee fact remains, however, that an innocent, law-abiding rape survivor with a pacemaker-type device was humiliated, inconvenienced, and tormented because she did not want a federal employee to touch her breasts.

How many more places can you imagine this going on? Imagine trying to walk into Grand Central Station and an NYPD cop stops you and says, "I am going to have to feel your breasts and crotch before I let you in the building."

Don't worry. This sort of thing will not be happening for at least another few weeks. If it makes us feel a little safer, it's perfectly okay, right?

John Tyner, a Pioneer Against TSA Searches

Full-Body Scan Image

John Tyner (http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/) has written a detailed account of an encounter with the Transportation Security Administration after refusing a full-body scan and a pat-down at the San Diego Airport. This is a courageous person who is standing up for our rights. Read all about the incident at "TSA encounter at SAN".

One Man’s Sign Affects Two of His Civil Rights

According to Bridget Nash of the Enid News and Eagle, Chip Harrison, an Oklahoma City man, was driving on the interstate with a sign in his window. The sign read, “Abort Obama, not the unborn.” The man was pulled over by an Oklahoma City police officer who confiscated the sign. The sign was later returned by the police department, but the Secret Service later visited the man’s house and asked to conduct an informal search. The Secret Service walked through Harrison’s house to determine if Harrison was a threat.

Harrison was unwise in the way he worded his sign, but government overreaction over Chip Harrison’s sign lead to infringements on his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Harrison did get his sign back, and he voluntarily allowed the Secret Service to search his house, but this event should be a warning to all that the reach of government is extensive. Who knows what might have happened to Harrison had he not cooperated with the police and Secret Service. Harrison probably has his own special Secret Service file now, but things could have been much worse for him if he had tried to stand up for his freedom of speech and his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Enid News and Eagle Article
"OKC Officer Pulls Man over for Anti-Obama Sign on Vehicle"