Two deaths

We claim to love our pets almost as much as we love our families.   Yet when old age, illness, or injury reduces life to nothing but pain, we are not willing to give our family members the same relief from pain that we give our pets.

My grandfather was old and sick.   Nobody in the family could take care of him, so he was put into a care facility (at great cost).   The last time I saw him alive, he didn't recognize me, or other members of the family. He died alone.  I cried for him at his funeral, when he was already cold and his body was in a box.


My dog was old and sick, she had heart problems and cancer of some kind.  I reached a point where I could no longer take care of her, and she was spending most of her life in pain.  I took her to the vet, and held her in my arms as she quietly went to sleep, and her heart slowed down and stopped.  I cried as this happened, and one of her last acts was to try to lick the tears off of my face.

Which of those two died knowing that I loved them?

Which of these deaths would you prefer for yourself?

How concealed carry can prevent mass shootings from occuring

In a recent discussion on FB revolving around "mass shootings", and how best to prevent them at a college, a friend of a friend made this statement about guns not being able to prevent crime"
"You can't stop a shooter who is already in range with a gun unless you shoot him first. If you have not drawn your weapon you cannot shoot him first. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous."

I have to disagree.

"Mass shooters" are generally people who have some issues, including power issues. They create a situation where they have all of the power - the power of life and death over others. Their goal is to exercise that power, even if it means that they do not survive the experience. Another goal seems to be the fame that they will gain if they rack up a high enough body count, and are shocking enough in their actions. This is why I do not use their names, since using their names rewards their behavior.

An armed person in a crowd of unarmed people has more power than the others. An armed person in a crowd that includes other armed people does not have more power than others in the crowd, even if they will have the advantage of initiative by being the one who starts acting first.

In most cases, "mass shooters" end their rampages as soon as they encounter an armed opponent. Not when they are shot or even shot at by an armed opponent, but when an armed opponent simply becomes part of the scenario. In some cases, they surrender, but more often, they kill themselves.

Here are a few examples:

The December 2012, Oregon shopping mall mass shooting stopped when the shooter saw an armed citizen. The CCW holder never fired, because he couldn't get a "clean shot" that would not endanger others. The shooter entered the "gun free zone" hoping to tally up a bunch of kills, and with a sense of power, because he was the ONE who was armed. The mere presence of an armed citizen changed that dynamic, and the shooter committed suicide. Police were still in their cars, on their way to the mall.

The December 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting also stopped when the shooter first encountered armed resistance. He shot himself when armed police officers arrived. Police didn't have to shoot him. Again, the dynamic of the situation changed, and he was no longer the ONE with the power.

Aurora Colorado, "Batman" shooter targets the only theater in town that is designated as a "gun free zone", surrenders to armed police as soon as they arrive. Again, the dynamic changed, and he was no longer the ONE with the power.

At Columbine, which is an unusual mass casualty attack, because there were two people involved, instead of the usual "loner". The perpetrators initially planned for it to be a bombing, but switched to shooting when the bombs failed. Even so, they killed themselves when the (armed) police arrived, changing the power dynamic of the situation.

At Virginia Tech, the shooter had plenty of ammunition left, yet chose to kill himself as the armed police closed in on him. The dynamic of the situation was changing, and he was not going to be the ONE with the power when they arrived.

The 2014 Isla Vista shooter was a bit different from the usual pattern, as he initially exchanged gunfire with police, but after he wrecked his car, and was no longer able to move freely, he shot himself as the armed police approached. In this case, loss of mobility was part of the changing dynamic.

In all of these instances but the last, the killers exclusively targeted people in "gun free zones" where they had a greater than normal chance of being the only armed person there. The gun didn't give them special power, being the only one with a gun gave them special power. If you are the only armed person, you can shoot again if you miss the first time. You don't have to worry very much about defending yourself. Others will run and cower - in many schools, teachers and students are taught to make themselves docile targets, rather than to "run, hide, or fight" (the DHS recommendation for workplaces).

Add a bunch of licensed concealed carriers (a group that includes off-duty cops), and the dynamic changes dramatically, making them less likely to strike.

Militarization of Police, part 2

If only the "militarization of police" would include instilling the discipline and professionalism that our military has, and our civilian law enforcement agencies so often show that they are lacking.

When soldiers and Marines in combat zones have more restrictive rules of engagement for dealing with armed enemy combatants than police officers in our own cities do for dealing with citizens suspected of criminal acts, there is a problem.

When military members step over the line and do illegal things, we tend to find out about it, because other military members step forward. Remember Abu Ghraib? When those reservists, most of whom were also civilian LEOS (cops and corrections officers) mistreated prisoners, another soldier notified his congressman and the press.

When civilian cops commit felonies - like assaulting a cameraman in a McDonald's, for instance - other civilian cops aid and abet them in that crime by not only refusing to arrest them for the felonies committed right in front of them, but also by helping them to hide their identities. At that point, every cop in that McDonald's needs to be arrested, stripped of their badge, gun, uniform, and pension, and put on trial for felony assault, false imprisonment/unlawful confinement/kidnapping, and other crimes (those who stood and allowed it to happen need to be charged as accomplices/accessories, as well as with criminal negligence, with depraved indifference) - all committed under color of authority, thus increasing the severity of the offenses.

Lessons from Ferguson, MO: Philosphy of Policing

We have seen two different approaches to police work in action in Ferguson, Missouri this week.

The first had the city and county cops playing soldier. They used dogs, tear gas, armored vehicles, and heavily armed officers with their uniforms, names, and badges hidden by mounds of tactical gear to disrupt and try to shut down what was a peaceful, but angry protest. Their actions escalated tensions, and their disruption of the protest event created confusion and chaos which allowed some people to riot and loot, while neither protest organizers or the police could effectively communicate with, or control them.

These same local agencies treated the media as a hostile presence, gassing TV crews and arresting and roughing up reporters.

People in the community - and all over the nation - lost a lot of respect for law enforcement due to the poor choices made by the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police.


Then, a professional police agency was brought in to restore order and rebuild public confidence and trust. With a smart leader, the Missouri State Police entered Ferguson wearing regular police uniforms, with their badges and name tags showing.- no dogs, no tear gas, no gas masks, no tactical gear, no armored vehicles, no "Rambo"s.

These officers mingled with the crowds, marched with the protesters, and told them that they could protest all night, as long as people didn't start burning or looting. The violence stopped as soon as the police started acting as peace officers and stopped provoking the citizens and escalating (if not causing) the tension and violence..


Time and time again, I have seen bad things happen when cops start covering up their badges and name tags. At that point, they become a faceless part of an occupying force, able and willing to break the law with little chance of ever facing the consequences of their actions, instead of police officers who people can deal with as human beings.

Teachers As Babysitters - Do You Really Want To Go There?

Now and again, someone will make the comment that teachers are overpaid, because they are often "just babysitters".

Please pay me babysitter wages to teach.

Babysitters commonly make at least $5 per hour per child.

With a class of 30, that's $150 an hour.

Even leaving out the time I would spend on paperwork (preparing lessons, correcting papers, doing administrative things like writing reports, contacting parents, meeting with social workers, etc.), that's at least five hours a day of directly "babysitting" the kids, making it $750 a day.

Multiply that by the 180 classroom days in a year and you'll be paying a starting teacher $135k per year - without ANY paid vacation.

Then you'll need to add more to cover all those other duties - let's call it four more hours a day at $10 per hour, which gets us to an additional $7,200 per year.

Since we haven't gotten into paid vacation or holidays yet, we need to add two weeks of vacation, and 13 holidays, for a total of 23 extra days, at the rate of $790 a day. That's an additional $18,170 per year.

Math time!

$135,000
+$18,170
+$ 7,200
= $160,370

So, please sign me up for your plan that will pay me a $160k per year starting salary as an in-school "babysitter".

You know that terrible "Common Core Math" thing?

Since you're on the internet, I'm sure you've seen some kind of post, comment, or meme that claims to show you a "Common Core Math" problem.    What you are seeing are actually problems from Everyday Math and other textbooks/curricular sources being touted as "Common Core Math". The CC are a set of standards used to guide the teacher (as well as the student and parents) to teach concepts that are developmentally appropriate for their grade level, and to a lesser extent, to measure the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

The curriculum is whatever means that a state/district/school/or teacher uses to teach those concepts.

This is analogous to your employer telling you that you and your team must attend meetings in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago, New York, and Boston, but allowing you to decide whether to take a plane, train, bus, or car. The standard is that you will meet with certain people in each of those cities. The curriculum is how you choose to get there. It is even possible that some team members will be more comfortable using a different means of transport to get between the meetings - just as different students respond to different methods of learning a skill.

While the Common Core standards are not perfect, they are an improvement over the previous standards in some states.   They also align the standards across many states, so that, if you move to a new state, your child won't be a year ahead in some areas, and a year behind in others.  This is why you might be hearing conflicting complaints that the Common Core is "too hard" and at the same time "dumbs things down".

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

The Militarization of Policing in America

Some thoughts and sources for further study about the militarization of law enforcement in America. I used to study trends in law enforcement in Criminal Justice and Sociology classes, and for professional development in my prior career. I remember reading a couple of articles in LE professional journals over a decade ago that addressed the changing attitudes in the "younger generation" of police, and how that was causing a divide between LE and the citizenry. Some of the older LE professionals were worried about the changes in equipment, tactics, training, and attitudes they were seeing in the newer additions to the profession.

That problem has continued to grow over the past decade, and now has a name - the militarization of policing. Here's some of what a quick trip to google turned up...  

What is the militarization of law enforcement? Here it is, in a nutshell:

The police have become more militarized, more soldier-like in the last generation or two," explains journalist and author Radley Balko. "It applies to the weapons they are using, the uniforms they wear...to the tactics they use, to what I think is the most pervasive problem which is the mindset that police officers take to the job."

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/08/0...itarization-of  

Why should military and LE be different?

To cast the roles of the two too closely, those in and out of law enforcement say, is to mistake the mission of each. Soldiers, after all, go to war to destroy, and kill the enemy. The police, who are supposed to maintain the peace, “are the citizens, and the citizens are the police,” according to Chief Walter A. McNeil of Quincy, Fla., the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, citing the words of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern-day policing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/su...anted=all&_r=0  

Why can't LE have tacticool toys for use against the real badass villains? Because they end up using those toys on... everyone.

In some cases, the rationale for using military weapons and tactics on domestic soil seems obvious: look no further, proponents argue, than the recent hunt for the Tsarnaev brothers after the Boston Marathon bombings. But what’s remarkable is how routine these tactics have become as a means of pursuing nonviolent suspects and low-level investigations, particularly in the war on drugs.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...am-nation.html

 I see why citizens might be concerned, but why should this be a concern to a law enforcement professional?

Although the botched raid of my home and killing of our dogs, Payton and Chase, have received considerable attention in the media, it is important to underscore that this bill is about much more than an isolated, high-profile mistake. It is about a growing and troubling trend where law enforcement agencies are using SWAT teams to perform ordinary police work. Prince George’s County police acknowledges deploying SWAT teams between 400 and 700 a year— that’s twice a day—and other counties in the state have said that they also deploy their special tactical units hundreds of times a year. The hearings on these bills have brought to light numerous botched and ill-advised raids in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s counties that also have had devastating effects on the lives of innocent people and undermined faith in law enforcement. . . .

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/mili...next%E2%80%9D/  

What would you recommend that LE do, if not using SWAT teams for everything? Well, you old timers may remember this concept called "Community Policing", where the LEOs and the citizenry worked together to deter crime...

Community policing, actual officers walking the streets and interacting with civilians, instead of patrolling in cars or rolling-in armored response vehicles, has by far proven the most effective form of law enforcement – budgetary and statistically. The militarization of local police is inherently opposite of strategies that have shown the best results.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlock...-local-police/  

What should be the top priorities of any LE professional? What's wrong with "Officer Safety" being the primary focus of police work?

All of these policies have infused too many police agencies with a culture of militarism. Neill Franklin is a former narcotics cop in Maryland, who also oversaw training at the state's police academies in the early 2000s. “I think there are two critical components to policing that cops today have forgotten," he says. "Number one, you’ve signed on to a dangerous job. That means that you’ve agreed to a certain amount of risk. You don’t get to start stepping on others’ rights to minimize that risk you agreed to take on. And number two, your first priority is not to protect yourself, it’s to protect those you’ve sworn to protect. But I don’t know how you get police officers today to value those principles again. The ‘us and everybody else’ sentiment is strong today. It’s very, very difficult to change a culture.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3749272.html