Jots with dots 12/12

Bipartisanship: I like this portmanteau ‘Cromnibus”.

Thin blue line: 5 years ago I had the last at bat against Berenguer’s son in a city league championship game. I must have been 40 if I do the math right. Kid was 20, 21, and a very good DIII college player. Lefty, not a big guy, nice amateur fastball but a couple ticks tick less than a pro arm, and he was an outfielder by trade anyway. I hit a reasonably hard smash to 3rd, grounded out.

Ervin Not Johan: And his given name is Johan, believe it or not. He’s good and if the market is thus he is worth the money. But I don’t see him in my mind’s eye at all.

Good luck with that

Hush everyone, the village idiot wants to weigh inYa know, he’s got a great vocabulary and can write extravagant, multiple clause sentences. But the real spectacle of Lambo is the certitude married to ignorance, the obnoxious cocksureness that his junky, casual knowledge trumps the practical knowledge of whomever he argues with on whatever topic. Especially if they’re conservative.

We saw this regularly at SRC, and seldom see it now at WWP. Loveland’s earnest, thoughtful style sets the tone there, and Lambo has been careful to not stink the joint up.

Yesterday’s “Why are cops still using real bullets?” is classic Lambo. He’s misinformed / wrong on most of the salient points but still self-righteous:

Rubber bullets – You can’t fire rubber projectiles out of rifles and pistols in common use, rubber would not stay stable as it traveled down a rifled barrel under high pressure. After, they would tumble in flight, you’d not be firing at anything with any accuracy. As such, there is no such thing as rubber ammunition for say a Glock service pistol. Rubber bullets packed into a sabot can be fired out of shotguns, yet still their ability to incapacitate is not reliable. That’s the reason they’re not used for beat duty, where the expectation is you may interdict common / dangerous criminals. Rubber bullets are suitable for riot control because they create a little fear, and they don’t reliably incapacitate and leave a bunch of dead bodies on the pavement. They create the expectation of pain and the motivation to disperse. So, that’s the reason they’re still using real bullets instead of rubber bullets. Rubber bullets generally do not provide the functionality to incapacitate that the cops feel is required for normal duty.

Law enforcement chemical darts – They’re not trying to tranquilize Gentle Ben. I’m not aware of such a thing for police use. As an observation, I think this is the ‘reach’ of a person who thinks they have a kernel of insight on something that must exist with modernity. It doesn’t.

Cop salaries – He’s not informed. They’re not underpaid, period. We’ve gone through this. Minnpost the other day, Minneapolis and St. Paul police both start at about $50k, which ain’t a pittance in the first place, and it goes up quick with years. I’ve had occasion to make this point several occasions throughout the summer, search any cop in the news in the SPPPD salary database. You generally find they make $85 – 90k a year.

NRA ad homonym – basically a complete non-sequitur for the purpose of stroking a pet bigotry.


3 thoughts on “Jots with dots 12/12

  1. pm1956

    I thought he raised a valid point–right now, the vast majority of police rarely use deadly violence during their career. So the question should be why are policed always equipped at all times with tools to deal with situations that they rarely encounter?

    And this is not a ridiculous question to ask–there are unarmed police forces in the world–England, for one.

    So it can be done.

    Of course, we don’t have to disarm police–we could keep them armed, but give them other primary weapons. And while rubber bullets might not be the best option, there are things like snakeshot which work in pistols. What if police were only armed with shotguns, or long guns?

    Hell, for that matter, changing the way police are trained can make a huge difference, as well.

    1. W.E. Peterson Post author

      Alright, it’s fine as something of a rhetorical question. And I want kinder, gentler police too.

      On the question of tactics, the thing to understand is the whole threat engagement / incapacitation philosophy in civilian policing has evolved from a very military school of thought by now. The etymology is from warfare, where to incapacitate the foe is to kill him.
      I’d like to see that changed, but figure that for it to change all those things we’ve discussed have to happen. The union protections have to be diminished, and the relationships between prosecutors and the police have to be diminished so that these guys don’t lie in police reports and they actually get in trouble for malfeasance.

      I don’t think it has anything to do with tools, whether they actually exist or are a bit fantastical. We have tasers in this reality, and they are not an adequate non-lethal solution and yet they are also completely abused by law enforcement.

      1. pm1956

        FYI, this was an interesting article, as an example of police abuse of process.

        I think that articles like this one are going to get even more play in the media, because it is now a meme. And the police seem to be tone deaf, as this article suggests:

        And this was wonderful:

        Granted, all from the same source, but it will be interesting to see if this meme has staying power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s