Saturday, February 29, 2020

Not self defense

So a piece of trash kills a police officer who is attempting to arrest him for murdering his girlfriend. The suspect shoots and kills the cop, and his reason is that this was self defense because the officer fired first. I am not sure that is how it works. I am sure his attorneys know this, and they are hoping to get a cop hating black person on the jury. That is the only possible reason, since one cannot claim self defense from an on duty, in uniform law enforcement officer.

This particular piece of trash has been making his trial into a circus since day 1.

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Happy switch

The ATF is offering a $2500 reward to anyone who gives them information that leads to the recovery of a police "patrol rifle" that was stolen from an off duty police officer's vehicle. They describe the missing rifle as "an AR type rifle with a red dot sight," then include a picture that says it is "similar to the  stolen weapon."

This story doesn't add up. Since it is the most popular rifle in the country, plenty of these are stolen every day, but the ATF doesn't do press releases with lots of exposure and a reward that is more than the value of the stolen gun. Shoot, the red dot sight costs more than an AR does these days. I am willing to bet that the missing rifle has a happy switch and the cops don't want the public to know that they lost a machine gun.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Police are not firearms experts

Rounding up my police being trained with guns posts for the week:

An axe wielding man was shot several times by an off duty deputy when he broke into her home. He was treated for gun shot wounds to his extremities.

Florida homeowner shoots and kills an intruder.

Now some might take this post as criticism of the police. That would be far from the truth. This post is evidence that the police do not train often enough or for long enough to be any better at marksmanship than the average citizen, nothing more. For some reason, people tend to think of cops as firearms experts, or even self defense legal experts. That is not the case. Police are experts in police procedure.

Teachers more trained than cops

In Florida, a teacher who wants to carry a firearm must have a concealed weapons permit, get permission from their employing school district, then must undergo 144 hours of training. Police serving as School Resource Officers only have to go through 40 hours of training. Granted, that is on top of the training they get to be a cop in the first place, but in Florida more hours of training are required to be a barber than are required to be a police officer. Most cops in Florida get 80 hours or less TOTAL of firearms training to get certified. 

In the case of teachers, they are being forced to be trained to a higher level than the cops. The guardian program is a joke. The only teachers who are being certified are those who are politically connected to the administration, school board, or superintendent. Not one classroom teacher has been certified, at least not in the six counties where I know teachers who work there.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Keyboard warriors

Sometimes as gun owners, we are our own worst enemies. There are too many chest thumping internet commandos, people with no clue about the law, and others who think that owning or carrying a gun is some sort of badge of badass manhood, and that shooting people is some sort of remote controlled punch.

There is a video going around of a chef being attacked in a commercial kitchen. Another employee enters the room, draws a gun, and the bad guy turns his back and leaves. The comments to the video are insane:

Sensible guy: Why shoot??? He walked away. Your life is no longer in danger. How many of y’all that say shoot paid attention in your LTC class??

Keyboard Warrior 1: Before he walked away, he was within reaching distance. You don't draw unless you are prepared to fire. Should have dropped him

Internet Commando: Shoot! SHOOT UNTIL THE CLIP IS EMPTY. If that was my family member he'd be toe-tagged. Imagine what he'd have done if that woman wasn't armed.

Sensible guy 2: I agree with you sir. No reason to shoot over a punch.

Internet Commando:  STAND YOUR GROUND.

Confused gun owner: She shouldn't have it pointed at him if deadly force wasn't warranted. Didn't you pay attention in your class. He could have charged her and took it. If it was warranted she should have shot.

Confused gun owner #2: She should have shot as soon as she pulled the gun up on him. In the ECC class they teach do not point unless you plan to shoot. Now the SOB will wait till taller or do it to someone else.

Internet Commando: everybody second guesses and cites the manual. Doesn't work like that in real life.

Divemedic: A lot of legal misconceptions in this thread.
1 "Stand your ground" is not a license to kill people because they 'dissed' you.
2 If someone isn't presenting an immediate threat of death, serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony, you can't just shoot them. Even if they are presenting such a threat, shooting them has to be the only REASONABLE way of stopping them. Shooting someone in the back is not it.
3 You can point a gun at someone and not shoot them, even if deadly force isn't warranted. If he charges you, he is now presenting that threat from my second point.
This isn't quoting "the manual" - it is merely stating the law. That same law that will be used to hang you when you don't follow it.

Internet Commando: Let me punch your wife square in the face with all my 235 pounds behind it, you will hand me flowers? You're a spineless Liberal.

Divemedic:  LOL. No, I just understand the law. A gun is not to be used to get revenge for past wrongs. That is the path to prison. I am guessing that, since you are not in prison, you don't go around shooting anything off except your Internet commando mouth.

Apparently understanding self defense law makes me a spineless liberal.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Navy needs to be more cost effective

When nuclear weapons were new, they were pretty large. Too large for carrier based aircraft, so the Air Force was tasked with building a nuclear bomber force, with the funding to come at the expense of the Army and Navy budgets. In defense of its budgets, the Navy designed a mega carrier that would carry bombers that were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This carrier, the USS United States (CVA-58), was a bad idea and poorly designed. It was cancelled by President Truman as being an expensive boondoggle.

The legacy of CVA-58 lived on and formed the basis for the idea of the supercarrier. At their cold war height, a carrier airwing carried over 90 aircraft. When I reported aboard the USS Eisenhower, our air wing had two squadrons of F-14 Tomcat fighters, two squadrons of A-7 Corsairs, a squadron of A-6 Intruders, a squadron of S-3 Vikings, a squadron of H-3 Sea King helicopters, a squadron of five EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, a squadron of E-2 Hawkeye AWACS aircraft, and a couple of C-2 Greyhound cargo aircraft. More than nine squadrons.

Since then, the Navy has eliminated the submarine hunting S-3, and has combined the functions of the A-6, EA-6B, KA-6D, F-14, and A-7 into just one aircraft platform: the F-18.

Now the US Navy has downsized the carrier airwing. Now the air wing consists of just 53 aircraft, about half the number of aircraft carried 30 years ago. At $12 billion each, the question is: do we still need to be building full sized supercarriers?

The Marines think they can make LHA's, ships less than half the size of a supercarrier, operate while carrying 13 F-35s alongside the other aircraft, helicopters, and 1700 marines- at a quarter of the cost of a super carrier. Could- or should- the Navy take a look at the feasibility of a carrier that is about the size of an LHA that would carry an air wing of 25 to 30 aircraft and do it at a third of the cost? More importantly, their smaller size would mean that these smaller ships would have half the crew, and would present a much less valuable target. A smaller and less expensive carrier would mean that we could have 20 of these carriers for less money than the 12 super carriers we currently have.

In smaller conflicts, a single carrier would be deployed. For major conflicts, 2, 3, or even 4 of them could operate together. The enemy forces would then be forced to expend the additional effort needed to attack 3 or 4 carrier battle groups instead of one.


If you work in public safety, or even if you watch cop shows on television, you will hear people caught with drugs say that the drugs do not belong to them, even if the drugs are in the person's own pocket. It seems ridiculous, right?

A man is arrested for shoplifting at a central Florida WalMart. He is found to be in possession of a stolen Glock handgun, methamphetamine, marijuana, and Klonopin. A search of criminal records reveals that, in the past three years, he has been arrested at least 5 times for drug related offenses. Each time, the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, apparently because when he was caught with drugs in the vehicle, he stated that although the drugs were within his reach, they were not his drugs.

It doesn't seem so ridiculous when you see how often that tactic works. I wonder if it will work for this arrest, or if the police have finally found charges that the state attorney will be willing to prosecute.

Friday, February 21, 2020

Jailbreaking Teslas

There is an old saying that half of all jobs that will exist in 20 years rely on technology that has not even been invented yet. Here is the evidence that this is happening.
A few days ago, I posted that Tesla has been disabling features on their cars and holding those features ransom, forcing people who buy their cars used to pay the manufacturer to re-enable those features.
It seems that this has spawned an entirely new market for jailbreaking those cars and activating those features.

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Bail reform

Democrats are sitting here looking at how well eliminating bail is working for New York City, and are thinking that what we need here is more crime. So now they are pushing for a similar system in Orlando.

The State Attorney who is pushing this is Aramis Ayala, who famously declared that she would not push for the death penalty in any case that came to her office, even one where a man murdered a police officer. As a result, the Governor took all potential death penalty cases away from her.

Attorney John Morgan, the ambulance chasing injury attorney who made a nearly a billion dollars by suing people, successfully pushed for legalizing medical marijuana in Florida. His next fight is recreational marijuana, and there are rumors that he is going to use that to attempt a shot at the governor's mansion. Typical limousine liberal.

So stand by for Orlando to be a criminal's paradise. Now that felons can vote in Florida, this is a full on attempt to convert Florida blue.

Friday, February 14, 2020

Only one

A cop is found passed out drunk in his patrol car. The police decide not to do a blood alcohol check, so he gets away with it. His blood alcohol was 5 times the legal limit, but because police did not follow procedure, the results of the test can't be used in court. The supervisor who made the call is being allowed to retire without penalty.

The police chief claims it is not a cover up. Police know what needs to be done to make a case stick. Procedure was not followed, and this prevented charges from being filed. Officers didn't even inform their own police department for over 9 months. This appears to have been done deliberately as a way to keep the 'blue wall of silence' intact.

If there is indeed no cover up, each officer who failed to report this crime should be terminated.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Free speech

Apparently, attorneys don't have a right to free speech, since this one got suspended for saying "Never trust a Muslim" on social media, and also expressing his religious beliefs:

“If the homosexual continues committing that sin of sodomy, his soul faces ETERNAL damnation,” McBath wrote on Facebook in February 2018. “Abstain, if you really have that mental illness. It’s not love.”

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

One more law, episode #328

A man with a lengthy rap sheet for homicide, weapons possession, and possession of a machine gun decided to ambush a pair of cops in their patrol vehicle, then hours later entered a police station and opened fire. Just two years after being paroled from a 2002 incident that involved a gunfight with police, a carjacking, and shooting another man.

1 illegal to commit murder
2 illegal to own machine guns in NY
3 illegal to own machine guns in NYC
4 illegal for felon to own guns in USA
5 illegal for felon to own guns in NYS
6 illegal for felon to own guns in NYC
7 illegal for parolee to own guns in NYS
8 illegal for parolee to own guns in NYC
9 illegal to shoot people
10 illegal to carry gun in NYC without nearly impossible to obtain permit
11 carjacking illegal

I am sure there are more laws here that have been broken, but tell me how one more law will make a difference.

One more law

So a 19 year old and a 17 year old murder their 18 year old drug dealer while trying to rob him. Let's recap:

1 it is illegal to sell or buy drugs
2 it is illegal for anyone under 21 to buy a handgun
3 it is illegal for a minor to have any firearm
4 it is illegal to rob someone
5 it is illegal to murder someone

but hey, what we need here is another gun law

Monday, February 10, 2020


TSA apparently means tit show authority. This TSA agent pulled a female passenger into an elevator, and then demanded that the woman bare her breasts and allow him to look down her pants. Not only should this guy have been fired and charged, but his supervisor should be fired as well for failing to properly supervise his employee. How can a male employee take a female passenger off to a secluded area without anyone noticing? and what happened to the security station that this employee was supposed to be monitoring?

I'm gonna leave this right here.

Burning small arms ammo

The press is reporting that firefighters let a house burn down because they were afraid of ammo in the home. I am guessing that the press got this wrong and the firefighters remained outside because there was ammunition in the house. This is called 'going defensive'- essentially allowing the house to burn down while protecting nearby structures- because it is too dangerous for firefighters to enter. Usually, defensive strategies in a single family home are caused by a fire being so advanced that there is a significant risk of either building collapse or the fire is so intense that there is a high risk of injury.

I sincerely hope the defensive strategy wasn't due to ammunition. Unless it is loaded into a firearm, small arms ammunition doesn't pose a risk to those nearby. The show Myth Busters already proved that. The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI), and the National Shooting Sports Foundation agree with the assessment that small arms ammunition does not present a significant risk under fire conditions, if the ammunition is not supported by a firearm chamber.

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Another Facebook ban

Last month, I received a pair of Facebook bans. Apparently, they have noticed that I am to the right of Joseph Stalin have thusly been declared an enemy of the state by someone down there. I have been banned for 30 days, but that hasn't stopped them from looking through my FB history, I guess. My account is now in a "warning" status and I will not be permitted to purchase Facebook advertising, and face a permanent ban if more violations are found. I have so far not been told anything beyond "something you posted violated our community standards."

In search of the reasoning behind this, I came across this article. So apparently, anyone that Facebook deems to be a racist will be banned. They are blaming the Christchurch massacre.

"Starting today, people who have broken certain rules on Facebook -- including our Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy -- will be restricted from using Facebook Live," Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of integrity, wrote in a Tuesday blog post.
A comprehensive list of offenses that would see a user barred from Live wasn't included, although the examples used all had to do with circulating terrorist-related content. (emphasis added)
When I received the original ban, they did reference the "Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy" which they claimed I was in violation of. My first offense of this policy was my posting of a picture of the inside of a Venezuelan hospital emergency room with the caption "This is where government run healthcare ends up." According to Facebook, that makes me a dangerous terrorist.

I would note that Facebook has no problem with Antifa being on their site.  Antifa has caused more violent attacks than I have (I have not caused any)

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

No Sympathy

A mother of 4 who makes only $12.50 an hour is complaining that she doesn't have a car and wants taxpayers to support her commute because it takes her 7 hours a day to commute to work.  Here is an oddball suggestion: Move closer to your job.

A mother of 4 making $25K a year is getting $500 in food stamps, as well as welfare. She could move closer to her job and find a 4 bedroom apartment at the same (or lower) rent.

I don't see why I should have to pay more in taxes to support a transportation system that I do not use. 

Lawsuits needed

The airlines and passengers need to start suing idiots like this guy when they deliberately make statements that cost people money. 

“About mid-way through the flight, I stood up, pulled my video camera out — I was going to post it to Instagram, send it to 6ixbuzz so it goes viral, I looked around, I said ‘can I get everybody’s attention please’ and … I followed up by saying, word-for-word, I said, ‘I just came back from Hunan province, the capital of the coronavirus … I’m not feeling too well. Thank you.’”
Potok, an aspiring musician, nevertheless insists the prank was “good for publicity.”
“It would be something else if I said, ‘Hey guys, I have a bomb strapped to me,’” Potok told CityNews. “People blew it out of proportion.”
The plane had to return to its originating airport.

Tuesday, February 4, 2020


So many of my friends seem to think that education would be better served by private and charter schools, a market based solution. In my opinion, there is a segment of our population that would not fare any better, regardless of the methods used for instruction. Let me illustrate:

For the past two weeks, my biology students have been learning about the human reproductive system. This is so that they are in compliance with the following Florida educational benchmark:

L.16.13 Describe the basic anatomy and physiology of the human reproductive system. Describe the process of human development from fertilization to birth and major changes that occur in each trimester of pregnancy.

There are 85 of these benchmarks that students need to master during the 36 weeks we spend in biology, so time is short. This is how I presented the unit:

  • Day one: Students learned the anatomy of the male and female reproductive system. They then completed a worksheet where they had to label anatomical diagrams of each. Then they had to describe the function of each organ (testes, ovaries, uterus, etc.)
  • Day two: Students learned about sperm production and the three main hormones that regulate it. 
  • Day three: Students learned about the menstrual cycle and the hormones controlling it. They also completed a crossword puzzle that had the chapter vocabulary words as answers.
  • Day four: students completed a worksheet that allowed them to apply what they have learned about the physiology of the human reproductive system.
  • Day five: students learned about the stages and major landmarks of pregnancy, including major events of each trimester, effects of drugs on birth defects, and the three stages of labor.
  • Day six: Students watched the film “Life’s Greatest Miracle” which includes videos of a developing fetus and an actual childbirth. 
  • Day seven: Students completed a worksheet with questions about the stages of pregnancy and labor.
  • Day eight: Students played a review game that was boys versus girls in a “Family Feud” format. 
  • Day nine: students took a quiz on the material. 4 questions were true/false, 16 were multiple choice. 

I have 63 Biology students. During the nine days of this unit, 28 of them were absent at least once. Seven of them were absent more than four times, one of them because he is in jail for weapons and drug violations and hasn't been able to make bail. Of the four worksheets that were assigned, 41 students got a zero on at least one of them for failure to even attempt to complete it, twenty of the students got more than one zero. Six of my students do not speak English, so I am required to give them no less than a 'C' no matter how they perform. Apparently, some judge ruled that to fail a non English speaker is a violation of their Constitutional rights. They know this, so most of the students who fall under the "shelter" rule don't even try.

One of the questions during the Family Feud review game was “Name a hormone that is involved in human reproduction.” The answers were testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, follicle stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and gonadotropin releasing hormone. They knew testosterone and progesterone, but beyond that, they were lost. I got several answers that were not even close. One answer was “I forget, but isn’t it a hormone that makes you horny? The human horniness hormone?” 

They took the unit quiz today, and the results were heartbreaking: the highest score earned was an 80. The average was a 46. The low score was a 20.  If I spent more time on this, I might get better scores, but then I would be losing valuable time that needs to be spent on one of the other 84 things that I have to teach them.

In my school, we separate students into three categories: college prep, honors, and 'regular track' students. The regular track is made up of students who have made it clear that they don't want to be here. One of my regular track students recently told me "I don't want to graduate. The only reason that I am here is because my probation officer said that I have to be. As soon as I can, I am dropping out so I can take my GED." This is why, when I was asked to take over biology, administration told me that my goal was to increase the pass rate on the standardized end of course exam from 26 percent to 50 percent.

Someone explain to me how a private or charter school can do any better with this set of kids. Yes, charter and private schools get better results overall, but that is largely due to the ability that those schools have to get rid of underperforming students. It is no accident that EVERY school in Florida that received an 'A' rating has some form of restricted enrollment. This is the single most frustrating thing about being a teacher: I feel like this is a giant waste of my time. I can't teach a student who doesn't want to learn. 

Sunday, February 2, 2020

Great Read


Bill Clinton was impeached after a multiyear grand jury investigation by Independent Counsel Ken Starr and an impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives in which Clinton’s lawyers participated and were able to present and  cross-examine witnesses...
In marked contrast, the House voted to impeach Trump for non-crimes of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after a relatively brief 78 day investigation by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees most of which took place in camera in a secret underground bunker. For all but the last week (by which time it was too late to affect the outcome) Trump’s lawyers were excluded, not allowed to call or cross-examine witnesses, and questioning of witnesses by Republican committee members was severely restricted.
The Democrats are crying foul, but their one sided impeachment is what caused the situation that they currently find themselves in. Go read the whole thing.

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Police have other priorities

Florida passed a law allowing teachers to be armed. Not one single school district has done so. Most have simply paid to have police officers stationed in every school. A couple have opted to hire dedicated armed security guards. Both of these options cost money, but are less than ideal.

For example, putting armed police officers in school. Here is a story about a school resource officer who saved residents of an apartment complex from a fire. First, the reason that he saw the fire was that he was late for work. Then the time spent actually working the fire and rescuing people. All of this time means that the school, which is paying to have a police officer there to protect students, was left unguarded and without protection. Of course, one could say that the threat to life safety at the fire outweighs the duty at the school, but this line of reasoning makes me wonder just how often this excuse is used to justify leaving the school defenseless. 

After all, if a nearby fire (which is not primarily a police department function) justifies the police in being elsewhere, what other events do so? A car chase? Shoplifting? A nearby robbery? The number one priority of police is their own safety, in case you forgot the images of police hiding behind carloads of families in that Miami shootout. The police commenting on that shootout even admit that their safety takes priority over the safety of the public. 

Their number two priority is catching criminals. Saving the lives of children come a distant third to that. The SRO at my school said that he was against arming teachers because anyone on campus who is armed should be accompanying him in his quest to find and catch the shooter. I pointed out that, as the last line of defense for the students, an armed teacher should lock themselves in the classroom with their students and defend that classroom full of kids and leave the elimination of the threat to the cops. He laughed at me. 

This isn't a criticism of the officer. This is a criticism of the refusal to arm the one group of people who are there, on the scene, and have a vested interest in defending the lives of school children. After all, as a teacher, my fate and the fate of my students are the same. I have skin in the game, and defending my own life also ensures that I am defending the lives of my students. 

Where is the line drawn? Arming teachers would solve every one of these. The teacher isn't going to be