MacYoung's Musings

Why I despise "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"

2012-02-25T16:45:00.000-07:00

I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by six ...

When someone mouths this cliché, I have a hard time keeping my cool. Because most people's understanding of the concept means the next 12 people they come across will be the 12 dudes raping them in the prison showers.

Now, I really don't care about the person who's saying it getting gang raped. As far as I'm concerned, he called it down on himself. I do have a problem with the prison showers happening to the innocent person who:
a) didn't know any better
b) listened to the bozo.

The 12/6 dictum is primarily the brain child of Col. Jeff Cooper, founder of Gunsite. The colonel's military background strongly influenced his concepts of shooting -- including when to shoot and when to stop. A particularly hotly debated issue is the wisdom of training military style shooting in a civilian context. Basically, the rules of engagement (ROE) are different.

It was often felt the colonel's perspective ignored the legal consequences in a civilian context -- in the name of ending a potential threat. The 12/6 'response' lends credence to this contention.

The 12/6 is a pity counter that is often used to dismiss a critical 'reality' about the consequences of violence. It's also the difference between self-defense and prison time. I don't know if the colonel used it as such, but I certainly will attest that is how a lot of folks use it today.

I can give you a really good example of the differences between civilian and military tactics and how they viewed in different contexts. Good because it is often taught in civilian shooting and concealed carry classes. *And* it is court tested.

Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night. Your children are screaming, and he bursts into your room waving a shotgun. You shoot him. He falls down and drops the shotgun. As you pass him to go check on your children -- having kicked the dropped shotgun away from him -- he growls, "I'm going to kill you." You put two more rounds into him and go see if your children are safe.

This is important -- that double tap IS following infantry protocol of passing a downed combatant. You take the fight out of him by killing him right there. That is what soldiers are taught to do and really ingrain on the battlefield. They do it without thinking as a survival protocol in combat.

Except in a civilian context, you've just committed manslaughter. And if the DA is really gung ho, he's going to try for murder charges. That's because the immediate danger had passed when you shot him as he was lying on the floor. Yes, he threatened you, but he was not an immediate danger to you anymore. (People get the term 'threat' confused because it generally means danger in a legal context, but something else in popular language.) He cannot act upon his threat to kill you. So you are not legally justified in shooting an unarmed man lying incapacitated on the ground for what he says.

Google Jerome Ersland. The Oklahoma pharmacist was convicted of Murder 1 because he came back and shot a downed robber. Now, realistically, Ersland's shooting did not conform to the military rules of engagement, either. To see it as such, you'd have to turn your head and squint.

Infantry rules of engagement are if the guy is in front of you, he's a hostile combatant. As such, you tap him as you pass. Once you've passed him, however, he is now a prisoner requiring medical assistance.

Once Ersland passed the dude, he was no long a combatant -- even by military standards. Yes, returning put him back in front of Ersland. That is -- arguably -- where the military training kicked in, mixed with adrenaline and combat trauma. There will be some debate if shooting the downed guy would have been overlooked on the battlefield. What we can say for certain is it wasn't overlooked in the pharmacy -- especially because it was caught on video.Now you can argue "well, what if the guy went for the gun again" all you want. But the raw fact is he *didn't*. You can only act in 'self-defense' in response to what is happening. *Not* what might happen. If there is no immediate 'threat', it's not self-defense.

This even applies in British common law where -- if you sincerely believe an attack is imminent -- you can act pre-emptively. But even this has limits. If the guy is in your face and snarls he's going to kick your ass, then yes. You can reasonably argue your pre-emptive strike was self-defense. If, however, the guy is standing -- not advancing, standing -- four feet away and does the same thing, your closing the distance to slug him isn't going to play well. (Under adrenal stress and spatial distortion, you had damned well better believe you're likely to step up, try to hit him, and not realize you did.)

Someone once said, "War is a thinking man's game." So too is self-defense. Unfortunately the way "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six" is often used, it is an emotional and dangerous cliché. Used that way, it is not a thought out and rational conclusion.

Everything I've stated thus far is based on pretty much confirmable facts. (Ask a lawyer or read some law books.) Now my opinion, based on some more facts. I'll qualify them. F = fact; O = my opinion.

Violence is often the result of out-of-control emotions (F). Society has become less tolerant of violence (O). Many people, who engage in participatory violence, claim what they were doing was 'self-defense' (F). Many actually believe it. (O). This tendency to claim and believe an attack was 'self-defense' has 'peed in the pool' when it comes to cops and prosecutors believing such a claim (O). Self-defense is an affirmative defense (F). You are confessing to an action that is normally a crime (F). This "I did it" does half of the DA's job -- specifically proving that you were the one who did it (F). When you plead self-defense the 'production of proof' shifts to you. (F). You must produce enough proof (articulation of actions, their significance, the reason why it was dangerous) to explain why your actions were -- in fact -- self-defense (F). This, instead of it was you giving into your emotions and committing illegal violence on another person (F). Your 'fear' is not enough, you must provide facts that demonstrate your fear was justified and reasonable given the circumstances (F).

The 12/6 motto is often used by people to skip all this legal mumbo jumbo and sophist crap and get to the most important of all things -- my feelings (O). If I'm scared, I'm going to act on my feelings and let the court sort it out (O). This, because I told myself I was about to die and that scared me so I killed him in 'self-defense' (O).Stop and think about that for a second. Because there is one hellaciously big abyss that we've stepped over without even blinking. Why is it bad when someone else kills because of their emotional and subjective state, but it's all right, A-OK, okey dokey when we do it? (O).

It has been my experience that most people who use the colonel's, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six" maxim are not only doing exactly that, but justifying that position -- and their ignorance of use of force law -- with that cliché.(O)

Oh BTW, although this is about shooting, you might also want to sit down and consider how it also applies to using 'military combatives' and 'reality based self-defense' training (F).

The Biggest Pre-Attack Indicator Of Them All

2012-01-14T17:23:00.000-07:00

People are always asking me about pre-attack indicators Here is the #1 pre-attack indicator: YOU'RE BEING AN ASSHOLE!

With that simple line, I figured out something that has been bothering me for years. Something that it took Conflict Communications (http://www.conflictcommunications.com ) to put into perspective.

When it comes to violence, there has always been something about Gavin DeBecker's approach that bothered me. From a 'victimized by an asocial predator' perspective, it made sense. People knew something was wrong, but they didn't want to appear rude. They allowed the bad guy to develop the situation, and bad things happened. OK, no problem, no disagreement. Seen it happen.

Except I've seen a lot of violence in my life. And like 1970s porn -- where an incredibly hot chick just decides to jump some stranger's bones -- that isn't how things usually happen.

Yes, there is one-sided predation out there. But like the difference between porn and the real world, there's a difference between DeBecker's model and most violence. In order for violence to happen, things are interactive, slower to develop, and there are a lot of things you can do to keep it from occurring. It's also more participatory.

When it comes to the way violence happens, this I have seen -- not just more of but a thunderin' herd more.

Let's start with something I noticed back in the day when screwing up meant I'd be spitting blood. It's something that just whizzes past most people's self-awareness; not only in application, but in training, too, (which is kind of ironic when you think about how many instructors tout their emphasis on 'situational awareness').

That is: An overwhelming majority of violence comes with instructions on how to avoid it.

This isn't in some kind of obscure coded lingo. The directions are pretty straightforward and understandable. This applies to both social and asocial violence. (Read Rory Miller's version*, not the macho bastardization out there.) A resource predator (mugger) who sticks a gun in your face and says, "Gimme your wallet, or I'll blow your head off" is telling you how to keep from getting shot. Give him your wallet. Not too hard to figure out.

Someone who says, "Shut up or I'll kick your ass'" is giving you instructions on how NOT to be assaulted.

He is not, I repeat NOT, asking you to comment about his testicles on his mother's chin. Nor is someone who tells you, "You better leave" interested in hearing a dissertation on your right to be there or questioning him about who he thinks he is to tell you to leave -- or, of course, his sexual practices with his mother. While we're at it, the mugger with the gun isn't interested in your sharing your opinions with him, either.

(Keep this in mind. There will be a test later. A test, if you fail, will mean you're going to end up bleeding.)

Take a good hard look at your reactions. Nothing I mentioned is within the conditions set to avoid violence. Come to think of it, they're deliberate violations of such standards -- as well as being emotional, hostile and insulting. And these to a person who just told you what will happen if you don't changeyour behavior.

Not too smart is it?

But here's the problem. How do you tell people who pride themselves on being intelligent, self-aware, sophisticated, educated and in control of themselves that they're acting like pissed off monkeys?

And furthermore, how do you let them know that in tense situations this pissed-off monkey will take control of their consciousness and behavior at the worst possible time? And that -- no matter how smart or in control of yourself you think you are (sitting in comfort while reading this) -- you'll do this exact kind of emotional monkey brain behavior when you find yourself in a situation where the monkey feels threatened?

Rory likes to say, "If you think you are in control of yourself, you won't feel the need to exercise self-control." For once, I'm going to be more laconic and say, "We all get stupid when the monkey takes over."

The hardest part is recognizing our behavior for what it is. While there are several strategies we can follow when the monkey takes command, they ALL feel like the absolute, 100 percent right thing to do -- including being an aggressive, obnoxious asshole

There's an analogy that works here. Recognizing when you're being an asshole is like seeing the back of your own head. You can see it in others, but it takes specialized steps to see it in yourself.

I'm not talking about the trendy, pseudo-self-aware admission that you can be an asshole. I'm talking about being so self-righteous and certain of both what you are doing and what effect it will have -- you actively misinterpret the fact the dude is getting ready to throw you down the stairs.

Let me restress that point. It's not that you don't see it or choose to ignore it. You see it AND you react to it. But your reaction is in the suave, sophisticated and educated terms of: Fuck this other monkey! He thinks his dick is big enough to tell me what to do? I'll show his punk ass where it's at! My dick is way bigger!

And this, let me tell you, really sounds silly coming from a woman ...

But that is, in essence, the core of the message. Coming from either sex, it's immature, insecure, hostile and aggressive. And yet this is how the monkey views being challenged or threatened.

It doesn't hear the instructions on how to avoid violence as ... well ... instructions on how to avoid violence. It hears them as a challenge and threat to its status, self-esteem and as allowing him- or- herself to be bullied by an asshole. It tries to return the favor by engaging in the SAME behavior.

Except unlike the other guy (who is a complete asshole), your monkey will tell you YOUR behavior is perfectly justified and warranted. This is particularly ironic because in the classic game of 'escalato,' your monkey is going to raise the stakes by becoming even more insulting, obnoxious and threatening.

I've had to pull many a person off from eating someone's face while thinking to myself (about the other guy), "Where are you from that you DON'T expect to get assaulted for saying (or doing) what you just did?"

One of my favorite examples is when I talk about 'developing attack range' as being a serious pre-attack indicator. Oh, everyone now knows to look for the other guy trying to develop range in preparation for launching an attack. See how smart and aware they are? Well, yeah -- except who developed attack range by stepping up into the other dude's face and snarling a threat? It was them! They threw out the 'I'm about to attack you' signals by developing attack range.

And then they blame the other person for going ape shit on them.

Yeah ... right ...

Let me get this straight. Despite the fact you developed attack range, got up in someone's face and threatened him -- that person is supposed to use his psychic abilities to know you weren't really going to attack him? It's all the other guy's fault. More than that, I am supposed to accept the rationalizations that the only reasons you engaged in these behaviors was because you were afraid, felt threatened and your feelings were hurt?

Guess what? The cop ain't gonna buy it, either.

Yet, this is what happens when the monkey takes over. You can talk about situational awareness all you want as though it is some kind of external standard of danger -- which technically it can be -- but a far more important form of situational awareness is recognizing when there are two assholes involved in the situation. And you're one of them.

Do NOT presuppose you're being a good guy. Because when your monkey brain hijacks you and turns you into one of two assholes, you have zero situational awareness. Anger is going to blind you to warning signals and indicators FAR better than anything Gavin deBecker told you about your gift of fear.

*Either in "Facing Violence" or "Meditations On Violence"

Ruminations of an old bouncer

2011-12-30T14:30:00.000-07:00

As I write this, it's been nearly 15 years since I was last shot at (I returned the favor that time).

It's been about 16 years since I last had someone try and ram a knife in my guts. It's been over 12 years since I've had to lay hands on someone to emphasize my point of "not going to happen!"

In my early 20s, I once sat down and tried to count all the physical altercations I'd been in. It was just under 100, and that was before I began a decade and a half of bouncing, bodyguard work, event security, corrections and other jobs -- where a bad day at work meant someone died.

But here's the thing. I wasn't being paid for physical violence. In fact, most of those jobs consisted of working my ass off to keep violence from happening. It was when it couldn't be talked down (or someone on your side did something REALLY stupid) that you'd have to go hands on. What made those jobs so 'special' was being covered in puke, blood, piss, shit and anything someone decided to throw on me. I dealt with drunks, druggies, homeless bums, hookers, MICAs (mentally ill chemically addicted), criminals, sex offenders, gang bangers, fanatics, rapists, killers and just general macho assholes wanting to engage in their stupid assholery.

Then, of course, there were all those medical emergencies, especially the wet and messy ones.

Then there came the times of walking into weird shit that made you want to laugh, throw up or just stunned you with the sheer "WTF are you doing?1?" I mean when you're told a pervert is in the bathroom, you walk in on him whacking off, you tell him to get the hell out and he asks, "Can I finish?" What do you say to that? This especially because he's still stroking his johnson and pointing it at you. Trust me, this situation is not covered in the manly-man manual.

Then there's all the trauma drama of working around low functioning people. Things that manifest in incidents like walking into a hotel at 3 a.m. with a drunk, passed out stripper slung over your shoulder and leaving her there because you're not going to let her sleep it off at your place. (No way in hell was I going to risk a false sexual assault charge in retaliation for her getting fired for getting drunk at work.)

Or, at the end of a long hard shift, when all you want to do is go home, getting called over to tell two bums having homosexual sex to get out of the bed of the owner's truck. 'Cause he wants to go home too, and they ain't coming with him. In any sense of the word.

Sure there's the good times, laughing and joking with your bros. I don't mean bros in the way that yuppee spawn use the term either. I mean, people whom you trust with your life, and they trust you with theirs. 'Going through a door' kind of trust. But there's also the screaming arguments when one of them does something stupid that could have gotten you killed or left you spitting blood.

There are also those wild, crazed rushes to get your bro to the hospital when it's so bad that you can't patch it up yourself. And there's attending funerals for those same brothers who got killed doing this stuff.

Then there was talking to the cops, federal marshals and FBI, the paperwork, lawyers and all that. But let's never forget the warm and fuzzy feeling of constantly watching your back, having to scan who's coming through the door, looking in the shadows of parking lots, watching for cars coming down the street with the windows rolled down and guns poking out. There's the automatic scans you do to see if anyone is silently coming at you with murder on his (or their) mind(s). Then there was the constant checking of your rear view mirror as you drive to make sure you're not being followed home when you know there is a contract out on your life. Or maybe it's someone else looking for revenge because of something you did to him or his family member.

See, it's not all about standing around, looking glamorous and being cool. Nor is it just about unleashing your mighty bad-assery on anyone who looks at you cross-eyed.

I've been spit on, cussed out, threatened, screamed at, called every name in the book and had them try to scratch my eyes out -- by men. Women are even worse when they lose it. I've spit blood, tasted blood and drank more coffee that would have tasted better when you it pissed it out.

And never let us forget long nights of staring into the darkness, freezing your ass off in some dark and desolate place or being bored off your ass looking at bricks and concrete. That's part of waiting for someone to make a run at you or what you're protecting.

Then there's fun jobs, hauling out the wetvac when some drunk has spewed the night's drinking all over the place. Sometimes, they reach the bathroom; sometimes, they don't. And then there are the times when someone pisses and shits all over the bathroom. And let's not forget when someone you're 'handling' throws up on you or cleaning up after someone in a seizure explosively loses bowel control. Oh, yeah, then there's scrubbing blood out the carpet and off the walls. YOU get these jobs because everyone else freaks out and can't do it. But you're the 'tough guy,' so you get to do it.

This is the life you get when 'being tough' becomes your profession. And this is over and above all the violence ... and injuries. Plus, you get to look at everyone with suspicion because you're constantly being lied to, manipulated and attacked. You find yourself detaching from normal life as you see more and more of the bad side of humanity. You learn to not only casually accept violence and the worst of humanity, but you learn to be real good at it and its complexities.

Having said all that, I'd like to point out a certain breed I used to have to go up against while working event security. Now if you think event security isn't any kind of challenge to a tough guy, well, you'd be wrong. A lot of those ickier moments came working crowds of 10,000 to 30,000 people. It's also where I encountered a breed whose name is also their description.

When you heard the words 'no shirts' mixed with 'Code 1' on a radio call, you started toward the location with really bad attitude. This, even if your attitude had been pretty good just moments before.

First things first. Code 1 meant 'heads up, we might have a problem.' Except when you heard the words 'no shirts,' you pretty well knew it was going to go to Code 2 (we have a problem) and more than likely Code 3 (it's hitting the fan). That's because No Shirts were almost always trouble.

As a rule, No Shirts were easy to spot. They were young, clean, college-aged, white kids from upper middle class families. They were often jocks and in good physical shape. They'd come to events and start drinking. They were famous for stacking beer cups to show off their drinking prowess. As their blood alcohol levels got higher, they got rowdier.

What they were also famous for was peeling off their shirts in the heat of the day. The combo of stacked beer cups, no shirt and stupid, rowdy behavior made them our problem.

No Shirts were trouble because they were too young to know any better and too big not to be taken seriously.

More than that, they believed they were invincible and, therefore, had no hesitation about becoming violent.

I mean, hell, bikers and bad asses were a whole lot easier to deal with. Granted thugs were a lot more dangerous -- if it hit the fan -- but actual tough guys could be talked to, talked down and reasoned with far more easily than No Shirts. That was because actual bad asses knew that violence wasn't a game. More than that, they knew we could and would, hurt them right back.

Among the truly experienced, everyone knew -- if it went sideways -- going to jail, the hospital or the morgue was probable. Because of this, there was a general reluctance to engage in unnecessary violence. This actually made them easier to deal with and resolve issues sans violence. If it couldn't be resolved, then thugs preferred doing it on their terms -- and that is what made them dangerous. They were intentional about injuring you.

Conversely, No Shirts, weren't intentionally dangerous, but they achieved it through sheer ignorance.

The combination of aggressiveness, short temper, good physical conditioning, a sense of entitlement, the willingness to fight and having absolutely no idea when to stop made them de facto dangerous. And not in a good way.

More of a "can't I just shoot this dickslap in the face and be done with it?" way.

These handsome, clean and shiny kids from the 'burbs were -- in this condition -- loose cannons.

From an internal perspective, the extent of their thinking focused on how they were going to kick your ass. It was NOT about the damage you could cause to them. Nor was it about, 'hey I really might hurt someone if I go off on them.' While we're on the subject, legal problems from physically assaulting someone wasn't a pressing issue to them either.

The booze wasn't the problem. Their belief they were invincible gods of might and destruction made them really hard to talk down. Why shouldn't they just kick your ass right then and there? The booze just added to this stupidity.

From an external standpoint, if you let them, they would beat you into a hospital. That's because they didn't know how much damage they could cause, nor did they know when to stop. They'd keep on throwing punches and kicks, even if someone went down.

An experienced fighter will know when he's losing. In these circumstances, if peace terms are offered, odds are good he'll take them. These guys, if they sensed they were losing, would fight harder. They'd ignore the terms of surrender. That meant there were only two ways to handle them in a one-on-one.

One was to be bigger, stronger, more physically fit and aggressive than they were and fight them into submission. (This, while it sounds good, extends the length of the fight and increases the risk of injury to everyone.)

Two, seriously injure them before they do it to you.

In case you missed it, Point 2 means if violence starts, you go in with the intent of breaking things from the start (intentional). Because while they don't intend to cause that kind of damage, they will. Basically because they don't know when to stop or quit due to their being young, dumb and full of cum (unintentional). And you can't rely on them to have an epiphany about the damage they are doing while kicking someone on the ground and stopping.

I would also like to point out another difference between actual bad asses and No Shirts. If you thump a thug for being an asshole and starting shit he can't finish, he doesn't run home to his lawyer daddy and try to sue your ass. Middle class punks do. It's never about the damage they cause, it's all about what you did to them.

That's why when a call of 'no shirts' came over the radio, you rolled. Simply stated, the safest way to handle No Shirts, was to cheat. And cheat we did.

Daily.

Our professional answer to No Shirts was to hit them with overwhelming force. They wanted to play macho one-on-one games? We didn't. There was one No Shirt? There were four of us. There were four of them? There were 16 of us.

I would say we'd overwhelm them before they knew what hit them, but, the fact was, they were so focused on going one-on-one with someone, they were blind to the actual situation they were in. They would be screaming at and focused on one of us and never notice the odds had seriously changed against them. Or if they did, they were so convinced of their own superiority, they still thought they could take us all on.

We quickly dissuaded them from that illusion.

How? Simple, we weren't being paid to fight. Nor were we being paid to lose. We were being paid to protect the owner's interests and solve problems like the No Shirts. And to do it as quickly as possible. That meant we weren't playing by the same blind, macho rules they were using. We had a lot more options than just blind aggression and head-on fury.

As well as dogpiling, these options included blindsiding, sucker punching them and other sneaky shit. Stuff that people who use violence as a part of their lives and jobs knew, but No Shirts didn't.

I tell you this bit of history to explain why some buffed out, shiny, middle class dude getting up in my face isn't scary. In fact, it's just a pain in the ass. Not just that, though,it isn't even special, it's a routine problem.

I'd dealt with dangerous dudes who knew how to seriously hurt you -- and yet would hesitate to do so because they knew you could return the favor. In contrast, young, macho middle class guys in good shape don't know that. Worse, they never realized any hesitation to engage them DIDN'T come from their awesome 'bad assedness.' The real danger comes from the repercussions of having to hurt them before they inadvertently hurt you.

Sure I could crack his skull with the steel rod up my sleeve, but think of the paperwork. Is shooting this dude in the balls really worth the prison time? Macho idiots, who want to impress the world with how big their dicks are, don't think this way. People who have actual experience with violence and fighting do -- especially people who are professionally violent.

That's why someone who is
a) bound, bent and determined to take it violent no matter what
b) and is not really dangerous enough that you can just shoot him right up front
is such a pain in the ass.

It's not big, bad, scary, but a "PUNK, I don't need this kinda shit" hassle.

Changing tracks, there are a lot of programs out there that promise to make you a bad ass fighter. The sad thing about these programs is they present themselves as new, unique and cutting edge. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but, when a system is based on being physically fit, strong, large and aggressive, it's NOT the system that is producing results.

Breaking news here, people: Being physically fit, strong, large and aggressive has been - throughout history -- what 'wins' an overwhelming majority of 'fights'.

Hell, it was what the No Shirts were relying on. It was what -- in their limited experience -- had worked and that was why they were swaggering around as though they could beat King Kong to death with their dicks.

Excepts 'fights' are only a small amount of how violence happens. While we're on the subject, the same mechanism of being bigger and stronger can also be used to commit assaults, bully and intimidate. As it often is.

This is what has been bugging the shit out of me for nearly a decade now. Here are all these super, uber, kick-ass systems like MMA, Krav, Kapap, so-called 'self-defense' mixed with Crossfit, reality based self-defense, whatever kind of combatives or some other 'extreme' physical training regime mixed with martial arts and boxing. These programs claim to be the ultimate hot shit fighting system.

Guess what, it ain't the system that's winning the fight!

What carries the day is:
a) being physically fit, strong and aggressive
b) NOT stepping outside a very limited spectrum of how violence happens.

Let's address point A first. For millions of years, bigger, stronger, better shape and raw aggressiveness have been winning an overwhelming majority of fights over social issues. This is a specialized type of violence where individuals are trying to establish dominance and the pecking order. And it is real common among the young-dumb-and-full-of-cum crowd.

It's also actually the least effective way to fight. Lots of sturm und drang, less actual injury. In fact, this kind of violence is designed to be ineffective and non-lethal.

Not that training in an ultimate fighting system doesn't work. In fact, it works great in that one specific kind of violence. And, if you happen to be monkey dancing and going up against someone of the same size, physical conditioning and using the same social violence tactics as you, that training IS likely to be the determining factor. It's a lot less effective if the dude charging you outweighs you by 100 pounds and is in equally good shape. Or if he's got a weapon and intends to kill you.

More often than not, what's really doing the work ISN'T the fighting system you've paid so much to learn. It's being bigger, stronger and more aggressive. Attributes that you developed working out in that nice, clean, shiny gym with the music pumping to get you all worked up and excited. As people often mistake intensity for truth, they also tend to ascribe success to the system and not the foundation of physical fitness that's actually holding it up.

Before we address point B, let's look at the result. The problem is these programs are turning people into No Shirts.

These programs pander to middle class fantasies about being a stud. They promote the attitude you can kick ass and take names. They tell you you're prepared to go out into the night and clash with bad boys -- without teaching what you really need in order to survive. An entire middle class subculture has sprung up around these 'gyms,' disguised as combative training halls. The addition of tattoos, gelled hair and the proper clothing line shows the word what cool god of bad-assery you are.

But I can assure you none of those will save you from a shotgun blast from the shadows -- with the trigger being pulled by the guy you beat up last week. Nor will it stop the guy you just intimidated and made eat crow in front of everyone from stepping out of the shadows and laying a baseball bat across the back of your skull. It especially won't stop the cops from arresting you for using your ultimate fighting system against a dude in a club or at a party. And it sure as hell won't stop you from being tazed, pepper sprayed or dog piled on by a bunch of professionals who -- despite the fact they really want to crack your skull for being an asshole -- are trying their best NOT to injure you. (Hint: Don't ever make it easier for them to injure you than to try lesser means, you won't like the answer.)

It also won't keep you from being puked on, bled on or from having to scrub stuff if you decide to become professional about violence. Not a cage fighter or a ultimate fighting 'coach,' but someone who's actually standing the wall and keeping shit from happening. That's IF someone is willing to hire you. (Think about No Shirts being bouncers. There's a lawsuit waiting to happen.) The word 'reality' is used a lot with these programs that pander to middle class fantasies about being a stud. But some how the filthy and disgusting aspects of the job never get mentioned.

But maybe that's because these guys really aren't training for stepping out into the night, they're just telling themselves that.

My fundamental problem with what is being taught in these programs is that they do NOT prepare you for violence. They prepare you for your middle class fantasies and illusions of violence. At best, they prepare you to do an illegal activity (fighting). They also feed into dreams of dominance and power by convincing you that you are such a stud.

In short, these programs will give you everything you need to know about how to be a No Shirt.

And as long as you stay in the safety of that clean and shiny gym, work and live in nice middle class environments, you'll never have to find out what's missing from what you were taught. You also, if you have a lick of sense, won't go out and find yourself in a situation facing someone who knows how to handle No Shirts -- or, worse, facing a true bad ass who will just shoot you in the face rather than do your macho monkey dance.

I'm an old dawg now. Not only did I do a whole lot of slamming and jamming when I was younger, but I discovered how messy and gross violence and that side of life can be. That's why I have a problem when I see people try and glorify it. I especially have problems with this current trend of willfully producing No Shirts -- and calling it self-defense. I mean what's being taught is a horrible blend of ignorance and arrogance when it comes to how violence happens, the complexities of it and the ramifications. But oh my gawd will the instructors -- and people who paid LOTS of money to take the courses -- tell you how good it is for handling 'real' violence. Their ultimate-extreme-sure-fire-one-stop-shopping-system-for-all-your-self-defense-needs IS everything you'll need to beat Godzilla to death with your dick.

If this is your ideal of what a stud is, then go on. If this is what you want to believe, then I ain't gonna stop you. You go right on ahead.

But if you wouldn't mind a little bit of closing advice. Do yourself a favor and stay in the gym, training hall and on the Internet. There you can tell yourself what ever you want to believe about violence and be safe and happy. Be warned though, if you step out into the night with that attitude, sooner or later, you WILL run into someone who
a) won't have any hesitation about seriously injuring you.
b) or to whom you're just another day on the job.

And that can be a hard, painful and bloody way of discovering what you don't know about violence.

Police Use Of Force On 'Peaceful Protestors'

2011-11-22T14:16:00.001-07:00

Get a cup of coffee, it's a long one. Because like so many other things, it's not a simple issue.
*************

Let me start by saying I'm not interested inarguing lofty ideals, listening to people squealin outrage that the world isn't fair, hearing about justifications for civildisobedience and, of course, being told about evil conspiracies meant tooppress us. Us being we who have the higheststandard of living in all of human history. The'why' of the "occupy" protests is not my concern -- andthat includes the rationalizations of whybreaking the law is 'all right in a noble cause.'

The purpose of this article is to acquaint youwith some of the finer points of police use offorce and the limits of 'protest.' (That is to say,where it bleeds over into other issues.)

For the record, I'm not against free speech or the rightto assemble. And I especially am not againstpetitioning the government for redress ofgrievances. While we're at it, I'm not looking atthe world through rose-colored, capitalist orconservative glasses.

I will be the first to admit there are beau coup big problems with howthings are going in business, the economy, government and society. Thingshave become systemic in our ways of 'doing business' that are causing theseproblems. (As an aside, while it is easy to blame 'evil' and greedycorporations, I see money grabbing all over the place -- including under theguise of noble and humanitarian causes.) I will acknowledge allthese serious problems -- with a stipulation.

That stipulation is these issues are way morecomplex and involved than can be solved bypundits, media sound bites, Internet intelligence,blogs and, most importantly, protests.

What I am here to talk about is:
1) The standards of police use of force againstpeople who are refusing lawful orders
2) Why said use of force is both legal and withinpolicy
3) How the 'outrage' certain people express about useof force is out of sync with the way a majority offolks feel.

The first fact you need to know is the "Occupy(Wherever)" protests have done an interestingthing. They have tried to sell us a 'new'definition of protest. It is a definition that hascrossed a line and has resulted in police usingof force against the protestors. (The irony is this 'version' has been tried before and it was responded to with force back then too.)

The blogsphere is allaflutter over these incidents of brutality,oppression, suppression of free speech andinterference with people's 'right' to protest.

But, that is not why the police are using force.It's what people are doing under their 'expanded' definition of protesting that is gettingthem pepper sprayed, tasered and having the cops kneel on theirheads as they are handcuffed.

The second fact directly relates to use of force.There is a big difference between pain andinjury.

This isn't sophism, it is a medical fact. You can have pain without injury, but injury is usually painful. Pain is a sensation. Injury is things getting broken, smashed, cut, crushed or ruptured.

This difference is something most people do not know, muchless understand. More than being inexperienced with physical violence, manyassume that pain is injury. They hear someone screaming and crying "you'rehurting me!" at the police, and they don't recognize there has been nopermanent injury done by the officers to the screamer. In fact, thatbrouhaha isa pretty good indicator that there is no serious injury.

When people are seriously injured, they tend to be quiet. Instead of screaming, they're more invested in rallying their resources to protect the injuries, breathing and basically staying alive. Then there's the whole going into shock thing. The noise to injury ratio isn't always the case, but it's a good rule of thumb -- especially when it comes to arrest and control tactics.

Pain vs. injury is an important component inunderstanding 'use of force' standards. Actionslikely to cause physical injury (broken bones, concussions, internalhemorrhaging, etc.) are considered a higher level of force. Therefore,the use of these levels is more restricted andrequire the presence of greater danger to the officer (or others). If thereis no immediate danger, these tactics are not allowed to be used.

Whereas, inflicting non-damaging pain is deemed a lower level of force.

Third, many police departments practice 'ask,tell, order' when it comes to verbal tactics. Eventhough it is 'talking,' these still are integralsteps in established 'use of force' policies practiced bylaw enforcement across the country.

As it was explained to me, ask, tell, orderverbalization are a nice bit of public relations,they keep the peace, articulate what the officerdid before taking it to the next level, explain why it went there andset up legally defensible patterns of behavior. The ducks are in a row on this one and you better recognize that.

Let's take ask, tell, order and apply it tosomeone stopped for suspected drunk driving.
"Could you please step out of the car, sir?" (ask)
"Sir, step out of the car." (tell)
"Step out of the car, NOW!" (order)

The next step is known as 'make.' As in, you'vebeen asked politely, you've been told, you've been ordered, now an officeris going to make you do it.

But for now, let's focus on the talking. Askingis a nice bit of requesting compliance. It's allpolite and reasonable to get you to do what theofficer wants. It doesn't get your little duckfeelings hurt because he's politely asking you tocooperate with him in the execution of his duties.Often this sugar-and-spice approach works verywell -- especially when it comes to minor andless dangerous situations.

Having said that: If an officer -- in the execution of his duties -- tellsyou to do something, it is not a request.

It is what is known as a 'lawful order.' Refusalto follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer (LEO) in theexecution of his or her duties is not a right. Failure to comply is breakingthe law and legally permits the officer to use a higher level of force inthe execution of his duties.

Many people, who believe they have the 'right' to argue with a cop, find out about this escalation of force the hard way. I will also tell you if a cop directly tells you "I'm ordering you to..." the I's have been dotted and the T's crossed for what is coming. The word 'order' is one of those keyword you need to be listening for in what an officer is saying.. This includes an announcement over a bullhorn -- especially when there's a bunch of cops in riot gear standing there. Refusal? Well you can do that, but it won't be fun.

I'd like to explain a related point. In one sense, it doesn't matter how you refuse: If you argue. Ifyou just don't do it. If you try to run. If you stand there and screamobscenities at the cop. If you try to punch the cop. If you sit down, crossyour arms and hold your breath. If you throwyourself on the ground and kick and scream in atantrum.

These all constitutes refusing a lawful order froman officer in the execution of her duties. Whenyou do this, your legal footing has just becomequicksand. No matter how morally or emotionally justified you feel you arein doing so.

Fourth, such a refusal kicks it up to the nextlevel. The officer can now use physical force to'make you.'

This is where how you refuse a lawful order becomes real important. We'll talk more about that in the next point. But, for right now, know that use of force practices are overwhelmingly about 'compliance.' That is getting someone to either stop doing something or to do something (back to that 'order' thing again). It's also about getting someone into a position to handcuff him or her.

The first level of force is knownin some departments as 'soft hands.' While it doesn't always, it can include, on the part of the officer,joint locks, take downs, arrest, control and cuffing techniques. I can be non-painful or it can be painful. It depends on the level of resistance. But let's be real here, making someone do something they don't want to do often involvessome discomfort to the person.

And that brings us to the subject of pain. Pepper spray and tasers, althoughextremely uncomfortable, areconsidered to be part of this lower level of force because they aren't likely to cause physical injury. Physical injury is caused by striking or shooting someone. Yes, two hours later your eyes will be red and inflamed after you have been hit with pepper spray, but odds are you won't be in lying in a coma in a hospital.If you've ever caught a fish hook in your finger, you have suffered the physical'injury' commonly caused by a taser.

Pain, on the other hand, there's a boatload. Being on the receiving end of these items hurts like hell, and they are really goodat convincing people to change their mind about not complying.

That brings up something else you should know. Use of these items has becomemore and more popular with law enforcement. That's because going 'hands on' withpeople always increases the chances of the situation escalating andheightens the chances of injury. This, to both the person and the officer. If people think they can disobey lawful orders, it's a small step from there to physically resisting being touched by the officer.

Physically fight the guy and risk injury or taser him? Guess what? The taser is faster, easier and safer for everybody. After you've been zapped, odds are you're going to let the cop cuff you with no more fuss or bother. Know you are going toencounter this attitude if you choose to resist or disobey a lawful order.

Fifth, there are several versions of resistance tolawful orders.

Let's start with passive resistance. While that includes a drunk sittingdown and holding his breath, it also can be a coordinated and intentionalstrategy. For example, protestors sitting down, locking arms or chainingthemselves to something. When dealing withpassive resistance, officers are not generallyallowed to use levels of force that can causeinjury. For instance, they can't beat passiveresisters over the heads with clubs.

What is allowed to use is painto force compliance. That's where pepper spray and tasers can come into play. It is a noninjurioususe of force. But, oh boy, do you want to stop doingwhat you're doing when you're zapped.

Gota bunch of passive resisters to a lawful order?Hosing them in the face with pepper spray is bothlegally and departmentally approved use of force. Bythe time it gets to that point, the whole ask,tell, order policy has run it's course, and there is no doubt that it is willful disobedience to lawful orders.

Passive resistance is one thing. Trying to fight acop, run away or stop him from cuffing you iswhat is known as 'active resistance.' While anyactive resistance is frowned upon, if your activeresistance is aggressive, it presents a higherrisk to the officer. And attacking the officer is agood way to get injured.

While passive resistance might justify 'softhands,' active resistance justifies the officerusing 'hard hands' (higher level of force). Theseare actions that can result in physical injury tothe actively resisting person. Now we're talkingabout striking, clubbing and other things that canbust your head.

If people are getting injured by the police, look for active resistance --if not outright physical attacks on the officer (or someone else). That isthe only time police are permitted by both policy and law to use suchtactics. Odds are good, those methods will not be used on a 'peaceful'protestor or even a passive resister.

There is another level of force after this andthat's lethal. This is a level that an officer canonly legally use when his or her life (or someone else's) is in danger.Again, it is based on what the other person is doing to create an immediatethreat. This isn't intended to injure or gain compliance, it is designed to stop danger. Andit just so happens to be fatal a lot of the time. Thankfully, these protestshaven't gotten to this point yet.

Sixth, protestors are being trained how to exertthe highest level of passive resistance withoutbumping it up to the point where the police would be legally justified touse a higher level of force.

This is why it's important to know the differencebetween a 'peaceful protest' and passiveresistance to a lawful order. One is alegitimate -- and protected -- right. The other is a deliberate act toprovoke use of force by thepolice.

Why? It's public relations (PR). Protestors are quick to exploit anyincidents involving the police by claiming they are 'peaceful protestors'being brutalized andoppressed by law enforcement while exercising theirrights. And, as the outrage in the blogsphere andsocial media sites demonstrate, people don't knowthe difference between peaceful protestors andpassive resistance in defiance of lawful orders.

This is where the squeals of 'police brutalityagainst peaceful demonstrators' start. It also isexactly what the protestors want. It engenderssympathy, pity and horror in the public, which they capitalize on to promotetheir agenda. Basically, knowing that they won't be physically injured(they'll just suffer some discomfort) they actively engage in a behaviorthey know will result in police use of force against them. Hence, they canclaim to be victims.

There is something you need to know about thisexpanded definition of 'protesting.' Thestrategy of organized passive resistance is tocreate as big a bottle neck as possible. This is a deliberate strategy tojam, obstruct and impede others, and cost people time and money. Ideally, itbrings the entire environment to a stand still by shutting it down (this isimportant to the seventh point).

This is a form of passive aggressiveness that not unlike mold on the floor.It creeps farther and farther into other people's space, until there is nooption but to step on it or be cornered. When you step on it, the screams ofbrutality and victimization begin. And these, in turn, are used as 'proof'of the evil andoppressive system.

Passive aggressiveness is a big part of this kind of protest. It isa deliberate interference with the environment that is being justified as'free speech' and lawful assembly. Not just peacefulassembly, but lawful assembly. While there's alot of overlap, those are two separate issues.

And that brings us to the seventh point. Theissues causing the police to use force do not involve protests. They are about other things.

One of the biggest is camping. More thanthat, it is camping on public, private andsemi-private land. In this expandedversion, we are told 'camping, trespassing and creating public safety,health and nuisance issues are legitimate forms of protest.' The protestorsare pretending their 'right' to protest extends to squatting on both publicand private land.

I cannot stress this point enough: It's not theprotest that is getting them pepper sprayed andarrested, it's the camping and refusing lawfulorders to remove these illegal camps and tents.

That last point is bigger and deeper than youmight think.

The first amendment of our constitution grants us the rights to peacefullyassemble and speak freely. At the same time, these 'rights' are balancedwith the rights and needs of others -- especially when it comes to safety.

That guarantee of 'rights,' however, has a much more specific and limited meaning than people think it does.

Let's start with the biggest point of ignoranceabout the 'rights' we assume are ours. I have a favorite 'demotivationalposter' that reads: "Bill of Rights. Didn't read.Too long -- but will use half-assed understandingto demand 'freedom' for stupid behavior."

For those of you who fall into the 'Too Long, Didn't Read' clique, we'llkeep it short and limit it to only one of the first 10 amendments to theconstitution. Here isthe First Amendment in ye olde Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of thepeople peaceably to assemble, and to petition theGovernment for a redress of grievances."

Notice that first word. It's important. In fact,it's really important. That's because it veryspecifically identifies that 'congress' cannotpass laws restricting free speech, religion, thepress or your right to peacefully assemble. Thishas since been expanded in conventional opinion to include 'government.'

That amendment clearly states the government can'tstop the listed behaviors. In practice, that means the government can't stop the Nazis from marching in Skokie. Nor can itpass laws to keep the Westboro Baptist Church fromspreading its religious hate and bigotry. In thesame vein, it isn't allowed to say the Occupy(Wherever) or the Tea Party can't hold a rally.

What the government can do, however, is establishparameters for public safety, health and to minimize nuisance during theseassemblies. That means there are standards of behavior you can engage in andthose that you can't.

This is important for three reasons:
1) it ensures safety
2) it limits damage to private and public property
3) in a democracy, not everyone is going to agreewith (or even be interested in) what those who areassembling have to say

Setting these boundaries is not suppressing therights of free speech or freedom to assemble. Infact, here's something a lot of people don't know.

Legal protests, rallies, demonstrations andmarches are, in fact, helped and supported bythe police. More than that, there are acceptedpublic venues that can be used. The city will give youa place to assemble.You file for a permit, and the police coordinate the traffic and parking.And, by the way, the requirement to file a permit to hold a demonstration isnot a suppression of free speech. It's a step in getting police supportbecause logistics for an assembly take time and planning. Extra officers,traffic control, routes for marches, public safety and services, all ofthese need to be organized so you can have your rally.These also are things the city do in order for people to exercise their'right' to protest. Things that allow everyone to get their needs met,includingthe rights of people -- who don't agree with theprotestors -- not to be bothered by them.

Wow, that's pretty neat. You get your rally,protest, demonstration or what have you, whileeveryone else gets to go about their business withminimal interruption, safety or health concerns. I'm okay with this idea.

A point of interest, though. By using this system, freespeech is not free. By that I mean, the city endsup paying for overtime, police presence, reroutingtraffic and clean up. This, in turn, means thetaxpayers are paying to support your right topeacefully assemble. Still, it's a pretty gooddeal.

Having said all this, the 'rights' to assembly andfree speech do not extend to a whole lot of otherthings -- including corporations or privateproperty. For example, you do not have the rightto 'protest' on private or semi-private property.You can be forcibly removed for trespassing. Youdo not have the right to block traffic or access.You cannot interfere with or harass those enteringor leaving a governmental or business establishment. This is why picketersor those on strike must stay on the sidewalk in front of the business ororganizationwith which they disagree. Not in the street, not on private property and they must keep moving.

Another example of this is the private parkwhere the original Occupy Wall Street started and the UC-Davis campus. Theseare private properties thatallow public access. That is not the sameas public property (e.g., a public park). Ifthe owners or trustees of these properties 'allow'the protest, fine. If they say no, that is their'right.' This includes the right to withdrawpermission if a crowd gets out of hand.

An important point about public or governmentproperty is where protests are permissible. Thiscomes back to permits. Recently, several arrestsof 'Occupy Denver' folks occurred when protestorsdecided to take their show to other locations. Then theydecided to refuse the lawful order to leave those new areas. The policedidn't tell them that they couldn't go back to thepark (where they had permits to assemble). Thepolice said, "Okay over there, but you can'tprotest here without a permit." Some of theprotestors said, "Oh yes we can!" and arrests resulted.

This seems like a small point, but it's a bigpublic safety and nuisance issue -- especiallywhen protestors start coming up with 'good ideas'as they roam the streets. (Remember the WTO riotsin Seattle?) There's a reason permits are locationspecific.

This brings us to free speech

Let's start with the fact case law has establishedthe 'right to free speech' does not extend to'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater' (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,Schenck vs. United States, 1919). That point has been pretty well arguedand established in the courts.

Beyond that, free speech is a pretty contentioustopic, especially when hate speech, fightingwords, slander, libel and 'encouraging others toengage in criminal and destructive acts' getthrown into the mix. Just because someone claims what they are saying is'free speech,' doesn't mean it is. (And yes, you can apply that idea to whatconstitutes 'peaceful protest,' as well.)

Where people really don't understand that their 'right' to free speech doesnot extend is to corporations, private businesses or John Q. Public. A newspaper(a company) is not violating your rights if they choose not to publish yourranting manifesto. That is not censorship, that iseither an editorial or business decision by thecompany.

The First Amendment says the 'government' can't stop you from talking,blogging or starting your own newspaper. That doesn't mean, if people don'twant to listen to you, your 'rights' are being violated. The government didn't doit, other factors are involved -- including the likelihood that people thinkyou're wrong.

There are actions that have been through thelegal system and have been deemed expressions of free speech. Just as thereare acts that have been shot down as not being free speech.

For example, in 2007 Elizabeth Book won her appeal regarding protesting topless inDaytona Beach. Her gripe was women were being ticketed for publicnudity (and other things) at the annual biker rally for 'showing their tits'(a tradition in the biker community). In 2004, her form ofprotest was to protest topless. It was a plannedevent, the media was alerted and, sure enough, she was arrested for publicnudity. The court upheld hercontention that it was an expression of free speech.Disorderly conduct charges, however, relating to adifferent incident stood up.

In contrast, to Ms. Book's 'success,' nudesunbathing or just flashing one's boobies (even atMardi Gras and biker rallies) have consistentlybeen rejected as acts of freedom of expression (free speech). People doingso are regularly cited for public nudity, disorderly conduct and as publicnuisances. Whereas, strip clubs -- private property, limited admission andnot in public -- have been found to beprotected as artistic expression.

Confused yet? Welcome to how complicated the lawand 'rights' can get. But it is very important in establishing the standards of free speech.

This is, in part, why the redefinition of campingas part of a protest has caused problems. At thistime, camping has not been legally recognized as avalid form of freedom of expression, free speech, or protest.(Oh, BTW, remember I said this redefinition of protest to include camping has been tried before? The 'Bonus Army' tried occupying Washington DC in 1932. It wasn't cops who broke it up, it was the US Army. Turns out camping wasn't accepted as part of a protest back then either.) This failure to be legally recognized means it is not an accepted form of protest that must be tolerated.

That puts us in another realm. In particular, existing health and safety laws.

During this latest round of protests, police in various areas let slide placing sleeping bags and setting up food tables.Actually, those were more political decisions bythe powers-that-be. It's one of those technicallyillegal actions, but enforcement would open a can of worms because of theclaim that it is 'part of theprotest.' The powers-that-be drew theline at pitching tents, however. At first glance, thismight seem arbitrary. It's not.

You cannot legally 'camp' on public property(that's why cops run bums out of the park). Whilewe're at it, you cannot 'block' a publicthoroughfare or road -- without permits or for anextended period of time. Again, this is whyprotestors must keep moving on sidewalks or rallyonly in designated areas. This allows traffic toflow around them. A person in a sleeping bag canget up and move. Tents don't move easily. The tents became obstructions.Whether they were intentionally set up to be so or that was just theeffect, doesn't matter. They were in the way.

There are a lot of people who dismiss the 'inconvenience' the protestors are causing to other in the pursuit of their rights (an attitude that should make you go 'hmmmmm' about someone else volunteering your time and inconvenience). The same folks also to dismiss health and safety issues as either inconsequential or alarmist.

My position is a little different due to personal experiences. Ever been in a crowd when someone starts shooting a gun? I have. Not fun. Ever been in a crowd when a fire breaks out? Again, I have. And again, way not fun.Ever been caught in a riot? BTDT. Add it to the list of not fun things to do. Ever work events or crowd control? I have. Things can go real bad, real quick in a crowd. And when they do obstructions make them all that much worse. Whenever you get crowds, health and safety IS a big deal.

Again the 'dismissers' will claim 'those things won't happen. But speaking as someone who worked crowds professionally, I can assure you they do. Way too often. The only reason 'those things' don't happen more often is because there are people working their asses off to keep it from happening.

The final point about 'free speech' involves your fellow citizens. Now we'regetting into 'my right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's nosebegins.' (Zechariah Chafee, "Freedom of Speech in Wartime", 32 Harvard LawReview 932, 957 (1919). This includes otherpeople being 'inconvenienced' and endangered byself-appointed 'protestors.'

This isn't a case of a 'protest means whatever I think it means' issue. Nor is it conveniently dismissed by the claim of 'what I'm doing isn't hurting anyone.' We've moved into the realm of cause and effect,safety, health, unintentional consequences andproperty damage.

For example, a few years ago, protestors inWashington state threw bricks and garbageat passing cars and pushed roll-away trash binsout into traffic. Was this free speech? Was this alegitimate form of protest? Or did it createdangerous and problematic conditions where injuryand property damage were likely? Realize that theseconditions weren't just created where the dumpsterswere being pushed into intersections, but extended milesdown the streets and in multiple directions. Theseactions affected people who never laid eyeson the protestors. Oh yeah, and throwing objectsat moving cars? Great way to cause wrecks -- alsoillegal as hell for endangering other people.

That is more extreme than what this latest batchof protestors are doing, but it illustrates apoint. The behaviors of these Occupy folks have become public health andsafety issues. People aren't getting pepper sprayed for engaging in peaceful assembly.. People aregetting pepper sprayed and arrested for refusinglawful orders to take down their tents andimpeding the law enforcement in the execution of theirduties as public safety officers (taking the tentsdown). Some of this resistance is passive, some ofit is active.And remember, actions that cause danger to thepolice or others can be legally and justifiably metwith a much higher level of force to put a stop tothem.

Keep that in mind when you hear aboutincidents of 'peaceful' protestors getting injured. You have to ask, whatwas that person doing that officers -- on the scene -- deemed a level offorce likely to cause injury was warranted. (And that's another wellestablished legal precedent a lot of people don'tknow about. It is the professional assessment ofthe officer on location that determines if abehavior poses a danger. It is not what the commentator on Youtube or Facebookthinks. To make you feel all warm and fuzzy, thisassessment is based on established externalstandards of known dangers. [It's called'jeopardy' -- acting in a manner that is known tobe dangerous.] So the officer isn't making it up on the spot to justify hisor her actions.)

I'm sure by now some apologists are trying toframe an argument about how camping and peacefulprotest do not justify police use of force. Mypoint is that is not the issue.

The issues are violating health and safety laws, disobeying lawfulorders, passive resistance and the level of forcelegally allowed against passive resistance.Just as importantly, the level of forceallowed when that resistance becomes both activeand a danger.

Yet this behavior has it's defenders. A common'monkey brain' wiggle is how 'breaking the law isokay if it is for a noble and idealistic cause.'

If you try to point out these nuts-and-boltsproblems regarding health, safety, disorderlyconduct and public nuisance, apologists willimmediately jackrabbit off to wax poeticabout social injustice and tyranny. If you letthem get a head of steam going, they will tell youabout their outrage against social inequality. Inthe meantime, ignoring the facts that a hundred peoplecamped in a park and peeing on trees is neitherfree speech nor particularly sanitary.

Another common subset of this red herring defenseis 'the wrong we're protesting is greater than thewrong we're doing, so that makes it right.'

I actually saw someone try to justify the millionsof dollars Occupy Wall Street has cost the New York City by pointing out thesupposed trillions that 'big business' had 'stolen.' What? Really? That's what you call 'logic?' Oh, BTW, the $6 million figuredoes not include the cost of time of people who work in the area and loss ofbusiness local shops and restaurants have suffered because people areavoiding the area. This is the 'inconvenience' that 'dismissers' wave away as inconsequential. It's okay. Those people being inconvenienced are eitherpart of, or supporters of, 'the great evil' the Occupy folks are protesting. So they deserve what they get.

Another red herring is to claim pepper spray and tasers are 'torture.' A friend pointed out it's not. That's because 'You can't make torture stop.' You can, however, stop the pain police are inflicting on you by the simple act of complying to the order you are disobeying and resisting. I thought about this and added that torture is 'involuntary.' You can't stop it from happening to you. People come into your cell and drag you to the torture chamber. On the other hand, you can prevent being pepper sprayed by simply complying with a lawful order. That's why the 'torture' argument falls down, the pain these folks are undergoing is entirely voluntary. They are in control if it happens and when it stops. (Boy could I run with some BDSM jokes).

Two final points in closing. I've heard peoplestrenuously object to force being used onprotestors as though they were 'criminals.' I findthis position to be not only ironic, butdownright funny in its hypocrisy. To understand why, I first have to tell you a quote I recently heard: In theeyes of the law, all are equal.However, those who apply the law may not do soequally.

That statement acknowledges that things can behandled in a less than perfect way by theauthorities. In fact, you can even go so far as tosay there can be bias in many cases. Point cededwithout argument.

That bias statement, however, is a two-way street.As in, many people are saying, "These protestorsshould be treated differently for breaking the lawbecause their motives are pure."

Stop and think about that for a second. It is anincredibly elitist, self-serving and arrogantattitude. One you'll see regarding this topicbecause it's sitting right there in plain sight.

Police are not allowed to exercise judgment and selective enforcement between who is a 'criminal' and who is a 'protestor.' They must react according to the circumstances. This includes the fact the law applies across the board (in the eyes of the law, all are equal). As does enforcement and the responses to refusal of lawful orders and resistance.

Camping and trespassing are prohibited, and it doesn't matter who or WHYsomeone is breaking these laws. The same goes for blocking thoroughfares andbeing a public nuisance. The police are duty bound to resolve these issues. If, inexecuting this duty,they encounter passive and active resistance,these conditions will elicit pre-established anddepartmentally approved responses. This is how thepolice treat everyone who actively and willfullydisobey lawful orders.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in. When peopleare squealing about protestors being treated like criminals (being peppersprayed for passive resistance and refusing alawful order), what they are objecting to iseveryone being treated equally.

For folks who areprotesting the inequality and injustice of oursociety, they certainly are claiming some specialtreatment for themselves, dontcha think?

My last point is to ask how much of this is a PR battle? One that the view from the streets says the Occupy folks may be strong inthe blogsphere and certain Facebook circles, but they're losing the bigger battle.

A simple truth is that because these are'organized protests' (like I said most of themeven have permits) the powers-that-be have,by in large, held off doing anything about theprotestors and the problems they are causing.Basically, although there have been lots ofminor issues, people in authority have told the police not to act. Orderingthe police to act is a serious turdburger that government has wiselyhesitated to bite into.

When it comes to knowing how to 'play thegame,' however, the powers-that-be aren't stupid. In fact, by letting theprotests go on, they've allowed acounter position to grow. A position that reallyisn't that sympathetic to what the occupiers aredoing, how long they've dragged it on and how much money they've cost.

Again, while support is strong in the blogsphereand social media for Occupy (Wherever), that isn't the case with the generalpublic. People either don't care or are getting sick and tired of it. Peoplein coffeeshops and progressive areas might be for theoccupation and what it stands for, but in truckstops, McDonald's and Black Angus restaurantsacross the country, there really isn't that muchsupport.

(Do me a favor 'dismissers,' don't you dare tell me the opinions of these, your fellow citizens, don't count.)

What little support the protestors might have had has wanedas the protests drag on and costs mount for the taxpaying public. (This, inaddition to the number of incidents where members of theso-called 'peaceful protest' decided to stoppassively resisting and engage in activeresistance.) While sections of the Internet getall aflutter with news releases and videos of thepolice using force, there's a lot more folks outthere who are shrugging and saying, "About time."

I may be a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, buteven I can see there's a lot more to be consideredhere than a bunch of protestors claiming theyshouldn't get pepper sprayed when they cause health and safety issues, refuse lawful ordersand, in some cases, create active threats. Now that you know these thingsabout use of force, you have a much stronger way to explain to thenext person, who is all aghast and horrified exactly why the police used force on those sweet, innocent, peaceful protestors.

M

Penn State Scandal: Business As Usual?

2011-11-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

"The word cunt is not necessarily derogatory"

Those were the words of then-CU President Betsy Hoffman during the CU Boulder football rape 'scandal' in 2004.

I have to ask "How much money must be involved for a woman to make such a statement during a press conference?" I ask because myself and everyone I know, all agree it's nothing but a derogatory term. (Oh and BTW, within a few months Hoffman herself would step down over a scandal regarding funding.)

But let's look at both big money and protecting an institution's access to that money.

DU Boulder was well known as one of the biggest 'farms' for the NFL. An allegation of rape was brought against a football player during a 'recruitment party.' Then the woman started raising cain about being pressured by the university/athletic department to 'let it go.' That's when things really got ugly for ye olde athletic department. Nine other women came forward and admitted they too had been sexually assaulted -- and the incidents were not only swept under the carpet, but they'd been pressured too. These incidents predated the 2004 incident.

Under siege, CU coach Gary Barnett was walking down the hallway from a press conference with an aid. Unbeknownst to him there was a reporter around the corner; who heard them approaching. Hitting the button, the reporter recorded Barnett saying "This cunt just won't go away." That naturally hit the airwaves. Not a good day for the ol' alma mater.

In an attempt at damage control, President Hoffman held a another press conference. That's when she told the media it's not necessarily a derogatory term. (Later in a deposition, she dug herself even deeper by calling it a 'term of endearment')

That particular incident gave us a peek at a systematic and ingrained pattern of behavior aimed at protecting both the football program and the institution. A behavior we're seeing again at Penn State.

There is a LOT of money involved in athletic programs. As the 2004 rape scandal demonstrates, there is a long-established precedence for protecting these programs. The key point to this is how the system had developed to handle obviously illegal activities 'in house' to protect the university's cash cow. This with the -- at least tacit -- approval of the university itself. (You can't get something that big, involving that much money, that far out of whack without it being known in the hallways of power.)

That brings us to Penn State. As Yogi Berra once said "This is like deja vu all over again."

First, PS is another a well known farm for the NFL.

Second, Mike McQueary is claiming he did report the incident to the police -- the university police.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/16/2988120/i-did-stop-it-talk-with-police.html

Except, well doesn't that strike anyone else as a little 'in-house?' I mean jurisdiction aside, where does the campus police department's funding come from?

Third, this is a situation that is so obscene there is no way to either sweep it under the carpet or justify the organization protecting itself by handling it in-house. Business as usual has -- again -- crossed the line.

Yet, here is the board of trustees firing people left and right for doing business as usual.

That's where I kind of stumble over this issue. 'Business,' not only for athletic departments, but a business universities across the nation engage in. That's because the money athletic programs generate is a large chunk of universities' budgets. This includes both direct and indirect income (and 'benefits).*

But let's stay focused on the university. Personally I'm curious how many rolling heads it will take for the board to distance themselves from the problem. Can they fire enough people to make it look like they weren't part of this 'protect the program' culture? Will the media/people keep after them?Or will something else come up and we'll get distracted, allowing business as usual to creep back in?

It's going to be interesting to see how far this goes.

But more important than all of that, I want to ask you about our own moral compass. Have we as a society gotten so conditioned to accepting the pursuit of money and monolithic institutions, that we turn a blind eye? Have we been conditioned to go along with it?

Both of these examples are situations where institutions suppressed information about crimes in order to protect a lucrative cash cow program. I'm not talking about skimming, embezzlement, dirty deals or minor peccadillos. I'm talking sexual assaults.

For the record, I'm not screaming for an agenda about women's rights, rape awareness or protect the children here (Unfortunately those have become their own form of big business). Nor am I bemoaning the evils of the capitalist system and how we should all be happy, nappy headed socialists.

What I am curious about is have we become so conditioned to playing inside the rules of the organizations that we've lost sight of other important aspects? What have we gotten to the point of accepting?

I can't speak for anybody else, but if I were to see a 10 year old boy being sodomized in a university shower there would be physical assault -- then the police would be called. "But, but ... he's a high ranking coach!" So? You could lose your job! It would be a scandal! The program would be threatened!

Again. So?

But I have to admit, I'm not a team player. I'm especially not a team player if that means shutting off my own morals and turning a blind eye to crime in order to protect the 'team.' But how many people are? What else has been swept under the carpet over the years? All in pursuit of protecting the program.

Perhaps the biggest scandal of the Penn State affair is how protecting a financially lucrative program really is business as usual. That it takes a case involving decades of child molestation that we even notice anything is wrong.

M

*The latter is where you need bookkeepers and auditors to trace the benefits of being a farm for America's biggest entertainment 'industry.' An industry that needs a constant supply of new players. College football is that source.