I told you so

In one of my previous rants I mentioned people only engage me when they want something from me and nothing in return (but of course that part doesn't apply to vendors).

So this morning I was eating breakfast at school and a woman sits down in front of me, staring at me with those "I'm going to engage you because I want something for nothing" eyes.



Her: How much did you pay for that burrito?
Me: Uhh. I don't know. About 4 or 5 dollars?
Her: Why are you so hungry?
Me: This is my breakfast.
Her: Can I have some of your potatoes?
Me: No. Who are you?
Her: You're racist. You won't give me anything because I'm Filipino (she scowls at me).
Me: Are you serious?! Do you even go here?
Her: (mumbles something, looks at me nasty, gets up and walks away).

I saw her pacing by several more times after that and I planned on threatening her with police if she started anything. Not that I want to involve police in anything, but the campus doesn't have security, instead they have their own licensed police force. Then I started thinking, if any college can get its own legal police, and a private company like BART can have its own legal police. Can anyone make up a police force? Can I just sign some papers with the state and make myself a legal California police officer? (California has no "state" police, but any officer in California can lawfully arrest anyone in the state, including the Keystone Kops at my college).


I would make myself a police force. Then I could sidestep all the commie laws about bearing arms.

Now I'm Pissed

So I was recently told about the University of the Pacific having its own REAL police force. And I found out that the Stockton Unified School District has its own REAL police force, and my college, Delta, has its own REAL police department. Right now Stockton is shitting itself because they have no money, and the federal government is giving the city up to and including NOTHING.

That's right, Stockton CA, #1 most miserable city in America, official center of the housing collapse, highest unemployment in the the most broke state in the union will receive ---->$0<----- dollars from the federal government in their big "bail out". Stockton, completely ignored by Obama, is going to fire about 55 police officers.

Everyone can't stop talking about all the cops that are getting fired.

A Stocktonian promised that if they do get fired, he'll start a city militia, which made national news.

I'm wondering, how many fucking cops do we really have?

We have the Stockton PD, and everyone is crying because some are getting fired. Sure, 55 out of 441 cops is signifcant, but if they just shift their desk jobs around a little, it will be like nothing happened, but let's pretend it is a bad thing.

We also have in Stockton:

Stockton Unified School District Police Department
University of the Pacific Police Department
Delta College Police Department
California Highway Patrol
San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department
Various branches of the Department of Homeland Security, including ICE
FBI
Department of Justice
I won't list all the specialty enforcers like fish and wildlife or IRS or things like that because it would take forever.

And btw, finding out the cops on campus at Delta are REAL certified law enforcement, I'm now backwards pissed for 9/11/01, the day my stereo was stolen from my car at Delta. A cop (apparently a REAL cop) witnessed the event, saw the little hoodlum bitches, and didn't even chase them. I know this, because I talked to him afterwards and he was like "dems the breaks".

So with all this police, I don't know what people are bitching about. I don't think Stockton's problem is that we don't have enough cops. I think the problem is, Stockton is full of fucking criminals.

I don't think they grew up here either. It just doesn't make sense logistically.

The reason I'm posting this is because I was looking around SUSDPD's website and I noticed a link to the Megan's Law database.

FYI:

# of Convicted Sex offenders

San Francisco: 573, population: 808,000

Oakland: 595, Population: 397,000

Stockton: 775, Population: 290,000

San Diego: 947, Population: 1,354,000

Sacramento: 1599, Population: 1,394,000


San Francisco, and Oakland have significantly MORE people, yet far FEWER sex offenders. San Diego and Sacramento have fantastically more people, (San Diego 4.6X and 4.8X respectively) with hardly any more sex offenders (1.22X and 2.06X).

I'm not made of infinite research here, I don't mean to be deceptive, but I haven't found a city with more rapists and child fuckers per capita than Stockton, and the only
way to beat out Stockton in sheer numbers appears to require at least 4 times the population to work with.


America doesn't track any other criminals the way they do sex criminals, I don't think Stockton has an inordinately higher percentage of sex criminals compared to others, so I will without any further evidence conclude Stockton simply has more criminals overall per capita than anywhere else in this state.

Why does Stockton have more criminals? Are we truly a dumping ground? Are other cities simply meaner to criminals? Does Stockton do too much to welcome them? Is Stockton simply homegowing all these criminals?

These questions and many more can only be answered by Actual research. Which is something I'm not willing to do with 2 readers and negative $ output from this blog.

Somebody get on this. It's a true story, Why is the most miserable city in America so fucked up? Seriously, right now, while bad places and economies is the "in" thing, a book about Stockton might sell like Michael Jackson albums. <--- short term joke.

The Stockton Armed Militia

A man in stockton declared a few months ago that if the police get fired, he's going to activate a militia to patrol the city. Well, 55 cops are being fired. Through technicalities, not all will end up "fired" but rather "early retired" but the figures will be the same. Stockton only has about 400 police as is.

The idea of a militia sparked liberal bitching across the country. The epitome of ignorance "wonkette" had around 100 comments describing Stockton in every derogatory manner they could imagine, having absolutely no knowledge of where Stockton even is, or pretty much anything else, some even confusing it with Stockholm. They still managed to declare everything cliche' white trash, kkk, nazi, they could imagine, and I pretty much almost cried at how fucking stupid these people are.

I like the idea of a citizen force picking up the cop's slack. But there's no room for reason in this issue it seems.

On the one side, you have all the dumbshits who think no one but the police should be allowed to have weapons, including our own fucking mayor. On the other hand, you have hundreds of untrained people who might be missing the point, but will all go out shooting if necessary.
Where's the informed middleground? I'm thinking I need to fucking talk to this guy before something tragic happens.

Let me lay this out. I am 100% pro gun. I think babies should be allowed to own machine guns. I don't mince words. I think Iran should be allowed to point nukes at us and talk shit. I think people should be allowed to work on death rays. I think every human should be allowed as many weapons of global destruction as they want, until they prove they aren't responsible enough to possess them. I had to make that clear.

That being said, I don't trust these guys to do proper law enforcement. It's one thing to have a gun to protect yourself, or people around you. It's a whole different realm to go out looking for shit to get into. Bad training can kill as much as any gun can.

I'm not a police officer, I don't feel qualified to patrol the streets in a law enforcement capacity. Yet I have worn a badge that said "police" on it. I have been trained in many aspects of law enforcement. I am an expert with several weapons, including the 9mm and the expandable baton. I am well trained an experienced with verbal commands, detaining suspects (handcuffing), arm bar techniques, the levels of force, and the circumstances for deadly force. For the small piece of land I patrolled as a military law enforcement, I was experienced, I knew what I could and could not do. But this is Stockton, and the rules are different.

That's the problem. There are so many dynamics to law enforcement. Security (and self protection) is easy, you protect something, you know what you're protecting. Law enforcement means getting involved in really confusing shit that you might not have any right to diffuse.

I won't feel comfortable about this Stockton Armed Militia unless they have positive support from the police, as well as training. I think if Stockton has a militia, it should serve in an official capacity, and it should break down like a volunteer branch of the police department. Volunteer, because the only reason Stockton might need a militia, there's no money to pay police.

I also think they need to take focus away from the guns. I can appreciate good citizens armed, but if that's the militia's only goal, to be an armed presence, they won't help 1/100th of the problems of not having police. If they only spring to action in a gun fight, they won't be springing to action very often. Cops are needed for so much more than that.

Imagine a scenario where the militia witnesses a man beating up a woman, so they swoop in, but they have no training for anything but gun play. What can they do? Pull out their guns. Great, someone's not going home that night.

Cops have "levels of force" at least in the utopia version of law enforcement I was trained into we did. Militia need to consider carrying more than guns, like pepper spray, batons, handcuffs, tasers, basically things that can solve a problem with no one dying.

Iraq

When everyone knew America was going to Iraq by the summer of 2002, I knew it was a farce. Simply by the fact that you're not supposed to know 8 months ahead of time that Iraq would "violate" this or that and justify their invasion.

I was pissed. I said, "Fine, if America is going to invade Iraq, I want cameramen to be there, to film every human die. Show every dead baby. Show everything." - paraphrased. Michael is my witness on this "early" resolve.

If you believe people have the right to bear arms, then you have no justification for war with Iraq. The only reason, the only reason in the world Bush used, was that they were armed. Certainly there were better reasons, but they weren't Bush's reasons. You could rationalize in your mind that the other reasons justified the invasion, but because those reasons were not the invaders reason, they would never be respected.

Let me give you an example that I believe is fair, but won't elicit any patriotic knee jerk. Imagine if the president decides that drug dealers shouldn't have guns. Certainly that seems to fall in line with just reasoning, and American law. But who are the drug dealers? If they are already known, shouldn't they be in prison, or already served time, or at least counseled? You would think to yourself, they could justifiably be arrested because they are drug dealers. BUT, that isn't what the president's goal is, that's your "justification". So federal police begin kicking in the doors, and shooting the dogs of every known or suspected drug dealers in America, but after awhile, the waters are murky, things are rushed, the goal of the president isn't to prosecute drug dealers, it's to take guns. In that respect, he won't need proof the person is a drug dealer, just suspicion, so fairly soon, the police are just kicking in the doors of anyone that's ever done anything. Parking ticket holders will have their doors kicked in, and their dogs shot. Sure, some people will get killed trying to defend themselves, but such anarchy is all the more justification to keep kicking in doors, and shooting dogs, and taking the guns. Soon enough drug dealers will find a way to continue their deeds without being the subject of a door kicking-in and a dog killing, they'll go underground, but the feds will continue kicking in doors, regardless of whose doors. While the Feds are wasting tax payer money killing tax payer dogs, the drug dealing will continue, and the fear generated from the invasion will cause drug dealers to kill more. The point is you have to look at the true goal, not your hope of what will come of the goals of others.

Invading Iraq, because they have weapons was an evil enterprise. Iraq has more weapons than it did before, and the fact that the U.S. military went in and took all the weapons from law abiding individuals has only made things worse. The U.S. military has no trouble disarming the good citizens, so the criminals are the only ones who are armed.

Often people say that Iraq was better off with Saddam. I can't agree with that, at least now they have a chance. Not a great chance, but a chance. The problem is that America's intentions are making it harder for things to get better. Weapons aren't the problem. Conflict is the problem, and Americans are the conflict now.

There's a saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I'm not arguing that. I'm literally saying the intentions were wrong, they made hell on purpose. People bought into it for peripheral benefits, but those benefits haven't come to fruition, and they never will.

I've talked a long time with an Objectivist, and one of the issues was the morality of intention. Does it matter why a person acts? Is the reason for a good action important? And we both agreed that it absolutely matters. Even if an outsider could only guess to the reasoning, the reasoning will always matter. Iraq is a perfect example. Even if you saw the invasion as a good thing, because the reasoning behind it was different, the outcome won't be the same, because at some point there will be a fork in the road, where you would go one direction, the person with the alterior motives will choose the other. The fork was long ago.

Sometimes kicking in a door is necessary, but if your thinking it's good because there's a criminal on the other side, and the government thinks it's good, because there's an armed man on the other side, eventually there will be a conflict. Not all armed men are criminals, and the government will not care. That is Iraq. That is pretty much all the current conflicts in America, maybe even humanity.

People see this need to categorize people. Whether it's "liberal" vs. "Conservative" or "American" vs. "other" or "white" vs. "other" it really doesn't matter. The borders are artificial. Once the intention of the borders becomes altered, the border can become an evil in itself. For example, if you categorize people by American or other, it makes sense when talking about taxes, or laws, or participation in government, but when it becomes an issue about a person's rights to themselves, that's when it becomes evil. To assert that only Americans should bear arms in Iraq is one example. To assert that all Africans should be slaves is another example. "white" vs. "other" could be applied to learning genealogy, studying language, or custom, or history makes sense, but to use it to imprison Jew or Japanese descendants is wrong. People take things to extremes, and fight it out in these corners, either we have genetic variations, and we should kill those who aren't us, or there are no genetic variations and everyone is exactly the same. Both positions are wrong, yet those become the lines. The conflicts of man seem to be childish in this regard. These absolutes where both parties are wrong. Intention is a factor. If you intend to distinguish nationality, or national purposes, that's logical, but if you distinguish nationality to opress one group, or help another, that's evil. Unfortunately not enough people regard intentions, and seem to only respect action. Never the 'why', only the 'what'. 'Why' distinguish nationality, sex, religion, isn't asked. Only an abosolutist, 'what' sex, either no difference, or one must be superior, no nationalities, unless one is superior to the other. That's not how reality works, and that's why people die. War is not inevitable, but as long as people demand absolutes that are lies, there will be war. There will be death. That is the immediate result to their immorality. It is swift. Immorality isn't just, and neither is the punishment for it. War will never be just in this regard. As long as conflict is for lies.

I could rant all day.