Sunday, March 22, 2009

"Clancy On The Beat" Went The Way of The Dodo

We all feel sad for the murders of four Oakland police officers and, unlike his father, thoroughly condemn parolee Lovelle Mixon, their killer. The Bay area leftist press is doing its best to come up with excuses for Mixon, starting with his presumed depression at the thought of having to return to prison--for not keeping the terms of his parole. We don't, so far, know why Mixon committed the assault that resulted in the warrant for his arrest, but one has to suspect he's among those who cannot connect actions with their consequences.

He shot the two officers who pulled him over in a routine traffic stop, then shot two more of those trying to dig him out of his hiding place. Ultimately, he, and four Oakland police officers died.

According to this follow-up story in the Silicon Valley Mercury News, there were a number of individuals who knew where Mixon was hiding, but said nothing. "But you just don't want to be a snitch. The word, 'snitch,' it's almost worse than murderer," according to one neighborhood resident.

Tensions run high between the poor residents of this neighborhood in East Oakland after the recent police killing of an unarmed man on a BART car recently.

Which finally brings me around to my point.

For thirty-odd years now, there has been a concentrated effort on the part of the federal and local governments, as well as the police themselves, to separate themselves from the general public. Pursuant to the nefarious plots of the proponents of both the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror," there's a movement among federal thugs to militarize local police and place a federally-funded and influenced presence in the urban areas of the country. Arguably, this could be seen as a violation of the Third Amendment to the US Constitution. Maybe not so arguably.

Local government goes along because it's "sexy" to have an elite SWAT force at their beck and call. Local SWAT teams are used for everything from drug busts to in-home barricade situations to busting up neighborhood poker games. It's also good to be able to make a phone call and get a squad or two of BATFE or DEA thugs to help absorb the responsibility for blunders.

Police officers themselves play the game because it places them in an elite club--better than the "little people" it's their job to protect and to serve.

The result is mistrust and suspicion going both ways--the police sympathizers trying to disarm and pacify the public and the public resentful of callous treatment by seemingly thuggish police officers.

Until officials and police officers realize that they're in our employ to help those who pay their salaries to protect our selves, families and property, and not to be our moral and behavioral supervisors, there will be this adversarial relationship. Disarming us is not the way to endear themselves to the community.

Follow, if you will, this exchange between a local rancher and the town sheriff in the years prior to about 1910.

"Gonna have to take ya in, Carl."
"What for?"
"Give me your gun."
Carl hands the sheriff his sidearm, butt first. "What's going on?"
The sheriff sniffs the pistol's cylinder. "This gun's been fired."
"Shot a rattler on my way into town. Ain't no law against that."
"That's a fact, Carl. A dead man was found on your land. Shot."
"I don't know nothin' about that"
"I'll let ya go if you're tellin' the truth. Let's go."

And this exchange, in 2009.

Man turns to see who's yelling at him.
"I think he's got a gun!"
Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Sounds of reloading. Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam! Blam!

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,
Col. Hogan


steveintx said...

"Local SWAT teams are used for everything from drug busts to in-home barricade situations to busting up neighborhood poker games."

Back when I was still driving a truck, my best friend, Sonny Blevins (RIP) had an "illegal" citizen band radio business. He was selling from his home. A snitch told the coppers that he had power amps and other illegal paraphenilia so they used the SWAT to raid his house. Handcuffed in the front yard and the whole business. They found nothing. Of course they didn't know what they were looking for and Sonny wasn't going to tell them what was legal and what wasn't. Goes to how stupid cops were (are).

Anyway because they couldn't find anything illegal in his house they took all of his legal guns and ammo. He had to sue the city to get them back. That little raid cost the taxpayers almost 20k plus a reprimand to the SWAT Capt.

Col. Hogan said...


Every cop in on the atrocity should've been fired, and charged with breaking and entering, assault and kidnapping. They should've been required to pay for any and all property damage. I've long thought that the police should be subject to all the laws, same as the rest of us. A cop should have a wet-signed warrant detailing what, or whom they're looking for and why. If not: the same charges you or I would face for doing the same thing.

Good that your friend fought back, and won.

steveintx said...

While agreeing with all that. I'm thinkin' the judge should be held, if not criminally liable at least civally liable, for signing the warrant. Maybe then they would have to come up with real proof instead of generalizations.

T. F. Stern said...

You make it difficult to sit on the side lines on this posting; my having been a cop for a little over twenty years. I've been an old time walking beat cop, a rush hour traffic cop in downtown Houston, an evening shift patrol cop and a night shift cop. Mostly what I did was serve the public, as did my fellow officers.

This is not to say that I've never seen things done wrong; only that what I've been associated with deserves a better "rant" than what I've read both in the posting and in the comment section.

Be grateful that you are wrong on this one, most of the cops working are still serving the public as best they can under the politics of the day.

steveintx said...

Mr Stern

I will readily agree that there are many good cops out there. I have met many right here in Texas, Local and state. That doesn't mitigate the fact that there are some out there that will taz you just 'cuz, or whack you over the head for giggles. You are able to see it often enough yourself on the news. What possible explanation could there be for a cop (male) beating a sixteen year old girl already in custody? With no female officer present. Why would an unarmed man already on the deck be shot twice? I pray every day that neither my wife nor I pass under strange circumstances for the local gendarmes will automatically assume it is the surviving spouse that did it. No, Mr Stern there is something rotten in their house and they will have to clean it up. Are they willing?

Col. Hogan said...


Yes. Judges should be held civilly & criminally responsible for any unreasonable warrants they sign. They should make sure the requesting officer has done his homework.

Col. Hogan said...


I've read a lot of your stuff, and believe you were a reasonable and conscientious officer.

Generally, the cops to whom I refer are the ones who act like morality nazis, trying to enforce their personal (or government's) will on the public. The drug cops. The vice cops. Cops (or their superiors) who waste taxpayer money victimizing folks who are just minding their business.

Those armored, masked and heavily armed wannabe soldiers who break down doors, enter unannounced, shoot the dogs, kill the property owner just for trying to check out the ruckus with a handgun in his hand--a reasonable action in the middle of the night--only to find out that the house they want is in the next block.

The thug squads who, in full riot gear, wade into a public park full of peaceful, if roudy. protesters, thumping heads of demonstrators and media folk without discretion.

The chiefs of police who will not advocate for individual handgun carry and self defense.

None of these cops regard themselves as civil servants, rather as authorities.

Why do you think the first thing an officer does during an arrest is force the citizen to prostrate himself on the ground?

T. F. Stern said...

“Why do you think the first thing an officer does during an arrest is force the citizen to prostrate himself on the ground?”

I see a disconnect here which equates a good portion of law enforcement with totalitarian authority. Here is where we disagree as I continue in my belief that most law enforcement meets with the expectations and limits of the liberty loving citizenry for which they are employed to carry out the duties of law enforcement.

There is a mindset in a limited number of law enforcement officers/departments which approach totalitarian authority, that unsavory crossing of the line between right and wrong which perverts the authority and powers granted to law enforcement by a liberty loving people. Law enforcement as a job is inherently dangerous and so the citizenry reluctantly accept the use of physical force being used, sometimes with folks who have done nothing wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The liberty loving people have instructed law enforcement, via case law and many years of practiced procedures, in accepted methods for rendering dangerous situations neutral, which includes making sure suspects are not armed and limiting a suspects ability to injure anyone.

As for your example to prostrate citizens on the ground; in my service as a cop I hardly ever used that position. I preferred the suspect to be upright and tilted to put gravity on my side, toward a sturdy support such as a wall or vehicle rather than on the ground. I found this gave me more of an advantage as my ability to react to a suspects moves were proportionally quicker when I was upright as opposed to on the ground.

Most of the time I worked as a one man unit without a partner to act as backup; the need to gain control of a situation quickly was a priority and I followed our department’s recommended procedure of handcuffing suspects prior to even a cursory search of the individual or that area which the suspect might have in his/her control. If it later turned out that such a control was not needed, then and only then were the handcuffs removed and my level of concern turned back a notch. If any apologies were due, most likely it would be from the citizen for having acted in such a way as to make a cop react to a dangerous situation which should never have happened; in either case, life went on for all involved.

Col. Hogan said...


In the first paragraphs of this entry, I lamented the deaths of the four police officers. As told by the news, they were patrol officers just doing their jobs. As such, they deserve our respect and honor.

I have no sympathy for the late Mixon, whatsoever.

So, please regard my negative remarks as directed toward the relatively small portion of law enforcement (mostly federal) that doesn't understand or isn't interested in the rule of law, and due process, 'pon which this nation was founded.

Then, I hear about the traffic cop in Texas who wouldn't allow a citizen to follow his dying mother into the hospital because he rolled through a stop sign. He had to write the citation first, while his mother passed away.

T. F. Stern said...

“So, please regard my negative remarks as directed toward the relatively small portion of law enforcement (mostly federal) that doesn't understand or isn't interested in the rule of law, and due”

On that note we should leave well enough alone.

MK said...

Back in 1910, the leftists weren't as prominent, back then most people had the brains to understand that one must take responsibility for one's own protection, back then people weren't so ignorant, lazy and intentionally stupid.

Col. Hogan said...


Again today, tragically, a mentally deranged individual murdered several people in New York. No one there was armed, or perhaps the devastation might've been less.

You're right. Most folks are afraid to defend themselves. Worse, many don't think enough of their families to care to defend them!