Hey, Siri!

apple applications apps cell phone

Photo by Tracy Le Blanc on Pexels.com

Get clicks.

Promote the fear of law enforcement to support an agenda.

Encourage illegal behavior for the sake of making money.

“Hey Siri, I’m getting pulled over.”

Interesting thing…it’s illegal to record someone without their knowledge (this article takes you to WA, specifically, but you can scroll to the top and see all states) and none of these articles mention that fact at all. They don’t even recommend to check local laws to find out what is legal and what isn’t.

Looking at all the articles, they even read very similarly, like they are written as a press release and the authors just changed some words around and hit publish.

Only one article cautioned about using a third party app (this is not an official app or feature from Apple) but only in passing. So, they are promoting an app or feature that is developed by a third party and there is almost nothing about the data the feature may collect. Lack of concern is interesting. What are they getting for their promotion?

This stuff is irritating because it is playing into and promoting the narrative that we need to fear the police, which is incorrect. Plain and simple fear-mongering to justify clicks.

Disarm, defund, abolish?

fog police seaside

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

This isn’t even close to the answer.

Not sure what kind of fantasy land people are living in, but most people know this isn’t even the practical, let alone realistic. But, there are a whole bunch of progressive and liberal people in power who are going to placate and pander to the loudest voices even if they make no logical sense.

I hate to tell ya this, but people ain’t gonna suddenly decide to live in a Utopian world just because the police go away. It will, in fact, go exactly the opposite as people and groups clamor for power over others.

Disarm?

I can accept that some equipment might be overkill. Maybe, just maybe, the budget could be better spent on training and non-lethal tactics/equipment. Arming the police like the military might not be the answer. But taking away their weapons won’t work and we all know it. Remember those instances where even the LA police were outgunned by bank robbers? What about gangs and drug cartels? How would that work?

I can see some concessions here but, as we have seen with protests all over the nation over the last decade or more, when you take away ability of the police to maintain order in communities you get crime on a  massive scale. As such, our expectation of what law enforcement can and can’t do is going to have to change. We won’t be able to expect that they are going to respond to crimes during protests, large gathers, sports celebrations, etc.

Every massive protest or celebration in the US these days leads to looting, property damage, and usually other crimes as a byproduct of such behavior. The police have basically had to stand back and let it happen because they are overwhelmed, either by the sheer numbers of people or by the fact that they lack the ability to respond.

Seattle’s police chief said that things are going to have to change. That’s not only the way the police do their business but it’s also the acceptance from the public that you aren’t going to be safe or protected at all times.

Crime won’t get better if you take away their ability to handle it or prevent it.

Defund?

This option is bad at best, besides a veiled effort to push more socialism. You all know that a budget means, right?

What exactly are you going to defund in a police department?

Cut money from buying weapons? OK, again, maybe this might work. But again, what happens when the police are outgunned?

Cut money from training? Yeah, that doesn’t seem like a good idea either. If anything, funds could be diverted from arming to training. Taking money isn’t the answer.

Cut money from payroll? Also not real bright. Money means staff. Staff means there is someone to respond to a crime, to investigate, to rescue, to protect, to arrest those who need and deserve it. Are you really prepared to be told when you call 911 that an officer will be there in 30 minutes to 2 hours, if at all? It also means that paying (for all intents and purposes) them a quality wage. They are supposed to stand in harm’s way, right? So are we asking them to take less pay to do the same job, while being under armed and understaffed?

Do more with less? We have been doing that to teachers for years and that is clearly working (that’s sarcasm if you can’t read between the lines), so what makes you think law enforcement can do it?

Starting to get worried yet?

Disband?

Asinine.

Sure, let’s just get rid of the police department altogether. That won’t create a whole other set of issues that will have to be dealt with.

Crime will just magically disappear! Humans are naturally good by nature so there will be no problems and we’ll all live peacefully together in one big happy family…gather ’round the fire folks! We’re about to sing Kumbaya and hug and stuff.

The fact is, this won’t work either. The human heart hasn’t been fixed yet. Evil will always rear it’s ugly head and the vacuum left by an absence of law enforcement would quickly be filled by people who have no intent on sharing power, safety, or resources.

I am just not that optimistic of my fellow man. As such, I’ll be buying more guns to protect my family, friends, and property.

That is the natural assumption, right? If someone else who is armed to protect me and others is removed from my community, then I will have to fill that void myself. You can’t have it both ways – no police force AND an unarmed populace.

Can no one see how stupid this is? (That’s rhetorical, as I know there are lots of people who see this as completely stupid).

So what then?

I’ll be over here building my arsenal and fortress.

If you need me or want to visit, text me. I’ll unlock the gate, lower the bridge, pull the gators outta the moat, and tie up the attack dogs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, you must be exempt from traffic laws

auto automobile blur buildings

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Wanna know who is exempt from traffic laws? Cops, apparently.

You see them speed all the time on the highway. You see them make a flagrant u-turns in traffic. You see them park on the side of the road (especially on overpasses) with a portion of their vehicle in traffic. You see them park in “No Parking” or “Fire” zones. You see them park on sidewalks. You see them using their computers and their cell phones while driving. You see them not use their signals properly. So, they must be exempt, right?

I was always under the impression that the only time they were exempt from traffic laws was when they had their lights on and were responding to a call. They don’t even have to have their siren on, but they at the very least had to have their lights on. Otherwise, I was under the impression they should act as though they are the same as any other citizen. Well, we clearly and regularly don’t see this happen, right?

So what gives? I have never had a law enforcement official clearly explain this to me. When asked if they are exempt from the law, they say no but they can’t explain why it is acceptable why they violate traffic laws on a regular basis. Anyone got an answer?

Do you know why I pulled you over?

*Disclaimer #1, no, I haven’t been pulled over for this yet.

There are some really dumb traffic laws out there, and this happens to be one of the dumbest. The sheer nature of the law assumes that someone will be speeding and someone else will be impeding their progress.

Bahn Storming

wesleychapelcommunity.com

So, let’s talk about this for a second. Let’s assume you are trying to follow the posted speed limit and are not exceeding it. Slower vehicles are supposed to stay to the right (it’s the law, right?). If, by the nature of traveling the speed limit, you are able to pass people while traveling in the left lane then you are not causing anyone grief because you are in fact going the speed limit.

Let’s just say an emergency vehicle comes up from behind you with their lights on. What do you do? You move to the right, like the law says to do. If you don’t move right, you can and should be ticketed for not following the law. So, is this an issue with traveling in the left lane?

If you are going slower than the speed limit, well, then you could be pulled over because you are actually being a hazard to other drivers and should be pulled over for being a danger to yourself and others.

Finally, that leaves anyone who is going over the speed limit, which I do regularly. *Disclaimer #2 – I do not condone speeding, I am just merely using myself as an example. First, if you are speeding you can be pulled over for that because you are violating a law already on the books. However, since you are speeding you are likely passing slower people who are staying on the right. Thus, no need for the law. If you are one of those jackwagons (is that gender specific or is it all-inclusive?) who decides that you are going to speed at an unreasonable rate and unsafely, well then there is already a law on the books for that. It is called reckless driving.

So that leaves a scenario where I am traveling over the speed limit and passing people on the left when a jackwagon speeds up from behind me and tailgates me as I don’t move immediately out-of-the-way. Who is in the wrong here? As we are both exceeding the speed limit, both of us are passing people on the left. We are both speeding, only one of us is doing it in an unsafe manner. I am not really impeding anyone in traffic, except the jackwagon behind me who feels the need to run everyone off the road to get to where they are going. Get my drift here?

The “keep right” law is dumb.