March 10th, 2010

Enforcing the Law on Law Enforcement


photo credit: Dred242

A few days ago, a Utah Valley University student was questioned by a couple of police officers regarding his possession and “open carry” of a handgun. Someone had called the police to report a “man with a gun”, and the police swooped in to save the day—this after the student had been open carrying fairly consistently for the past three semesters. The student was well within his rights, despite the ignorant law enforcement officers claiming that he was not allowed to openly carry his firearm.

The student was able to record most of the exchange on his iPhone, which he then posted on YouTube (here and here). In the ensuing days, he was interviewed by a litany of local media outlets about the event. It is safe to assume that none of this attention would have been generated had he not been able to provide a recording of the police officers making factually incorrect assertions regarding the law and ordering him to comply with an unnecessary and unlawful order; without documentation, it becomes a matter of “he said, she said”.

For decades, surveillance cameras have been used to monitor stores, offices, and other locations to help visually identify and document a potential crime. Video recordings have been used as evidence in convicting criminals, as the (nearly) irrefutable evidence provides the judge and jury an opportunity to be a virtual fly on the wall during the event itself. In such instances, the defendant’s plea becomes irrelevant as the video plainly shows what really did happen.

Through the use of mobile devices, citizen journalism is applying this same level of scrutiny to the government. Our culture has placed an inherent trust in the law enforcement, and thus if a case ever comes down to a police officer’s word versus the defendant’s, chances are that the police officer’s story will carry the day. However, allowing the public to become a virtual fly on the wall in these confrontations with the law likewise provides an opportunity to show what really did happen.

A few examples are in order.

On New Year’s Day, 2009, a police officer in California by the name of Johannes Mehserle was charged with the murder of one Oscar Grant III after shooting him to death in an Oakland transit station. Grant was, at the time of his death, a 22-year-old father. Videos captured by several witnesses on their cell phones show Mehserle shooting Grant in the back as another officer kneeled on him. The police officer resigned, was later charged with murder, pled not guilty, and the trial is underway.

On July 25, 2008, protesters gathered in Times Square as part of the Critical Mass ride, a monthly protest of urban reliance on motor vehicles. One of the arrests made was that of Christopher Long, a bicyclist who, according to the police officer, steered his bicycle into the officer, causing them both to fall to the ground. Further, his arrest was on grounds of obstructing traffic, attempted assault, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. An anonymously-posted video, recorded with a cell phone, quickly showed the truth—that the police officer was the clear aggressor, pushing Long to the ground in an unprovoked assault. The officer was placed on administrative leave after the video surfaced, and he later resigned. The charges against Long were dropped.

In September 2007, 20-year-old Brett Darrow was sitting in a parked car at 2 a.m. when a police officer approached him, asked for identification, and then ordered him out of the car and began shouting at him. The officer threatened for nearly ten minutes to fictitiously conjure up any number of charges against Darrow, shouting, among other things, “You want to try me? You want to try me tonight? You think you have a bad night? I will ruin your night. Do you want to try me tonight, young boy? Do you want to go to jail for some [expletive] reason I come up with?” Darrow was able to record the exchange with an in-car mounted camera he installed after previous run-ins with police, and posted it on YouTube. The officer was suspended, and it was later discovered that he had previously been arrested for assault and stealing. He was subsequently fired by the city’s Board of Alderman in a 5-0 vote.

On September 3, 2009, police arrived at the San Jose apartment of 20-year-old Phuong Ho to arrest him on suspicion of assaulting one of his roommates. Ho, who was unarmed and did not resist arrest, was hit with a metal baton more than ten times, including once on the head. The other officer used his taser gun on the individual. Another one of Ho’s roommates captured the events on his cell phone, serving as evidence in the ensuing investigation. Just last week, the District Attorney said that he would not charge the officers with a crime.

On May 24, 2009, an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman pulled over and choked a paramedic who was delivering a patient to a hospital. Trooper Daniel Martin and his colleague were evidently responding to a call of their own, and became upset that the ambulance did not yield to them. The ambulance finally pulled over, and Martin attempted to put the paramedic in an arm lock and handcuff him, at one point placing his hands over the man’s throat in an attempt to choke him. Though the Highway Patrol repeatedly denied any requests from news agencies to obtain the dashcam video through the state’s Open Records Act, the son of the patient being transported caught the exchange on his cell phone’s camera. After pleading that he was a doctor with a patient who needed medical attention, the troopers finally relented and left the scene. Martin was placed on paid administrative leave, and ultimately suspended for just five days.

It’s not just cell phones, though; standard video cameras, surveillance cameras, and even the officers’ own dash-cams have served to help document the power-mongering rampages of badge-endowed tyrants. Of course, these law enforcement officials aren’t exactly eager to smile for the camera, and thus object to being videotaped.

Though the majority of them are likely well-intentioned and self-restrained individuals, some policemen clearly think themselves to be above the law, and given their power and position, they can often easily get away with it. Persuading others to disbelieve what a police officer has falsely claimed to be true requires more than contradictory testimony—evidence is needed to help debunk the myth that police officers exist “to protect and to serve”. Citizen journalism, and especially the use of mobile technology, will in the future play an increasingly important role in not only pursuing justice for those wardens of the state who grossly abuse their authority, but also helping the masses better understand what James Madison once declared: “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree”.

44 Responses to “Enforcing the Law on Law Enforcement”

  1. Cherise
    March 11, 2010 at 3:07 am #

    I’m currently going through my own police brutality incident where I was battered by 5 male cops & I am a 5’6”, 110 lb woman. They claim I battered them though…..Police are a gang in their own right…I just wish people would open their eyes to see it,

  2. Walter Reade
    March 11, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    Thought you’d like this, if you hadn’t seen it already:

    http://boingboing.net/features/security.html

  3. Kelly W.
    March 11, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    Having gone through a similar experience with a self-righteous cop at the tender age of 18, I have been leery of any cop now for 36 years. In the past 36 years of observing cops, I have found that almost all cops, having obtained a little authority, as they suppose, will exercise unrighteous dominion.

    When I say almost all, that is probably about 98.9% of them. There are but few that do not exercise this unrighteous dominion on a daily basis.

  4. Kelly W.
    March 11, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    The self-righteous cop I mentioned in the previous post was fired a couple years after my run-in with him for not turning in the stolen money from a store robbery. Somehow he managed to forget to return the stolen money. Hmmmmmmm, I wonder how he could forget about that bag of money……..

    This cop (I will not disclose his name) was clearly one of those 98.9%.

  5. Jim Davis
    March 11, 2010 at 10:16 pm #

    I am glad you posted this Connor. I actually intend to go into law enforcement but that doesn’t mean I have this “all of our boys in blue are infallible and are not subject to justice” mentality that I see a lot around here. Most of the time an officer unfairly treats a citizen you’ll find a majority of Utahn’s, blinded by their own emotion, taking the side of the police officer even if logic and ethics clearly show who was in the wrong. Law enforcers shouldn’t be a protected class. Justice applies to everyone, badge or not.

    On the other hand I don’t take the side of people who are constantly looking for any excuse to accuse officers of injustice. I believe a lot of foul play has been done towards law enforcement in the name of civil liberties. I am fully for civil liberties. I don’t want big brother invading my privacy or infringing on my rights. But legally attacking an officer because he happened to arrest/hurt/kill a minority (in the name of civil liberties) when he was justly doing his job is not justice either.

    We should be fair to everyone as individuals. I don’t care what the color of their skin is, what their gender is, or if they have a badge or not. Justice is blind.

  6. jim
    March 12, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    Kelly W,
    Am I assuming to much that there is such a term as “Righteous dominion” in the LDS view of things? as an opposite to “unrighteous dominion”? Looking up the topic, the term “man of power’ is used, and a description given in D&C 121:41–42. I suppose a law officer could operate with those principles, but it would be in a different sense than what it sounds like on the surface.

  7. Harley Pebley
    March 12, 2010 at 8:54 am #

    Yes, there are some who abuse their positions of authority. I’ve personally seen a couple who seemed to be pushing the limits. The internet is full of videos and reports of it happening.

    However, I don’t think it’s anything like 98.9% as another poster posited. I think most are trying to do a good job.

    The question raised in my mind is “how do we as a society address the issue?” Personally, I think the best way is for the good guys to self-police their ranks and cull out the bad apples. This can be done through example, mentoring, peer pressure, more aggressive screening prior to hiring and faster removal before egregious offenses occur.

  8. Clumpy
    March 14, 2010 at 2:29 am #

    I’ve gotta agree with Harley – I think most cops are probably trying to do the right thing. The problem lies in creating an authoritarian mindset where we reward abusive or illegal behavior. If people demanded their rights more often, we wouldn’t equate suspicious or unusual behavior with criminal activity and there would be little reason to fear the police.

    We really need to get on the ball with policing the bad apples, though. Police who shoot somebody for no good reason or knowingly go outside the law are not acting as police and should suffer the same penalties as private citizens. Merely putting their job on the line is not enough.

  9. Danika
    March 16, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    Thanks for this piece. My husband is a sergeant and I’d love to weigh in on this. Most of the people he works with are wonderful people. Many are fully aware of the wavering of constitutional law and discuss it often. Most are doing their job and trying to protect themselves on the street. My husband has seen several friends die on the job, one blatantly run over from a dealer when he was ratted out, but it was by an illegal who was just sent home with no other punishment. He was back here in a week.
    I hear many complaints about uppity cops and the good ol’ boys system but honestly, at least in SLC, it’s not tolerated. The laws are the laws and they need to be followed by citizens and policemen. If there are laws that you want changed, you need to get into the legislature and city council meetings.
    There will always be complaints about things that are unconstitutional but if the law is set, the cops will follow it. Change the LAW! If you feel that police are out of bounds you need to do a ride along someday. If your life is constantly threatened you have to be able to very quickly protect yourself. If you feel that you are in danger or the people around you are in danger, you have to think quickly. Yes, a 5’6” woman can do serious damage, especially if she has a weapon. But, people are always crying for the poor little girl.
    The department has such a hard time getting recruits because people are happy to complain about those awful cops but no way would they risk their life every day.

  10. Cherise
    March 16, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    Danika….Please STFU! Thanks! Your input was of no value!! It’s people like you that don’t help the situation….oh your husband is a sergeant.??? .Kudos for him! But we don’t care about the so called wonderful people he works with! WHO GIVES A FLIP?

    I sure cant stand close minded people and you are certainly one of them!! Nowhere did I state there was a weapon involved so there you go with your PRO POLICE attitude and prejudgments…You are funny!

    i just hope nothing ever happens to your ignorant arse..but then again your HUSBAND is one of them so u may not have to deal with what so many AMERICANS have to face in the real world…. NEXT TIME DONT SPEAK ON ME UNTIL U READ FACTS LADY!

    CHERISE

  11. Jim Davis
    March 16, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    CAT FIGHT!!!

    (me grabs the popcorn)

  12. Cherise
    March 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    LOL @ JIM….

    No fight…I just don’t need anybody, particularly Danika, speaking about me when she doesn’t know anything other than that her husband is a sergeant..lol…She’s callin me a ‘poor little girl’, I’m a grown woman….She needs to come correct when referring to me..That’s it..& Thats ALL! If she has a problem with that, I’m here!

    Waiting on her response! (I got popcorn too) ;-)

    Cherise

  13. Kelly W.
    March 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    Danika, I understand your point, but I’d like to make another point of my own.

    For my example, I’d like to use the Kevin Garn story that has been in the news lately about the Utah politician that had to resign because he hot-tubbed naked with a 15 year old girl. Garn was supposedly a fine, upstanding politician. He was a bishop and a Republican! In the minds of 75% of Utahns, and in the eyes of his wife and kids, Garn was one of the types of politicians that were above the sleaze and lies and corruption of 98.7% of all the other politicians who agreed with what he’d done by giving him a standing ovation when he confessed (implying that each one of the ones standing in the ovation had skeletons in their own closets!). But, as we know, once a politician aquires some authority as he supposes, he WILL usually exercise unrighteous dominion. As we now know, Kevin Garn was one of the corrupt ones, much to the surprise of his spouse and kids and the public.

    So, I submit again, that 98.7% of cops are in the same position as the corrupt politicians. Everyone supposes them to be one of the few who are NOT corrupt, but I submit that almost all men, once they get a little authority, as they suppose, will end up exercising unrighteous dominion.

  14. Connor
    March 17, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    Kelly, just to be clear, the Garn incident happened 15 years ago. Not sure if that changes your point, but I wanted to mention it for context so it doesn’t seem like he did it recently while a sitting legislator or something like that.

  15. Kelly W.
    March 17, 2010 at 10:02 pm #

    Thanks Connor, but I think the fact that it happened 15 years ago even strengthens my point. Cops can go many years before people finally realize they have been corrupt and putting on a hypocritical face to the public and to those who think they are holy.

  16. Kelly W.
    March 17, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    As a small sidelight to the Garn incident, last week’s Gospel Doctrine lesson covered Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Potiphar’s wife grabbed Joseph by his clothes and wanted him to go lie with her. But Joseph ran, leaving his clothes in her hands. I told my Sunday School class, as I taught them, that Garn should have run, leaving his swimming suit in her hand!

  17. Clumpy
    March 17, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    I think any automatic judgment will result in bad opinions and bad results. Automatically taking an officer’s side the way so many bulletheads do (especially when the victim committed no criminal offense) is absurd and essentially abetting tyranny, while condemning all policemen as a matter of course is absurd as well.

    I really do believe that we need to do as Danika suggests and give officers the benefit of a doubt when protecting themselves, though those who abuse their authority or hurt those they are supposed to protect are scum.

  18. Grace
    March 21, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    There are always going to be bad guys in any group, there are not social or cultural exceptions. From shunning to hanging to putting in prison or mental institituions, societies have had to deal with poisonous people.

    That being said, my experiences with police officers has been pretty much good, with each being proper in his behavior to me. Not totally, but by and large.

    The bad cops are the exception, not the norm.

  19. jb
    March 26, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    Cherise–

    STFU is hardly the response of someone/anyone trying to respond intellectually to a comment.

    That, your tone, and your grammar and spelling make it quite clear that you rarely listen to any reason beyond that which you speak to yourself in front of the mirror.

    I am very glad you are not in law enforcement–you would make the bad cops look good. And your follow-up excuse is about as lame as those of the bad cops caught on camera.

    Go grow up and learn how to dialogue like a human being.

  20. oldmama
    March 27, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    I’m not blaming the individual police who were involved for this:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700019290/Cache-County-teen-dies-after-Ogden-crash.html

    It doesn’t have to be anyone’s fault, but there is a mentality of over-enforcement and over-intervention that is part of the problem in our current society, and not just with law enforcement.

    These sorts of incidents are seen in schools and in professional situations, as well.

    Too many people are over-correcting situations.

    It used to be that a young person might need to get away for a while to think something over; young people (most people) need space–

    but it’s not allowed anymore.

    I’m sure the mother is questioning (poor woman!) her choice in calling the police.

    I know someone who knows this family personally, and this young man (and his family) were good people, responsible, kind people–

    and yet this tragedy.

    How many young people wouldn’t ‘run’ if a police car came after them with lights flashing?

    I am quite certain that the man who chased this young man had nothing but concern for the boy, but the result was tragic.

    Too much intervention in too many areas of our lives leads to this sort of thing:

    government, medicine, education, and yes, even in the church.

    A close friend of mine had a special needs teenage boy who rode all over town on his bicycle, doing no harm to anyone, and a local bishop had an LDS policeman follow him. It led to heartache. The boy was fine (and didn’t get into any legal trouble), but the harrassment led to his having to leave the area.

    Good intentions are sometimes more harmful than good.

  21. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 4:38 pm #

    JB,

    Clearly you didn’t understand the tone as to which I was trying to come off. Who said I was trying to intellectually respond when I’m telling a specific person not to speak on/about me??? So STFU was exactly what I said & meant, no intellect needed…so there is no need for you to intrude on that part of my statement unless you want to get involved too.

    “your tone, and your grammar and spelling make it quite clear that you rarely listen to any reason beyond that which you speak to yourself in front of the mirror.” —UMMMMMM I dont see how you made that correlation….but ok….You know what they say about assuming…I’ll just leave it there!!! ;-)

    “I am very glad you are not in law enforcement–you would make the bad cops look good. And your follow-up excuse is about as lame as those of the bad cops caught on camera.” —–WHY WOULD I BE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT?? NOW U SOUND DUMB!! Do you not know how to read?? You must have just wanted to have a convo with me huh?? haha

    “Go grow up and learn how to dialogue like a human being.”—-Wow….so being that you understood what I wrote CLEARLY means I was dialoguing like a human being..that’s what I always learned in school, not you???? PURE IDIOCY @ its best….do you hear yourself JB???

    I see you took alot of time to focus on my response to someone who was speaking about me rather than what I wrote initially. So before you attempt to talk about me…..read the facts FIRST!! You literally are not in any place to speak on someones intellect when you can’t read or lack reading comprehension. Reading 101 JB!!!

    CHERISE

  22. oldmama
    March 27, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    http://my.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20100326/04fd96f5-0643-471e-9a44-431fbfff2295

    I think things are getting out of control–

  23. jb
    March 27, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    Cherise–

    Thank you for making my case better than I did.

    jb

  24. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    Ok JB…Good way to make yourself not look any worse. It’s funny how you took the time to address me when I wasn’t even talking to you, but then when I’m addressing you directly, you say NOTHING. You proved my point. ;-) GREAT JOB!

  25. Chris
    March 27, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    So Cherise – you’re saying that 5 cops came up to you out of nowhere and started “battering” you? You haven’t provided any facts about anything. Frankly, if you are willing to pull “STFU” out right away on someone trying to have a civil discussion, who’s to say you didn’t provoke or assault the cops you are accusing? You seem to have a pretty volatile temper.

    I am fully against police brutality, and I’m not saying I don’t believe you – but when you respond the way you have so far, it doesn’t lend much credence to your accusations. Just something to consider.

  26. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    @ Chris…its easy to click on my name to go to the link if you wanted to read more about the incident instead of telling me what I haven’t provided you..I didn’t think I needed to come on this site and write a full page article regarding my own incident, so I simply stated the MAIN FACTS. But while you are saying I provided no facts, you are saying it is OK for someone else to reference me with the ‘no facts’ being provided??? hmmmm

    Yes, I’m willing to pull a STFU on anyone who feels the need to address me w/o knowing anything other than their own assumptions..Freedom of Speech…..there was nothing civil about her statement in regards to me….So why was I to be civil in my response? Please Explain!

    A Volatile temper??? Because I wrote STFU in response to someone speaking on me but yet I’m laughing at everything said to me?? umm OK! This is your description of one with a volatile temper?

    & where do I state 5 cops just came out of ‘nowhere’ & started ‘battering’ me?? hahahaha There we go with that ASSUMING thing again…;-) If you wanted facts, you’d simply ask for them instead of jumping to your OWN FORMULATED CONCLUSIONS…..

    But yet & still I didn’t come on here to get ANYONE to BELIEVE me & I find it quite funny you even thought that. I simply made a statement in regards to MYSELF and people want to speak on me. Too Funny! Thanks for the laughs….

  27. jb
    March 27, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Chris–

    If Cherise tells us we have to STFU . . . I guess we have to do so.

  28. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    Both of you guys are funny….I wouldn’t tell you to STFU unless you provoked me, and even then you still have the right to speak back….However, I hope you 2 are both enjoying your weekend as I am! ;-)

    Cherise

  29. jb
    March 27, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    Baby (as we say in Texas)

    You need a life. I daresay Chris and I are enjoying ourselves far more than are you–since we don’t have to post STFU’s at everyone and their brother (or sister).

    And for the record–why don’t you just STFU!

    :-) Just kidding. hehehe

    Be cool–enjoy your weekend.

  30. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 10:14 pm #

    @JB I actually do have a life…You 2 are the ones who took the time to write me…soooooo what does that tell yourself??? hmmmmm I put one STFU on here and you are so bent out of shape on it & it wasn’t even said to you…NOW THAT’S SOME FUNNY STUFF!

    I guarantee you can tell anyone on this post to STFU and I’m not going to act the way you 2 have…I only speak when spoken to..Another thing I learned as a kid… Smooches my friend!!

    Cherise

  31. jb
    March 27, 2010 at 10:33 pm #

    Darlin’ (As they say in Tennesses) . . .

    You are the actor–we have been the audience. And, we just didn’t like your acting. We, like everyone else here, responded to comments made. Yours were among those. So we responded, which is the very purpose of this forum–just as you responded to Danika. She did not discount what you have said happened to you, but she recounted he own life experience. That did not diminish what you said, but you launched at her anyway, and then the STFU’s started flying. From you.

    Not from anyone–just you.

    Perhaps, in your circle of life, telling someone to STFU is perfectly cool and all. But this sort of online impersonal trash talk is just that–trash talk–and it makes whatever point you might have hoped to have made, relatively unimportant.

    The fact is, I strongly oppose regular police procedures, and I know those who have endured what you have, even as I have family and friends (like Danika) who were or are policeman.

    But . . . you simply unloaded on Danika–and that was unjustified. I called you on it–and this is a comments site–so–it was not as if Chris, or I–were writing to you personally.

    And rather than back up and moderate your own self, you went on the offensive. So . . . we commented JUST as did you.

    But I don’t like not liking anyone, so . . .

    Smooches, my friend, as well.

    Enjoy your weekend. jb

  32. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    @JB Once again….Danika specifically spoke on me…. “Yes, a 5?6” woman can do serious damage, especially if she has a weapon. But, people are always crying for the poor little girl.”

    I didn’t say anything to be spoke on other than I’ve had my own harsh incident with the law. So with that being said, why would it be ok for her to comment about me in such a way as referring to me as ‘a poor little girl?’ So I was just supposed to agree with that negative statement targeted at me…hmmmm..Not so!

    The only reason I wrote the 2nd time was due to me being spoke on..other than that, Cherise wouldn’t have said another word. But if people want to speak on me indirectly, expect a response.

    And you keep mentioning the STFU thing when I said it ONLY one time…How many times did you count me saying it b/c you seem to be fixated on it? Please tell me!

    And lastly the only point I attempted in making was telling her to STFU when it comes to speaking about ME!! I don’t care what else you talk about on here as long as you aren’t talking about me….Do you not understand that part? I address those who address me….she just happened to do it indirectly w/o mentioning my name…as opposed to the 2 of you who actually made it personal b/c you said my name….and seemed to want me to respond ;-)

  33. jb
    March 27, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    Put it to bed.

    I am.

    I tried.

  34. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    ok…I had fun!!! U see it your way & I see it mine. Thanks Connor for allowing this!! ;-)

    Cherise

  35. jb
    March 27, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    ok

    We both chilled out

    Good–I hate bad feelings

    Sleep well, have a good tomorrow.

  36. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    @JB You do the same. I wasn’t trying to make enemies…just a good ‘ole’ debate…..kept me entertained….No bad feelings over here..I actually liked the points made..but I am still sticking to the acronym used though…hahahahha

    Good Nite!

  37. jb
    March 27, 2010 at 11:07 pm #

    Night, Baby (Told ya I was from Texas–we call all LADIES “Baby”)

    It’s the highest compliment here. :-)

  38. Cherise
    March 27, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    I used to be a Texan..(Bedford)..in my younger days….Thanks for the compliment!!! Appreciated!! ;-)

  39. Jim Davis
    March 30, 2010 at 12:00 am #

    Here’s another example of this absurd perception that law enforcers are not subject to justice: A 7 month pregnant woman from Seattle was tased 3 times for not signing a traffic violation. After a law suit, judges ruled in favor of the officers.

  40. oldmama
    March 30, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    that’s the one I posted.

  41. Jim Davis
    March 30, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Oh, sorry oldmama!

  42. Connor
    April 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Here’s an example from a couple of days ago, along with the video in question.

  43. oldmama
    April 6, 2010 at 8:17 am #

    Jim Davis, absolutely no reason to apologize; my posts are too long, so people may not see; it doesn’t hurt to have it repeated–
    and thanks, Connor, I saw that one, too–
    some of *us* on here are old enough that we lived quite a bit of life before personal computers, and it’s easy not to know the ‘manner of use’–

  44. oldmama
    April 6, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    it’s harder to know what to think about the 14 year old who was killed near El Paso, Texas. He did have a gun, but intelligent gun users can disarm even those with guns, especially if the person who is a threat is outnumbered; the jury is out on that one.
    Sad situation.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.