When Should it Be OK for Authorities to Seize Your Property

Law enforcement officials in Oklahoma are distraught about a bill to reform civil asset forfeiture.

I’m sure nobody is going to like it when they get their house, car, money, or other things seized by the authorities because they think, or are investigating, you because they think that you are doing something illegal.  To me this seems to be “guilty until proven innocent”.  I have always been under the assumption that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Now, interestingly enough the U.N. has it in their Universal Declaration of Human Rights under article 11:  “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”  But the Constitution of the United States “does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. [Wikipedia]

Now the 5th Amendment is the one that deals with the Grand Juries, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, and Takings.  This is where we get the “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  So right here we have the Constitution telling us that we cannot take a persons property with out first the due process.  I really don’t care if you are suspected of engaging in illegal affairs, or flat out know to be.  If you are not convicted of a crime, then the government should not be able to take your possessions.  Now remember we are just talking about the government seizing and KEEPING your property.  It is still certainly OK for them to issue a warrant for it if there is probably cause.  And then if you are found innocent you get it back.

Now Wikipedia was also citing the 6th Amendment, but I really don’t see what they are talking about.  This one is just the right to a speedy trial (yea, right), right to witnesses and counsel.  So we will skip this one.

With the 14th Amendment we are now extending the rights of the 5th to naturalized citizens of the United States.  Now the Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” so we basically have the Constitution saying TWICE what the 5th Amendment said earlier.  Can’t get any more clear than that, can you?

The bill that was presented to the Oklahoma legislature was brought by State Sen. Kyle Loveless (R).  This is one of the few things that I would agree with a Republican on.  One of the things that the article says is that the state doesn’t have to have a definitive proof of a crime before seizing the assets.  Wait, what?  So because they think that that you might be involved in some sort of illegal activity, without proof of it, they can seize your property?  So I think I’ll stop unloading all those legally purchased televisions from the back of a U-Haul at 2am into my rightfully owned run down building on the docks.  Just Kidding btw.

A report from The Institute for Justice said that nearly $100 million from seizures from 2000 to 2014 was taken in.  And the authorities are saying that if they get less money from the seizures that they will have less to work with in order to catch the criminals.  Well, shit yea you will, but you’re taking the money it what appears to be an illegal fashion anyhow.  Cut down on some other excess spending, get your budget under control, and maybe you can make up the difference.

As a tax payer, and one who likes the idea of the police keeping the bad guys off the streets, I don’t mind them using my money for legit things.  But if you are using my money to illegally seize property, even if it is from criminals, that’s when I have an issue with it.  There is always that “fruit of the poisoned tree” thing that the cop shows are always talking about.  That is where if you illegally search property, or seize it, then any proof of guilt that was discovered because of the illegal activity can’t be used in court.

One thing that the article talks about and is part of the focus of the legislation is that when the assets are seized that either they are being sold, or money seized is being used prior to the conviction of the criminal.  But keep in mind that you cannot be labeled a criminal until after a conviction.  Up until then  you are just an innocent person accused of a crime.  Selling the property and then using the funds prior to a conviction is just flat out plain wrong!!  What if it turns out that the person is innocent?  What if it turns out that the person is acquitted, and wants their stuff back?  You have just opened yourself up to a whole bunch of lawsuits.

Believe me, I get that the police and the investigators need more money to do their job and that they are looking for anyway to get it.  But this way is not only wrong, but it is unconstitutional, and the Constitution says it in two places as we talked about above. I agree with Senator Loveless and if I was in his district I would vote for this, even if I am a Democrat.  Let’s take a good look at all the ways that the state, not only Oklahoma, but all all of them, are wasting money, rearrange the budget so we are spending on things that need to be funded, and not spending money on “bridges to nowhere”.  Even then I think the police are not going to have enough to do what they want, but hey, every little bit helps right?  And now we are doing it legally.

And let me just finish this Rant with a Big Big Thank You to all of you out there that have served as police officers, or have friends and family that are part of the police organizations.  You do a hard job, and one that I do not envy.  Keep up the good work!

Love to you all!

~Ryan

More Guns Does Not End Gun Violence…..It Incites It

Rick Perry: Allowing Guns in Movie Theaters Would Prevent Shootings

Are you f***ing kidding me?  Well, it is Rick Perry, so I doubt it.  Since when is the idea that more guns will prevent shootings?  The only way we are ever going to end gun violence is to get rid of the f***ing guns.  Just imagine the scene if we lived in Rick’s world.  Say we have a theater of 100 people all tucked in with their popcorn and sodas ready to watch the latest blockbuster on a Friday night.  Then a gunman comes in, pulls out his weapon to start shooting.  But then everyone in the theater also has a gun, and when  they see the gunman’s they pull theirs.  Now if you think that all the people that pulled their gun are going to just not shoot and the gunman is going to back away, your nuts yourself.  SOMEONE from the theater is going to shoot because they think their life is in danger.  And he would be partly right in my world.  Except in my world, for it to be self defense, the gunman would have to be the first to fire.  Which I guarantee in this situation he won’t be.

Now in his argument he says that the people that are armed should be well trained.  As far as I know there is no requirement that you have to pass a marksman’s test in order to get a gun.  All you have to do is pass a background check, and possibly a hold period.  Then if you want to go to a shooting range to get better that is your own decision.  I will say it again, and again, and again.  The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT give everyone the right to bear arms.  It gives a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.  And as far as I’m concerned that “well regulated militia” securing the “free State” is the National Guard of that state.  It is not ever Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants a gun.  When is this going to get through everyone’s thick heads?

“We need to enforce the laws that are on the books,” he said. “Somebody didn’t do their job in the standpoint of enforcing the laws that are on the books.”  So yes, maybe in this case the shooter shouldn’t have been able to purchase his gun.  But that doesn’t stop someone who is totally on the grid from going to buy a gun and doing the same thing.  Just take me for example.  I am 20 years old.  So legally in California I cannot buy a handgun.  UNLESS it is an antique. So I go to the local antique store, find myself a very nice, fully functional handgun.  Hopefully it comes with antique bullets.  Now I’m ready to go do some shooting, and it was all perfectly legal.  But did you know that it is also perfectly legal for me to go buy a rifle or a shotgun at the age of 18?  And federal law has no age restriction on the minimum age for the possession of a long gun or its ammunition.  So, in theory, I could go buy a long gun since I’m over the age of 18, and then hand it and the ammunition over to Nick, who isn’t 18, and it’s legal.  Of course stuffing a rifle down your pants is still a little more noticeable. But hey, it’s legal!

Now take a look at this article: Chris Christie Fires Back at Gun Right Activist in Iowa.  In the article it says that it is noted that he vetoed a ban on .50 caliber guns, the statewide ID system, and reducing magazine sizes from 15 to 10 bullets.  WFF??  Who the hell needs a .50cal and 15 bullets?  The military, that’s who, and nobody else.  He said that he is not going to make a decision on something like that in 15 minutes.  Well, for me, 15 minutes to make up your mind is about 14 and a half more than I would need to sign the bill.  The last line is “You want better gun laws, elect a Republican legislature, and these laws will be changed.”  If they are going to be changed like that then a Republican legislature is the LAST thing I want.

And here is the perfect example why: Florida Man Killed in Alleged Road Rage Shooting.  Now it’s going to take some time probably to put all the pieces together for what happened, but I’ll probably guarantee one thing: If having a gun would have been illegal then the man that got shot would probably still be alive.  It is just another senseless shooting.

I am sick and tired of people saying that gun ownership is a right.  Fuck you!! It is NOT!  Get out your magnifying glass, put on your thick as bottle glasses, and actually pay attention to what the Second Amendment is saying.  Well Regulated Militia equals National Guard.  I once did a post where I said what I would do if I was President.  I’m thinking of changing that what would I do if I was King.  The guys on the right are just way to out there.  The guys on the left have a hard time compromising with the guys on the right because each wants to stay in their little corner.  Let me take over as King.  I’ll get everything shaken up and put on a good course without all the bickering, and then maybe I’ll hand it back to the people as it should be.

But for the time being, more guns are definitely NOT the answer.  The only way to end gun violence to to make ALL guns illegal.  Let everyone go at each other with baseball bats and tire irons.  At least you can survive those.  And if you are not with me, I’ll exile you to Nome and tell you to start shoveling a path to Fairbanks.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

People Who Park Like Idiots & Use the Handicap When They’re Not Handicap

So the other day Nick and I were out bouncing around town and though we see people double parked all the time, and it gets really frustrating, that day took it to a whole new level.  I hope everyone does realize that double parking IS illegal.  I looked up “double parking fines in California” and the first link took me to the city of Sacramento where you can get a $35 fine for taking up two spots.  This kind of parking is not ONLY illegal, but it is just rude, and pretentious.  Who are you trying to impress by driving your very expensive car to the grocery store anyhow?  Around here at least most of the owners that do this have the expensive cars, or one that is brand new.  Fuck you people!!  If you are SO nervous that something is going to happen to your precious baby then maybe you should have left it in the garage like Ferris Bueler’s friend.

The other way that pisses me off when people park are those that use the blue handicap parking, and then AREN’T either freaking handicap, or forget to put up their parking permit when they ARE OK to park there.  Believe me when I say that I have, many times, called the police on people that park in the handicap spaces.  Nick thinks I’m on some sort of vendetta against these people because I’m constantly looking at the cars to look for the permit.  He has even mentioned a few times where he thinks that I don’t even realize I do it until I’ve found a culprit.

This is one of those times where those gay flames don’t just shine, but roar with fire and brimstone.  This is when the “bitch” side of Ryan gets to come out and play.  LOL!  The look on Nick’s face is priceless when I’m looking at him while watching a tow truck haul some unlucky car away.  Pay attention you fuck heads!  There are people like me out there watching.

I remember a day very well when this all started for me.  Nick and I were at the mall, well just walking up to it at least, when we saw a guy get a wheel chair out of the trunk of his car and bring it around to the passenger side and help his son (I presume) get into it.  I was 16 at the time, and the kid looked like he was a only a few years older than me.  I realize that places only have to have a certain amount of parking available for the blue spaces, so if ten handicap cars show up and there are only six spaces, four ARE going to have to park somewhere else.  But as we were walking past the handicap parking I noticed that a truck was parked there that had no handicap tags on the license place and no placard in the window.  Seeing that this kid was relatively close to my age, it pissed me off, so I called the police.

The police must not have been very busy that day because there was a cop there within about five minutes writing up the truck and saying thanks for calling it in.  I was happy that this truck was getting a ticket so Nick and I went on our way.  We were walking past the same entrance that we had come in and wanted to see if the car was still there, and get that satisfaction feeling again seeing it with a ticket.  I got to see a whole lot more because when we went outside there was a tow truck slipping in under the rear tires.  I told Nick “I’ve gotta see this”.  So it only took a couple of minutes before it was being lifted into the air and hauled away.

We were about to turn around and go back into the mall to finish our shopping when behind us came this VERY loud “What the fuck!”.  We could only assume that THIS was the trucks owner.  He should have come out about a half hour sooner and probably could have saved himself.  But as he was fuming at the scene Nick and I walked past, and just as we passed him I said loud enough for him to hear “next time don’t park in the handicap parking”.  And without looking back we sprinted into the mall.

So that is my little rant on parking.  If you want to double park, because I am very less likely to call the police on that one, go do it WAY FAR AWAY from the building where nobody is parking anyhow.  Then there will be next to zero chance of me getting too upset with you.  I’ll still think your an idiot, so that won’t change.  But if you are not handicap, mark my words that if I notice I WILL call the police.  And then it’s just a case of who gets there first.  You, or the tow truck.  I’m rooting for the tow truck.

Love to you all, and happy parking!

~Ryan

Would You Pull Over for the Police on a Dark Road?

Black College Student Charged with “Fleeing” Police After Driving to a Well Let Area to Pull Over

So according to this article in the Huffington Post, the police officer in question here saw a similar car to that of the students driving on the sidewalk on campus (by the way this is also a campus officer) and when he saw the students car he tried to pull it over.  So it’s dark out, the student is from Detroit, has heard stories about fake cops pulling people over, and when he saw the flashing lights he drove at a moderate speed to the parking lot of a Sam’s Club before stopping.  From when the cop put on his lights to the Sam’s Club is about a mile and a half.  Wouldn’t it be just logical, cop or not, that you’re going to go to a place like this for someone trying to stop you?

There is no way that if I was getting pulled over I am stopping in an area where I can’t see the cops car.  There are too many stories I’ve read myself about fake cops pulling people over and trying to give them tickets, or worse trying to rob them.  How about the “Criminal Minds” episode where the fake cop actually KILLS a couple!  That is not happening to me, damn it!

Now this student faces a felony charge with a 2-year jail sentence if he is convicted.  Logic and safety are going to cost this kid two years?  Are you freaking joking??  Now if the cop had turned on his lights and the student stomped on the pedal to get away, that would be fleeing for sure.  But how can you even consider it fleeing if you’re driving at the same speed or less and the cop is only trying to pull you over because your car looks similar?  If it is nighttime, the cops these days have to take that into consideration for how long it takes someone to finally pull over.

How about the cops own safety?  If the student would have stopped, the officer is then going to walk up to the car.  I don’t know about your area, but the officers around here typically wear a dark uniform.  Some driver may not see him and accidentally strike him. How many YouTube videos of cops dash cams show a pretty dang near close call?  If I was the cop pulling the kid over, I’Dfeel safer if he drove down a side street, or into a parking lot instead of stopping on the main road.

And I’m not even going to bring ethnicity into it.  Sure the student was black, and it was probably a white cop.  I’m as white as they can get, and I’m pulling into the parking lot as well.  Asian, Indian, Latino, what ever.  This is NOT about race.  This is just plainly about safety.  Cops are supposed to protect the public, and insure safety.  I think this goes along with that.

Now if the student had driven five miles or more, yea, now I would call that into question unless I’m out on some really dark lonely road out in the middle of nowhere, and even there you have an option.  This actually happened to Nick and I late last summer.  We were driving back to the city, at night, from Lake Elsinore and going to Dana Point and then up.  It was maybe 11 or close to midnight and I saw the flashing lights.  So instead of just pulling over, I quick called 911 and asked if there was a cop trying to pull me over on the 74.  After a few minutes they came back and said yes.  So I pulled over and the officer gave me a “fix it” ticket because one of my tail lights were out.  But I wasn’t pulling over until I knew for sure this guy was a cop.

I hope for the sake of the student that some lawyer or judge sides with caution and lets the kid go.  You are just making the world a more dangerous place if you dont.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

Honoring the Dead

OK, be forewarned that you may not agree with me on this rant.  But you know what?  This is my blog, and my opinions.  So here it goes.

I read THIS article today in the Huffington Post about the Charleston Post honoring the shooting victims of this past few days with a “moving” cover.  I am not against honoring those people who died senselessly.  But do you know what I think is fucked up?  How about honoring the 2,000 or more people who died of exposure due to homelessness last year? Where is there write up?  Where is there service?

And Charles Cotton of the NRA has the actual gall to say that it was the Pastor at that church’s fault for the deaths of the nine members because he says the victims “might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns.” WTF?  The person to blame for the deaths is the shooter, Dylann Roof.  He is the one, and the only, person to blame for the deaths.

You can tell me that it was an act of racial hatred.  You can tell me is was because he was flying the Confederate battle flag.  Those reasons didn’t kill the people.  Dylann standing up, pulling a gun, and firing the bullets is what killed the people.  Reasons don’t kill people.  Just like the saying “guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”  But you know what?  People kill people a whole lot easier if they have guns.  And this idiot from the NRA thinks that the best solution is to have a church full of armed people?  That could have led to a whole lot more than just nine deaths.

Think about it.  Dylann pulls his gun and starts shooting.  Then other people pull their guns and start shooting in self defense.  What if this had a been a crowed church?  These idiots start shooting in self defense, have poor aim, more innocents get caught in the cross fire.  How many people do you think would have died?  I’d say about every one too many.  Guns are not the answer.  Guns have never been the answer.

Just today there was THIS article about ANOTHER mass shooting in Detroit.  This one when someone opened fire at a party on a basketball court.  There were 400 people there.  There was one death, and a few injuries.  Now it doesn’t say what ethnicity the shooter or the victims were.  (Notice I say ethnicity.  We are all of the human RACE.  There is no such thing as racism.  It should be called ethnicitism or something like that)  And not to diminish the deaths of those at the church, but I bet if the detroit victims are caucasian, there won’t be much of an outcry.

And what about all these deaths of unarmed people at the hands of the police, who are supposed be “serving and protecting”.  I have a really simple solution to that problem, but I’m sure police associations wont like it.  It is this:  In order to make sure that the person is an ACTUAL threat, and not unarmed, or has a BB gun, or I’m waiting for some kid to get shot because he has a water pistol, make it ILLEGAL for the police officer to shot first.  Yes, I know that is putting the lives of the police in harms way.  But you know what?  They get paid to be in harms way.  How many lives would have been saved if that was the law.  Just think about your kid walking down the street with a paint ball gun and police officer drives by.  The police is going to pull over, pull his gun, yell at the kid to drop his weapon, and the kid is going to turn to face the police still holding the paint ball gun, and the police is going to shoot because “he thought is life was in danger”.  If fucking never was.

Then we are going to put it in the new about the senseless shooting of a boy with a paint ball gun.  We are going to have every media organization telling the story.  We will have the Presidential candidates denounce the shooting, and calling for reforms because of this boys senseless death.

Fuck the news.  Fuck the political candidates using the death of kids, and the victims of shooting like this for political gain.  You want to lose my vote, that’s the way to do it.

Senseless deaths.  Ha, what a joke.  All deaths, except those from natural causes, or an actual accident, are senseless.  How about we start honoring every last fucking shooting victim with sermons, and crowd funding, and Presidential visits.  According to THIS there were 2,815 homeless deaths from 1/1/2000 to 5/28/2007.  That’s an average of one a day.  Where was the honor for them?

Make it illegal to own a gun of any kind outside service in the military and watch the number of deaths go down.  I dare you to do it.  What is the point in owning a gun anyhow?  Humans did just fine for thousands of years before them.  And don’t tell me you NEED them for security.  A baseball bat and a good ax will do just fine.  And don’t tell me you need them for hunting for food.  The grocery stores do all that for you.  And if you really want to go hunting, become and expert at trapping, or go get a bow-and-arrow.

OK, I’ve had enough.  Rail me if you want to.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

[Originally Posted 6/21/15]

Unarmed Shootings – #48

Hector Morejon, Unarmed Teen Shot, Killed by Police, Cried For His Mother: ‘Mommy, Mommy. Please Come’

How many other of you out there are tired of reading stories about unarmed people being shot by the police?  I know I sure am!!  What the FUCK is going on with the police?  The line in the article that makes me the most furious is that the police officer who shot Hector “THOUGHT the 19-year-old was in possession of a firearm”.  How about confirming that he had one before opening fire?  Is that so difficult?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  I know police have tough jobs.  It’s not one that I would ever volunteer for.   And in situations, police only have moments before making a life and death decision.  But to me, it is not the police that should be shooting first.  A cop should only fire his weapon in self defense.  Not just because he THOUGHT the suspect had a gun, or THOUGHT the suspect was reaching for a weapon.

What if it turns out that the suspect was only going for his wallet and identification?  What if the gun turned out to be a kids cap gun?  Are you telling me that your going to shoot a 10-year-old because he was being rautious in public, has a cap gun down his pants, and pulls it out?  Continue to read the article and the very last line says that “a weapon was not recovered from the scene”.  So a kid was killed because the cop THOUGHT he had a weapon.

Even if a kid does pull what looks like a gun, wouldn’t it be prudent for the cops to make sure that the gun the suspect pulls is even dangerous?  That’s were I get to my point that the cops should not be the ones shooting first.  Yea, I know, that sounds dangerous and is putting the cops in harms way.  But that is the nature of the job.  By becoming a cop, you put yourself in harms way.  You are there to protect the public, yes.  But I think there is duty to protect suspects and those in custody.

I realize that the amount of police brutality is small when you compare the number of cops, to the number of responses, to the number of incidents.  But still the number of police brutality should be ZERO.  Yea, the cops may have to take a guy down hard, but it should only be hard enough to subdue him or her.  Kicking a suspect when he is already down, or taking that extra punch because the suspect made a cop run hard is INEXCUSABLE!!  And yes, the cop should be charged with assault.  If a cop responds to a domestic dispute and has to pull the subject off the victim, just because the cop hates domestic abusers doesn’t give him the right to throw that extra punch.  In my book, they are BOTH guilty of assault.

But getting back to the shootings.  Summer is coming.  There is going to be a lot of pool parties when the kids get out for summer break.  Are we going to shoot everybody that pulls a water pistol?  Are we going to shoot ever kid that pulls a gun that is running around the neighborhood playing “Cops & Robbers”?  And even if a gun is pulled in a threatening manner that IS real, and IS fully loaded, what if the suspect planned on laying it down?  By shooting him right off the bat, you are not giving the suspect a choice.  You are condemning him on the spot.

Self defense.  That is what the name of the game needs to be.  And if so, there would be a lot less of these tragedies.  Once thing I can hear coming is “so you would rather see a cop get shot, than for the cop to take the suspect down?”  And to those asking, I hope it doesn’t sound to cruel, but yes!  The police are wearing vests, have the tactical training, so have the advantage over the suspect.  And hopefully the suspect isn’t as good an aim as the police.  If the suspect fires first, then take them.  But to THINK a suspect has a gun without confirming, and to say later that you THOUGHT they were making a move for a weapon when they weren’t, there is no excuse for.

Police who shoot and wound a suspect with that reasoning should be tried for attempted murder.  And those that kill, with murder.  Every death like this makes me want to cry because there was no reason for it.  A few more seconds on the part of the police and this boy would probably have just been arrested for trespassing, but would still be alive.

A lot to think about.  But I will add that I salute, and am grateful to, the many police, sheriffs, and Rangers, that protect and serve the population.  You have a job where you make decisions in seconds, that I couldn’t fathom doing.  To the ones that do it well every day, I commend you.

Love to you all!

Over Reaching Security – #44

Major League Baseball stadiums to have mandatory metal detection security by 2015

I first saw this story yesterday as I was gearing up for the 2015 Major League Baseball Opening Day.  But then I got a little pissed off.  Nick and I love going to the baseball games.  Though we live in Santa Monica, our team the Anaheim Angels.  (Sorry to the team, but there is no way I will ever call it the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.  The two stadiums are 38 miles apart.  That would be like calling the A’s “The San Francisco A’s of Oakland”)

I get why people want added security.  9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombing, Oklahoma City.  But what makes me mad is that we are letting just a few people make us fear everyday things.  I’ve only flown about a half a dozen times, and I can partially agree with the security measures there.  But I don’t believe in taking off your belt, and shoes.  That is getting a bit intrusive.  And don’t let me go on about those full body scanners.  That is just way over the top.

We are letting just a few people dictate how we go about our daily lives.  And privacy is going right out the window.  Sure, I don’t want to be the one that is sitting next to the bomb when it goes off.  But I would rather go about my life, doing what I do, and if it is my time to go, then so be it.  What are we really protecting ourselves from?

Just how many terrorist attacks have there been on the U.S. with injuries since 1980? HERE.  I am not trying to downplay the loss of life that these events made happen.  But do you realize that there is more of a threat of school shooting than there is of a terrorist attack?  According to THIS LIST, did you know there were 144 school shootings since 2000?  I bet you didn’t know that.  In that time there were 195 deaths, and countless others that were injured.  But rather than focusing on where the most attacks are coming from the Government is focusing on the attacks that come so few and far between. 

I am saying that the mass casualty terrorist plots need to be investigated and stopped.  But at the same time the government is making it seem like the entire population is a criminal.  Not every Muslim is an extremist terrorist.  Yet we make them feel like it.  Not every black man is in a gang, yet me make them feel like it.  Bad things are going to happen.  There is no way to stop them 100%. The best that we can do is to take precautions that are not over reaching, or invading the privacy of the people.  And this new stadium security is a total invasion of privacy.  Nick and I go to a few dozen games a year at both Dodger Stadium and Anaheim Stadium, and I’m not looking forward to getting searched.

I don’t make to make it sound like small potatoes, but domestic terrorism I think is way out of proportion.  We should be focusing on why the kids are shooting up the schools. We should be working on stopping the gangland type wars.  And we should be ending the war on drugs.  Those are the REAL domestic terrorist acts the government should be focusing on.

Seven acts of “terrorism” vs 144 school shootings.  You do the math here.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

Should it Be a Crime to Just Plan Something – #42

I know that this is probably a tricky subject and all, but I find it hard to believe that one can get arrested and tossed in jail for just planning to do something.  This was an article that I read on Huffington Post.  First off, believe me when I say that I am totally against ISIS and any terrorist act.  But I’m also one who does not believe in punishing someone just because they “planned” to do something.  Am I going to be on some terrorist watch list now because in order to find the article I did a web search for “planning to join ISIS”?  I hope not, I was only doing research.  Plus, though I like the hot weather, the 100′s of miles of sand, bombs going off, and people getting killed around me just isnt my thing.  If I want that I’ll just go down to Compton.

My thing is, what if a person said that they were planning on doing something illegal, put all the plans together, and then never did it.  Why would that be illegal?  What if I put together a plan to rob Fort Knox?  What if I cased out a bank to see how it could be robbed, but never actually did the robbery?  I don’t think it should be illegal until the overt act has been committed.

Why do you think that prostitutes and hustlers don’t get arrested until the act of the solicitation has been completed?  It’s not illegal to stand around waiting for a date, but it is illegal only when the transaction has been completed.

I know that in this day in age that the government is just being over protective.  What kills me is that more people have died in the actions after 9/11 then actually died in the incident.  I believe in national security for sure, but I think that things were taken a little bit too far.

Here is another example: Is it illegal to plan to kill your spouse?  Nope.  But the attempt is.  Is planning to hire someone to kill someone illegal?  Nope.  But the actually hiring of that person is.  See where I’m going here?  Planning to do something is just that, planning.  It should only be the actual event that is illegal.

Here is a quote from the article: “I am a Mujahid. I am a sword against the oppressor and a shield for the oppressed. I will use the talents and skills given to me by Allah to establish and defend the Islamic States,”  

Now let’s alter the words just a bit and see what you think: I am a Confederate. I am a sword against the oppressor and a shield for the oppressed. I will use the talents and skills given to me by God to establish and defend the Confederate States of America.

Realizing that the Confederate States of America haven’t been around for a few hundred years, what would we think of someone who said that and then ran up the Stars and Bars on a flag pole in his front yard?  Are we not a country that believes in the rights of the people to their own religious freedom?  Now I do get that the article said that he was attempting to provide material support to ISIS and obstruct justice.  That is illegal, and he should go to jail for that.  But beyond that, I don’t think that the mere act of “planning” should be illegal.

Here is another good example that was in the news recently.  A guy from Canada was arrested in Florida after flying there to have sex with a 14yo boy, or so he thought.  First off, how DUMB can you be!  Second, apparently just the act of planning to have sex with the boy was not enough to get arrested.  But the overt act of actually going, across international borders no less, was what got him arrested.

Plan crap all you want!  Plan to build a nuclear bomb.  Plan to rob the Federal Reserve.  Plan to download as many pirated DVDs as you can.  Just don’t be dumb enough to go through with the actual event.  That is what should land you in jail.

Love to you all as always!  I can see the reactions coming on this one.

~Ryan

[Originally Posted 3/28/15]

Crime Shows & The News – #41

One of the reasons that I don’t typically watch the news on TV is because it is always so negative.  I have a hard time reading about in on CNN or Huffington Post for the same reason.  I just looked at the Huffington Post app and barely got down a quarter of the way down the list when I counted 20 negative stories.  Here is a list of just five I found:

1. Pilot Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash
2. Bombs Away! Saudies Attack Yemen
3. Tornadoes Hit Oklahoma and Arkansas, 1 Dead
4. Video Shows Cops Beating Unarmed Black Man in Michigan
5. Woman Sues Planet Fitness For Not Letting Her be Transphobic

Believe me when I say that the list in only partial, and there are a LOT more like that.  But something got me thinking this morning when I was in the shower.  Why are we fascinated with bad news?  And then a really strange answer came to my head.  Crime shows.

I’ll be the first to admit that I enjoy watching a few of the crime shows.  I recently got done watching the series Major Crimes, and before that it’s predecisor The Closer.  Now that I’m done with that show, I started watching Castle.  And I’ve seen a ton of episodes of Law & Order.  So to give just a short list of the crime shows:

1. Major Crimes
2. Law & Order (and all the spin offs)
3. NCIS (and all the spin offs)
4. Murder in the First
5. Bones
6. Criminal Minds
7. CSI (and all the spin offs)
8. Psych
9. Rozzoli & Isles
10. Leverage

Just look at that list and tell me that we are a society that obsessed with crime and bad news.  The bad part about this is that the news is able to take one very small incident and make it go nuclear.  Forgive me for what I am about to say next.  But before hand just let me say that I think these crimes are despicable and should be prosecuted.

We have a population of 308,745,538 according to this.  One story today is about a Florida woman who was charged in the death of her 3-year old stepson.  Forgive me, but what makes that national news besides feeling sorry for the boy?  How about the man who shot a toddler in front of his dad is being sentenced?  Again, what is so special to make this national news besides it was a kid that was the victim?  Or lastly the family that was named as suspects in a deadly brawl at a WalMart?  Ever been to a WalMart on Black Friday?

The point that I am trying to get at here is that society loves to sensationalize crimes. I really do feel sorry for all the victims.  No matter what they did, a victim of a crime did not deserve what they got and the suspect should be brought to justice in the court system with a fair trial and proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I believe that it is societies fascination with crime that makes the news want to sensationalize every last one.  Sensationalize the important ones, yes.  But not every last one.

What ones do I believe deserved to be national? Trayvon Martin; Tamir Rice; Bernard Madoff; Rodney King.  Because those are important cases that can maybe change police or law enforcement.  But we don’t need to nationalize the ones such as Jay Z’s paternity case (I could care less about his sex life, leave that to the tabloids); Phil Robertson’s rape fantasy (guy is just a crazy kook who got rich making a duck call.); or crimes that can be dealt with more on the local level.

Taking a look at the news, and really breaking it down, the ones that get the most nationalization are the ones that involve kids, or cops shooting either black or unarmed people.  Yes, we are about the kids.  And if you know me, so do I.  But I don’t need to know about every last teacher that has sex with a student.  It’s going to happen, and the percentage of teachers that have sex with students is so low what does it really matter on a national level.  Kids are going to get killed as well.  It’s a fact of life.  And if we are going to nationalize one that doesn’t have major implications, then we should nationalize them all.  But then how many kids get killed ever day?  Yes there are some that need to be like Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin.  But even though I feel sympathy and empathy for all the others, we can’t, and shouldn’t make it national.

How would the news look if the country wasn’t so into crime.  What if all the networks pulled all the crime shows.  What if we put more family oriented shows like The Fosters on?  What if we put more educational shows on?  What would that do to society?  We all like a good shoot-em-up action movie and video game, but what if we were to slowly back away?   What if families spent more time with each other out of the house?  Think about it.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

Sex Education Part 2 – #36b

A few days ago I posted a Rant  about what I thought about sex education, and low an behold, I find THIS article on Huffington Post that helps me spell it out clear as day!  Four middle school students in Wisconsin are being charged with first and second degree sex assault after they had a “sex party”.  And of course in this age of the internet and phones with cameras, one of them recorded it.

I love this quote from the article: Jezebel’s Anna Merlan suggests there must be a different punishment available to authorities:It does seem like there is, perhaps, a less draconian way to punish these kids? Given that for most middle school students, taking away his or her phone is more painful than being dragged over thousands of miles of red hot coals?

This isn’t a time to punish the kids like this.  This is a time to educate.  You’re going to scar the kids for life by inditing them with a crime, and then punish them in a court if they are found guilty.  This is one case where if I was called to jury duty I’d have to side with the kids right off the bat.

First off, they were all middle school age according to the article.  That would mean the four of them were between the ages of 12 and 15.  To me that is the time where most kids start thinking about sex and sexuality.  I know I did.  Now we don’t know if they were all boys, or all girls, or a mix.  But here are couple of  questions that I would have asked the kids to educate them about sex:

1) What gave you the idea to have a sex party?  Let me guess.  Hmmm?  The internet maybe?  Probably.  Go to any site related to sex porn and you’re going to find one or two videos with sex parties.  Tumblr, some Blogger, gayboystube.com, Helix Studios.  And those are the ones right off the top of my head for gay stuff.  Probably a ton more for straight.

2) What gave you the idea to record it?  Again probably any sexually oriented porn web site will do that.  Just take our friend Tumblr here.  How many sexually oriented selfies do you come across of boys you KNOW are not 18 or older?  Be honest.  A LOT.

When I was talking about this article to a co-worker today, who knows what I did for my previous job, asked me if it was true that back in the day it was older men that made the porn?  I kinda just looked at him weird thinking “what are you getting at”.  And then he hit the nail with the hammer.  Most of the young guy porn I see on the internet is made by the young guys themselves.  Snapping dick and ass selfies and sending them to others.  Or posting them to blogs, or showing up on chaturbate.com or omegle.com.  I guess you used to have to pay big bucks for it.  Now it’s free cause we’ve giving millions of horny teens access to the internet, and phones with cameras, and haven’t educated them on why that’s a bad idea.

It’s one of reasons, well, the biggest one at least, why I don’t post selfies of myself or Nick.  I really don’t want those kind of pics to come back to haunt me 15 or 20 years from now.  Sure, I’ve thought about sending in an application to Helix, or just getting some really good, professionally done erotic nudes like the ones I post.  But if I did that, then I wouldn’t mind so bad.  Sure it may still come back to haunt me, but at least it is legal, and I know the risks.

How can we possibly justify prosecuting these four kids for exploring their sexuality when everything on the internet says “go right ahead”, and they probably haven’t had a sex ed class yet?  With all of them probably a max of three years between them, how could it possibly be considered assault if all of them were willing?  How many of YOU would have been charged if you think back to your younger years?

Yes, it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Especially the recording part of it.  Who ever said us teens were bright?  Let’s not scar the kids for life.  Let’s teach them about it so they can make a better decision the next time.  Not everything kids do is criminal.  Most of the times it’s just dumb.

Love to you all!

~Ryan

[Originally Posted 2/3/15]