Thursday, September 16, 2010

Don't talk to cops, not even now

Don't talk to cops, not even now

What happens if your neighbors are found dead in their home, and LEOs want to interview everyone in the neighborhood? It's a scenario playing out in Albuquerque now.

If you refuse to speak to cops you will look guilty and suspicious. If you decide this is a good time to visit out-of-town relatives- same thing.

It is a really bad idea to speak to cops under any circumstances, but refusing to speak will throw up a red flag, and I'd bet refusing to speak without your lawyer present will put you on a list for future scrutiny and harassment. However, it is a possibility that is worth the risk.

Your immediate cooperation can't bring the dead back to life. It is doubtful it would even prevent a future attack, because preventing attacks is not the goal of the enforcers or their handlers. The proof is all around you. The best preventative solution, individual self defense, is "discouraged" by The Law, and practitioners are singled out for punishment more severe than many aggressors face.

Prevention is probably the best solution, but not everything can be prevented. Watch out for your neighbors (while minding your own business) and be aware of what is going on around you. And Don't Talk to Cops.

**In case you missed the link above, here it is again:

Child porn conviction exposes flaws in the system

Child porn conviction exposes flaws in the system

An Albuquerque man has been sentenced to 15 years in jail, and a lifetime of continual punishment, for having child porn. There is no indication he was the predator who was responsible for actually producing the images (if they actually depict real children rather than cartoon characters The Law interprets as "children"). Just that he had them and attempted to forward them.

Child pornography offends me deeply and is absolutely disgusting. However, this man was previously convicted on charges of an "attempt to commit criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact of a minor". Yet, there is no indication that he made such an attempt during his possession of the child porn. (If he did then the investigators who were watching him for the past year+ are guilty of allowing him to do harm on their watch.) The reality is that study after study, in countries around the globe, show that such images provide an outlet and make a person less likely to actually prey on innocent people (despite punishment industry claims to the contrary).

The fact that he wasn't already registered as a sex offender after his previous convictions shows, once again, that the system doesn't work.

Perhaps he really is a bad guy; I certainly wouldn't trust my children around him. Yet mere possession of anything can never be a real crime. The person who made the photos and videos of children is the real aggressor here. Not some guy way on down the line. Whether there are "consumers" for such will never impact whether the images are made or not, since I highly doubt that's even a major part of the motivation for making them.

It is your job as a parent to know where your kids are, and who is with them. "Laws" will never replace you and you can never shirk your responsibility and expect others to do it for you. This makes me think of the parents who let their kids spend the night with a certain plastic surgery-addicted, and openly odd, celebrity, and were then "shocked" that questionable things may have happened during the sleepovers.

For a deeper look at, and libertarian solutions to, this and many other issues, get my book "Problem? Solved!".

(Examiner has given their writers an opportunity to make more money for the next few weeks by writing more articles, so I'm going to be grasping for topics. Excuse me if quality suffers as I strive for quantity.)

Letting the fox design the henhouse

Letting the fox design the henhouse

To allow politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcement thugs (whether in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, or Washington DC) to control the ownership and features of guns makes as much sense as allowing mosquitoes to control the deployment and voltage of bug zappers. Or to allow flies to have control over possession, use, and design of fly swatters. Or to allow rats to control the formulation and use of rat poison. They will always attempt to make the potentially helpful things as useless against attackers, and as dangerous to the user, as possible.

Safety features like suppressors ("silencers") and barrel shrouds are misunderstood, feared, and hated, and therefore either regulated or misrepresented to an ignorant public. Of course those who hate guns (and by extension, gun owners) would prefer that we go deaf from shooting and burn ourselves on hot barrels. Accept it or not, they'd also prefer you shot yourself, despite their condescending lies to the contrary. Notice how gleefully they dance in the blood (while trying to look pensive and sincere) and position for a microphone as soon as any gun-related tragedy, whether an accident or an attack, occurs.

Guns are designed as tools to protect you from those who would do you harm. If you are a good person then those who would do you harm are the bad guys. It doesn't matter if they claim to have "authority" or are just freelance thugs. Of course they want to be protected from your righteous self-defense. That is why they advocate "laws" regulating or licensing your guns. They want to be able to harm you without facing the justifiable consequences of their actions. There are no exceptions to this fact.