St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

For the past week the jury had been listening to arguments in a civil rights case that pitted Angela Zorich of south St. Louis County against the St. Louis County Police Department and four of its officers. In April 2014, the county’s tactical operations unit busted down Zorich’s door at the request of problem properties unit Officer Robert Rinck because their gas had been turned off. In the raid, an officer shot and killed the family’s 4-year-old pit bull, Kiya.

The full week of trial was necessary, she said, to get the parties to where they ended up Monday morning, when St. Louis County offered to settle the case for $750,000 just before closing arguments were to begin.

So have you made changes to policy to call off those dumbass SWAT raids?  Have you made changes to policy not to send cops out to harass people for not paying bills?  Have you thrown the participating cops in jail?

Over what, you ask?  Withholding evidence, animal cruelty, breaking and entering, assault with a deadly weapon, trespassing, damage to private property, and kidnapping.  But no, instead of the cops paying for this, the taxpayer is left with the tab.

Over unpaid utility bills.  Over unpaid utility bills.

Via reader Ned, FreeThoughtProject:

The Free Thought Project has reported on multiple instances in which entire groups of people were detained and forced to show ID or submit to a search. However, during these questionable situations, police were able to reasonably articulate suspicion that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed. Over the weekend, at a popular Michigan City bar, there was no crime and no one had been suspected of committing a crime.

Despite these facts, more than a dozen officers raided this peaceful establishment in which patrons were enjoying their Saturday night. Police officers with the Michigan City Police Department blocked all the exits and the rights violating process began.

After police trapped them inside, every person in the bar was forced to line up and submit their identification to one of the many police officers who had setup laptops. Only after they submitted to the background checks were the patrons allowed to leave.

In the state of Indiana, a person only has to show their identification to law enforcement only if they have been stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation. Obviously, every single person inside this bar was not suspected of a crime, which made this process unconstitutional.

However, as the video shows, police didn’t accuse anyone of committing an infraction and detained them anyway.

What’s more, according to our sources at the bar that night, not a single arrest was even made.

As the video shows, the police officers running everyone’s IDs, couldn’t have cared about due process. Indeed, when Manna Carter, the woman who took the video, asks one of the officers why they are doing this, his response was, “because we can.”

As Carter questions them, the police attempted to justify this raid by claiming to be a part of some excise enforcement operation for the Alcohol & Tobacco Commission. However, the state of Indiana has an its own department for this known as the Indiana State Excise Police (ISEP).

More over, this was not some attempt to catch underage drinkers or a bar selling unlicensed booze. This was a sweeping raid and subsequent mass detainment of dozens of innocent people who were all forced to submit their information to police — probable cause be damned.

Even more damning is the fact that in an interview with TFTP, Carter said that no police officers from the ISEP were there that night and all the officers involved were from MCPD.

TFTP also reached out to the ISEP and the MCPD to inquire about which statute gave them the authority to carry out such rights-stomping exercise, however our calls and emails have yet to be returned.

The Supreme Court rule on “Terry Stops” means nothing according to the police.  They are a law unto themselves.

Oh, and make note of the reply.  “Because we can.”  Not a single one of these officers cared about their oath to uphold the constitution.  They may not be judged on this in time, but they certainly will in eternity.

The giddy celebrations of the American left over the wonderful New Zealand law seem to have subsided, and you don’t hear much about it any more.

It was one of the defining moments as New Zealand grieved after a pair of deadly mosque attacks: a near-unanimous parliamentary vote in April to ban assault-style rifles and similar weapons.

The lawmakers’ move was immediately acclaimed by gun-control advocates worldwide as an example of decisive collective action in a nation unified in horror by the March 15 assaults in Christchurch that left 51 people dead.

Then the momentum began to slow.

Growing opposition from New Zealand’s pro-gun groups has complicated efforts to round up the now-banned firearms under a buyback program. Lawsuits are threatened.

Gun-control advocates argue that compensation rates may not be fair and warn of a possible spike in black-market sales.

The government, meanwhile, is faced with a sobering set of challenges over how to enforce the new law.

There is no national registry for many of the weapons targeted by the ban, including the AR-15 – a semiautomatic rifle that has been used in mass shootings in the United States and is often at the center of American gun-control debates.

As a result, estimates of the numbers of newly banned weapons vary widely. So far, about 700 firearms have been voluntarily surrendered.

Authorities are “operating a little bit in the dark,” said Joe Green, gun-safety specialist and former arms control manager for the New Zealand Police.

[ … ]

Stuart Nash, the minister for police, announced last week that nearly 200 collection events would take place over the next three months in community hubs, including in some of the country’s largest sports stadiums.

“We urge people to stay calm,” Mike Clement, New Zealand Police’s deputy commissioner of national operations, told The Washington Post.

“We acknowledge that you’re a law-abiding citizen and through no fault of your own you now find yourself in possession of firearms that are now illegal,” he said, but he noted that once the amnesty period expires, there is no excuse for holding on to weapons.

[ … ]

But Yasbek pointed out that some of the banned weapons, including AR-15 rifles, fall into Category “A” in the New Zealand licensing system, which means they were not required to be registered in police databases and as such will be impossible to trace.

“These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence,” she said. “These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”

That’ll do it.  Call them “criminals.”  That’ll make them turn in the guns.  I’m sure their feelings will be hurt by the indictment.

On the other hand, if you declare them all criminals, what have they got left to lose?  Why not convert them all to fully automatic?  If they’re going to traffic in the black market now, what’s to stop them from acquiring more powerful weaponry?

That may be a less than fortuitous turn of events for the New Zealand police, yes?  Too bad.  Should have thought about that beforehand.

Via 357 Magnum, this report from New York.

A former NYPD narcotics detective snared in a corruption scandal testified it was common practice to fabricate drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas.

Nah.  No record, no night in jail, no inability to get jobs, nothing.  Nothing is going to happen to them anyway.  Nothing.

This is what happens when you take corrupt men and put them in charge of prosecuting an unnecessary and immoral war on the American people.

Quotas.  Hardening of the heart to the plight of the victims.  Lying.  Cheating.  Falsification of documents.  Violation of your oath.  Harming other men for the sake of your own advancement.

David Codrea:

… a Facebook colleague has alerted us to a source that just doesn’t get it: The White House.

Per its explanation of the Constitution:

“The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”

[ … ]

I just got done creating a White House petition.

“Recognize that the government does not ‘give citizens the right to bear arms,’’ it asks, further explaining and requesting:

“The White House website section on the Constitution instructs ‘The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.’ This is exactly wrong and contradicts the very nature of unalienable rights, the clear intent of the Founders and the understanding of the right as articulated by the Supreme Court.

“Privileges are granted. Rights are inherent to the condition of being human. The Second Amendment didn’t create a right to keep and bear arms — it acknowledged a right that was already assumed and accepted at the time of ratification. Nobody in government gave us that right, so it’s not theirs to take away.

“Please correct your website description and make an announcement about the change.”

I signed.  You should too.  It’s simple and quick.  This is 3-second activism.

I would add that the notion of unalienable rights is based on the condition of being human only insofar as you accept the notion of man as made in the image of a Holy God.  It’s beyond the scope of this little post to engage in a debate over the concept of Lockean “natural” rights versus a Christian world and life view.

I disagree with Locke, I am a Calvinist.  Nature is impersonal, powerless, and confers nothing at all on any man or animal.  In fact, according to a naturalistic world view, man is an animal.  Animals kills each other all the time without regard for moral righteousness.

The subject here is moral righteousness.  What is right, just, absolute, an unalienable.  That can only come from God and His immutable law-word, not nature.

There are a lot of pregnant quotes in this video worth parsing: “I would love to know who called” … “You can find that out sir, you know you can find that out” … “We don’t want to be put in this position” … “Some way to avoid more headaches …”

American Suppressor Association:

Last week, Rep. Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) introduced H.R. 3404, the Empowering Law Enforcement for Safer Firearm Transfers Act. Her bill, the text of which was published today, would give Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO) 90 days to assert uninhibited veto power over NFA applications. The American Suppressor Association is opposed to this unconstitutional attempt to create a local veto provision in the NFA process.

As drafted, local law enforcement would have absolute discretion to deny any applicant the right to acquire NFA items. The bill, which has intentionally vague standards, would unlawfully extend judicial powers to local law enforcement, allowing them to summarily deny the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime.

Prior to the enactment of ATF 41F in July 2016, individual applicants were required to obtain a CLEO signature before submitting their Form 4. In many jurisdictions this amounted to a de facto ban on NFA ownership, as CLEOs could refuse to sign the application for any reason. Recognizing the overstep, the Obama administration eliminated the CLEO signoff requirement through regulatory reform by enacting ATF 41F.

Rep. Wexton’s bill is an unconstitutional step in the wrong direction that would do nothing to prevent violent crime. Under current law, requirements for comprehensive background checks are already in place. Every applicant on every NFA application must pass a check by the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before they are able to take possession of the NFA item.

The goal here isn’t safety, it’s control. As we’ve said before, the American Suppressor Association is unequivocally opposed to any attempt to ban or further regulate suppressors. We are unwavering in our support of the Second Amendment, as well as the individual right to possess suppressors.

I’m uncomfortable arguing that since everyone who purchases an NFA item already has to go through an NCIS there is no need for anything else.  The point is that there is no need for the NICS, and its very existence is an unconstitutional infringement.

Take note that this is a further empowerment of CLEOs, as if anyone thought the progressives would ever do anything else.  While this may go nowhere this term, it’s an indication of what’s coming when the progressives take back control of the House, Senate and W.H.

Tactical Life.

Steyr Arms recently announced a new training program exclusively for law enforcement at the Steyr Academy at the CMP Range in Talladega, Alabama. Steyr will offer its long-range training course to designated marksmen for law enforcement agencies. Above all, it’s offering this premium training course absolutely free of charge.

The long-range course comprises two days of instruction, taught by Steyr’s Training Academy Director Eduardo Abril de Fontcuberta. A long-range shooting world champion, Fontcuberta brings more than 25 years experience. Further, he served as both a military and police sniper instructor and armorer. He is also considered one of the world’s leaders in extreme long-range shooting, according to Steyr Arms.  Now Fontcuberta dedicates his time to teaching a no-nonsense course. It takes place in a personal training environment that provides his students with the knowledge necessary to become a super-accurate, long-distance shooter in any condition, according to Steyr.

“At Steyr Arms, we are proud to support law enforcement,” said Scott O’Brien, president and CEO. “We are using our training academy to show our respect for police officers across the country who put their lives at risk every day to keep us safe. This is our way of saying thank you for everything you do.”

The term “designated marksman” is fairly unique to the U.S. Marine Corps.  The Army doesn’t employ that expression because it has no place in Army small unit doctrine.  They have snipers, but so does the USMC (“Scout Snipers”).  The training undertaken by DMs in the USMC includes most or all of the classroom and range training that the Scout Snipers go through, just short of the actual final Scout Sniper concealment, ingress, egress qualifications.  I know this because my son was a DM.  If police in America use the expression DM, they stole it from the military.

Exactly what Steyr thinks of the militarization of police in America they don’t say.  Exactly why police in the U.S. need such a thing as a DM Steyr doesn’t say.  Nor do they appear to question it, or question the history of use of such people in policing in America.  But if this is a raw attempt at a sales pitch to LEOs, it might be interesting to know what the Steyr management thinks of a future in which the only people who can legally take the course are LEOs, the same [and only] ones who can purchase Steyr products.

It won’t work.  There won’t be enough LEO money to go around after firearms are restricted.  Not even the companies left in business will be financially healthy.  Assuming, of course, all of that comes to pass.  And it might also be interesting to know what Steyr management thinks when the Fraternal Order of Police support such bans in America and Steyr goes bankrupt because there aren’t enough people to buy their products.  “The lion will eat me last” has never been a wise strategy.

Steyr may also want to ponder asking Mr. Eduardo Abril de Fontcuberta how he feels about training in America and the [current] freedom to do so given the gun control that exists in his home country of Spain.  It seems a bit hypocritical to travel to America to conduct training while living in a country that prohibits most people from even owning weapons.

I would expect Steyr to see pushback on this, but if they haven’t yet, they should.

Frank Gaffney:

Vice President Mike Pence will have today what could be a decisive meeting for tens of millions of Christians in Nigeria now facing the prospect of genocide and forced mass emigration.

Mr. Pence’s visitor is a man who should be on their side, his Nigerian counterpart Yemi Osinbajo. After all, he’s one of the very few Christians in a Nigerian government otherwise dominated by Islamist Fulani tribesmen.

Unfortunately, Mr. Osinbajo is instead part of the problem. He lies shamelessly – including this weekend in New York – about the anti-Christian persecution his government is at least tolerating and, at worst, enabling.  Osinbajo’s own tribe has sharply repudiated him for doing so.

If Vice President Pence makes clear that all the persecutors in Nigeria will be held accountable and face penalties, he may be able to prevent a catastrophe there on his and President Trump’s watch.

What penalties, Frank?  Name them.  I’m betting that you can’t name a penalty that isn’t associated with armed violence, or that (in the case of economic sanctions) isn’t associated with a country that stays in power by the threat of armed violence.

That means that any saving to be done is catalyzed by arms, large or small, you pick.  And what it means that anyone has to go to a president or vice president of the U.S. to demand this is that the Christians won’t go to war themselves to prevent being evicted from their own country.  Note well the irony – Christians won’t engage in collective self defense, but we’ll demand that the folks who are armed defend them.  With guns.  One is seen as unrighteous, the other righteous.

Christians around the world have bought into the notion of Jesus as a Bohemian, peacenik, pacifist, hippie flower child.  But no one is coming to save you.  America is bankrupt, and cannot afford another war and occupation.

Christians, arm up and prepare to do battle.  It’s the righteous thing to do.

[From the video] It sounds like something a .gov would say, regardless of manifestation.

The owner of one of New Zealand’s largest ammunition companies has warned of a violent revolution if gun owners feel shortchanged by the Government’s gun buyback scheme.

Paul Clark’s company, New Zealand Ammunition, supplies both the Police and the Defence Force. He told RNZ‘s Checkpoint that many gun owners were planning to intentionally skirt the law by hiding their banned weapons.

He was “absolutely sure” that gun owners or organisations would appeal to the courts over the proposed prices of the gun buyback, and he was currently considering taking an action himself.

He said that if gun owners could not access the courts “the only alternative is revolution”.

When asked by host Lisa Owen what he meant by “revolution”, Clark said “Literally, what I just said. What have you got to lose? What other alternatives have you got in life?”

When Owen asked if he was talking about “a physical, violent, uprising,” Clark said it was likely.

“Yes, it could happen,” he said. “People are aggrieved. You’ve been screwed by a government for a crime you didn’t commit. How do you think that makes you feel?”

He said he knew of gun owners who were being radicalised as a result of the gun buyback.

“There’s a lot of pissed off people. It wouldn’t take a lot to set some people off. There’s some pretty heavy, strong, hard feelings out there.”

However, he said he would not go to police with the information he had, because “I didn’t create the problem, someone else did”.

He estimated that he would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of the gun ban, including orders that he has had to cancel.

On Thursday, Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Police Minister Stuart Nash announced the budget of the gun buyback scheme had been increased to $208 million.

A police price list showed that guns in new or near new condition would get 95 per cent of its base price, guns in used condition would receive 70 per cent of value, and guns in poor condition would see 25 per cent.

“Injury prevention program.”  It all sound so innocuous, yes?  But revolution.  What?

Over money?  A few dollars worth of firearms?  So what is it, my friends and readers in New Zealand?  Is it turn in your weapons, hide them, wait for fair payment, or revolt?

“Injury prevention program.”  Remember those words.  You might hear them again by another slick politician.