Divemedic

Using Children

Sophie, an 11 year old girl, was abducted by her dad because of a “bitter custody dispute.” They were eventually found in Mexico, and police successfully reunited the girl with her mother and her mother’s new fiancé. The father is facing felony charges and will get up to 3 years in prison, if convicted.

But he told DailyMail.com, in an exclusive interview that took place the day before the warrant was issued, that the only way he will return to court and bring his daughter home is if he is allowed to put his case before a jury.

OK, well that’s his right. Don’t we all have a right to a jury trial? Not so fast.

Ex-wife Kelly Long opposed the jury trial in a motion and asked for Long to be summarily jailed for 18 months plus an extra year on one count of hiding Sophie and another for failing to hand her over.

Michael was ordered in July to pay $20,000 to cover the cost of reunification therapy for Sophie and her mother, as well as therapy for her two brothers, his sons.

That’s the story, but it’s also a lie. Watch this video to understand why the father wanted to hide his daughter from her mother:

Police dismissed the ‘patently false’ information about her. Egged on by mom’s attorney, they called it part of Trump’s quest for power, and part of the “QAnon” plot. They even got the dad’s gofund me shut down as being “fraud.”

Sophie claimed she was sexually abused by her mother’s fiancée Jacob Bellington and was diagnosed with a vaginal infection after being taken to the hospital last summer. That didn’t matter.

She was also interviewed by a specialist nurse with her father outside the room and repeated the claims to her. That didn’t matter.

The courts then took custody away from the father, and banned him from having visitation. So, realizing that his ex-wife and her new Swedish boyfriend were going to continue raping his daughter, did what anyone would do- he grabbed her and took off.

Of course, the ex-wife paints all of this as being a custody stunt, and the courts believed her. They have painted him as a “fraudster” who “coached his daughter to lie” about her mother and mother’s new fiancé.

This is how our courts work. Any man who has been through a divorce, especially one involving custody, can tell you how it works. If the woman wants “her kids,” the courts take her side. She gets the kids, she gets child support, the (now ex)-husband has to pay her legal tab. The assumption is that children belong with their mother. End of story. The only thing Dad is good for, is paying the bills.

It’s nothing more than a shakedown, aided and assisted by our courts. That’s why so many men are realizing the truth- marriage is largely a losing game, and the only winning move is to not play at all. The MSM, as well as women’s magazines are all in an uproar, trying to figure out why men don’t want to get married any more. They blame easy access to sex, and they are all wrong.

Marriage is on the decline. Men are deciding that it just isn’t worth it. Little girls are being raped, and the courts don’t care. This is because we are supporting mothers due to support feminism, are believing all women, or something.

So when people tell me how the courts are going to protect our rights, no matter which rights those are, I know that they are sadly deluded. Our courts, our police, our entire legal framework, is irretrievably broken. A society has as its first duty to protect those who can’t protect themselves. It’s also the duty of all civilized men, and the backbone of a civilization. Any country that fails to do so collapses in short order.

Well, our country doesn’t protect the helpless any longer. It hasn’t done so for decades.

Just ask Sophie Long. She will tell you the story about how a black man stuck his fingers in her vivi while her mother looked on, and the courts made it happen. I have to go take a break for awhile, before my rising blood pressure gives me a stroke.

By Divemedic, ago

Science for Sale

Johns Hopkins, which used to do good work, but is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Bloomberg, has come out in favor of microstamping.

They aren’t very bright. Microstamping is useless without firearm registration, so we know that is what is next, should they even get this technology (off site PDF alert) to be passed. However, the problems don’t stop there.
  • No manufacturer has ever manufactured a firearm with microstamping. Why? A reliable way of doing it hasn’t been invented yet.
  • All you need to thwart it is a nailfile applied to the end of the firing pin.
  • As a bonus, a murderer could just scatter brass casings that he picked up from the firing range around the crime scene
  • What if the gun used was stolen?
  • What if that gun has a replacement firing pin?

That doesn’t stop the medical people at Johns Hopkins from attempting to push for things in a field where they have no experience whatsoever. They just whore out their credentials to whomever is willing to pay.

The paper touts California’s law, passed in 2007, that requires new models of handgun sold to be equipped with this unicorn technology. They don’t mention that the law was found to be unconstitutional.

Then they attempt to make it into a racial issue by claiming this:

One analysis of major U.S. cities found that law enforcement makes an arrest in only
35% of firearm homicides and 21% of firearm assaults when the victim was Black or Hispanic/Latino compared to 53% and 37% respectively when the victim was white.

You know why that is? Because in white neighborhoods, “firearm homicides” are usually solved when the cops arrive to find the shooter still standing over the decedent’s body with the gun still in his hand. Many of them are also legal self defense shootings. Contrast that with black neighborhoods, where the majority of homicides where a firearm was the means employed involve disputes over gang territory, drug deals, or simple drive by shootings. When police arrive, no one claims to have seen a thing.

A large portion of these unsolved shootings are perpetrated by guns that were recently trafficked and diverted into the illegal market.

Criminals steal guns and then use them to commit crimes? I’m shocked. Hey, explain to me how microstamping will in any way help in solving a crime involving a stolen firearm.

For example, an analysis of five years of data from the ATF found that more than 40% (528,855) of crime guns recovered by police and traced were used in a crime within three years of their initial retail sale at a licensed dealer.

Again, misleading. Used in crime? What crime? Theft? What about the guns recovered by police and not traced? This is a carefully worded statement, intended to mislead the reader.

No, this is where the conclusion leads them:

Microstamping should deter gun dealers and owners from selling or transferring their gun to someone who might commit a crime because microstamping evidence should lead law enforcement to the person who initially purchased the gun from a retail seller.

Of course, no criminal will be smart enough to replace the firing pin.

Doctors at Johns Hopkins: What does Michael Bloomberg’s dick taste like?

By Divemedic, ago

Reasonable Suspicion

This post is about a video of a police interaction in Virginia, which is included below. Let me say that the cops really need to stop being total dumbasses, because I really don’t want this blog to become an anti-cop blog. It just seems like they can’t help themselves. They are just hiring tyrannical dumbasses to be cops.

Here is the basis of the video that follows:

Police received at least one call complaining about shots fired in a rural area. The vehicle involved was reported to be a red pickup truck.

A deputy sees a vehicle matching that description and initiates a traffic stop. By the deputy’s own admission, he is not aware if the shots were fired in the vicinity of houses or a road, meaning that he has no idea whether or not a crime has been committed. In other words, there is no reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver of the red truck has committed a crime, because you can’t even point to a crime that you would suspect him of, thus making the traffic stop illegal. Note that Virginia law is plain on this:

Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.

Here is what happened next:

Note that the deputy claims “You can’t shoot within so many feet of a home,” but by his own admission, he has no idea how far away any homes are from the location where the shooting was talking place.

I believe the cop is wrong about what the law says. For starters, the law in Virginia says that you can’t discharge a firearm on public land, AT a building, across or from a road, from a vehicle, or in a reckless manner. None of which has been alleged here. Watch this second, longer video of the traffic stop, and the second cop says that merely operating a vehicle on the roadways of Virginia constitutes reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop and demand to see the ID of the driver.

He says that “Evidence of a crime isn’t reasonable suspicion. You need to get a better lawyer.” The cop is clearly wrong. The law says:

A police officer may have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed if based on all of the facts and circumstances of the situation, a reasonable police officer would have the same suspicion. 

The cop is not being reasonable, which is the standard here. He can’t even articulate which law, if any, he believes is being broken. How can a police officer believe that this man is committing a crime, when he can’t even point to a crime that he reasonably believes is being committed? The statement that merely driving down the road constitutes reasonable suspicion is extremely incorrect.

He says that I don’t have to point to a crime to initiate a traffic stop. This fucking dumbass of a cop then proves beyond a doubt that he doesn’t know what he is talking about when he admits that this isn’t a Terry stop. A Terry stop gets its name from the Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio. In a Terry stop, if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. Since, under this cop’s own admission, this isn’t a Terry stop, then he has no reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.

So instead, the cops go to the man’s property and arrest the father on a trumped up charge to teach the property owner (the son in the red pickup) a lesson. The cops went to the man’s property and arrested the man’s father because, in the cop’s own words, “He ain’t gonna curse me out.” This is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the father.

NOTE: A look at Sussex county court records shows that the father, Robert Steven Huffman, has been charged with a violation of 18.2-416, abusive language to another, a 3rd degree misdemeanor. His next hearing is December 18.

The Supreme Court of Virginia has limited the sweep of § 18.2-416 to abusive language that has “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, [the language is] addressed.” Mercer v. Winston, 214 Va. 281, 199 S.E.2d 724, 726

So is the police officer alleging that the man saying “Leave, get the hell off of my property” is language that would tend to cause him to commit acts of violence? No, this officer is a tyrannical asshole.

Again, remember that no crime has been alleged to cause the police to even be on the property in the first place. It isn’t a crime to shoot guns on private property. The cop keeps saying “We have complaints in the area of shots fired, and this is an open investigation,” but as we have pointed out already, there is no investigation, because there has been no crime alleged. In my opinion, the cops made the arrest to lure the property owner (the son in the red pickup) to an ambush.

The man in the pickup arrives on his property, and the cop arrests him because he won’t provide ID to prove that he is the owner of the property. Refer back to the law, above. The man doesn’t have to show that he owns his own land, which would mean that he has to prove his innocence. That’s not how this works.

This is a bad cop. The second cop who stood there and told him to “just comply” is also a bad cop. Why? Because he saw this illegal behavior and did nothing. He is also a dumbass that doesn’t understand the laws that he is supposed to be enforcing.

I hope they get a good lawyer, and I hope that they sue the Sheriff’s department of Sussex County. I also would like to reiterate that qualified immunity needs to go away. In the meantime:

By Divemedic, ago

Road Rage

My wife was on the way to work this morning when a pickup travelling at a high rate of speed came up on her from behind. She says that she was going 5 over the speed limit, and he was on her bumper flashing his high beams and honking his horn at her. When he finally passed her, he cut in front of her and then slammed on his brakes in a brake check in an attempt to cause an accident. This is illegal in Florida and is considered to be an act of road rage.

He then took off at a high rate of speed, then did the same thing to one of my wife’s coworkers a mile or so up the road. EDITED TO ADD: I just had lunch with them. The friend said that he was in such a big hurry that he almost ran her off the road when he passed her. She saw him pull into a McDonald’s a mile or so down the road. END EDIT

I have the incident recorded on her dashcam and have both a video of the incident and his plate number. I want to report it, but my wife has pointed out that the cops won’t do anything. After all, she says, I had a guy impersonating a cop that tried to arrest me, causing me to draw on him, and the cops did nothing.

What do my readers think?

By Divemedic, ago

Misusing Involuntary Commitment

Every state has a law allowing individuals to be involuntarily committed in the event that they are in such a mental state that they are an imminent danger to themselves or others. In Florida, it’s called a Baker Act, and it allows a doctor or law enforcement officer to hold a person for up to 72 hours for the purposes of medical and psychological evaluation, if that professional reasonably believes that they are a threat to themselves or others.

My last day at work, I placed a woman under a Baker Act after she told me that she had ingested several handfuls of pills in an attempt to commit suicide. If you do this, your documentation had better be able to stand up in court. Because if you misuse this power, you will and should get your ass sued. It’s one of the reasons why I carry a million dollars worth of malpractice insurance, and why that policy includes coverage of my legal bills.

But what happens if you are a cop with qualified immunity? What if you decide to misuse this power by lying in order to place an ex-girlfriend on an involuntary hold, then use force to enforce it? That’s exactly what Pennsylvania State Trooper Ronald Davis did. One of her friends got it all on video:

As I was watching this, I was thinking to myself, “What if this was my sister, or a close friend? Would I stand by and allow this, while just filming? Or would I use force to protect her from this felony domestic battery?”
If I *did* intervene, would I go to jail? Would other cops automatically take this cop’s side, and either arrest or ventilate me? I think we know the answer to both of those questions. If you are a cop and are reading this- This is what you should be asking yourself:

This cop is obviously a bad cop. Would I arrest someone for intervening in this situation? What if that person was holding the cop at gunpoint? Would I shoot them for pointing a gun at a cop? Even if it was being done to stop the officer’s felonious battery of an innocent woman? If so, can you still call yourself a good cop?

Something needs to be done. For starters, I think that qualified immunity should be eliminated. Let cops get personally sued into oblivion for stuff like this. They can go out and get malpractice insurance, just like medical professionals do.

Second, I think that cops should have *every* use of force judged by a panel of at least 7 people, and that panel should consist of: A judge, two current or retired police officers, and 4 citizens who are not convicted felons. That panel would have the power to fine police officers or refer them to the Grand Jury and suspend their LEO certification pending completion of the Grand Jury’s deliberations. The judge is there to advise the others on the meaning of the law, and only gets a vote in the event of a tie.

What other things might work?

By Divemedic, ago

Douche

It turns out that country star Zach Bryan is an entitled douche. He gets arrested, and threatens the cop by saying he is a star, knows the Sheriff, then threatens to call the mayor and governor.

We get it- you’re rich and famous. That doesn’t make you better than the rest of us. Douche.

By Divemedic, ago

Not Hate

There are those who say that I “hate cops” because I disagree with their actions when they screw up. Well, here is a time when I think that the police were completely justified in their use of force:

I don’t care that she is a girl. I don’t care that she is, at 16 years of age, still legally a child. She entered into a fight with a police officer and attacked him in an attempt to disarm him and acquire possession of his weapon. The police must presume that, should she gain control of this weapon, it will be used against them.

For that reason, the officer was entirely within the bounds of being reasonable when he threw her to the ground. This is a clear case of self defense.

By Divemedic, ago