Connect with us

Guns

What Is The SHUSH Act? More On Silencer Laws

Published

on

What Is The SHUSH Act?

A friend of mine called this morning and while talking about shooting and a new silencer he was looking at, he asked “what is the SHUSH Act” and is it good for gun owners like us? Let’s talk silencer laws today.

I’ve written in the past about the Hearing Protection Act and the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) (see post here), more specifically how they affect ownership of suppressors in America.

This new push for the SHUSH Act calls to question the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 status and whether or not it, and not this new bill, will see the light of day.

The Hearing Protection Act as it’s currently being considered would remove the Tax Stamp fee associated with purchasing a silencer, and even promises to shorten the ‘shelf to hand’ time by eliminating much of the ATF red tape.

However, the HPA would still require a transfer to an FFL holder. See the proposed Hearing Protection Act here. Which is why the new, revised SHUSH Act is a huge improvement.

However, let’s hold off on the celebrations. There’s a good chance that the SHUSH Act was introduced to serve as a sort of stick to the HPA’s carrot. That is, given the choice of the two bills, progressives will fall all over themselves running to vote for the HPA in lieu of the SHUSH Act because, well, a good socialist needs some government control.

At the bottom of this post is a copy of the full SHUSH Act as introduced by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID).

Why The SHUSH Act Is Good

The SHUSH act, which stands for “Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing“, has two goals.

  1. To reduce hearing loss and damage as a result of firearm noise. Hearing loss treatments for first year sufferers is expected to reach $52 Billion by 2030.
  2. To place silencers in the same category as most other firearm accessories; out of the purview of federal regulation. Thereby increasing the likelihood that people will use gun suppressors.

    From the CDC’s “Too Loud For Too Long”

    Unlike the Hearing Protection Act, which was clearly a step forward for gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, the SHUSH Act seeks to bypass all of the red tape and bureaucracy by declassifying suppressors from the NFA.

    Introduced by U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Steve King (R-IA), the bill is getting some traction in both the House and Senate; see the progress of both versions here (follow the tabs): 115th Congress S.1505 and 115th Congress H.R.3139).

    However, let’s not rush to organize the celebrations because this is a new bill, introduced June 29, 2017, so there’s certainly going to be some heavy debate on this one.

    But what isn’t up for debate is how much silencers can help save money and, more importantly, the hearing of millions of Americans.

    Even the media has shown (somewhat) a willingness to look at the issue fairly and to keep an open mind. On an article about the Hearing Protection Act and silencers, The Washington Post wrote the following excerpt on June 19, 2017.

    “How much is the noise reduced? By up to 30 decibels, depending on the type of gun, ammunition and suppressor. Currently, gun control lobbies are claiming that if “silencers” are available, people will not be able to hear a mass shooting that is going on nearby. To test the claim, let’s consider last week’s attack on Republicans who were practicing baseball in Alexandria.”

    “The criminal used a SKS rifle, with 7.62mm ammunition. Without a suppressor, the sound of a shot from such a gun is 165 decibels. This is more than twice as loud as a jet take-off, if you are 25 meters from the jet. With a suppressor, the SKS would be about 140db. That’s equivalent to being on an active aircraft carrier deck.”

    Compare that to the bonehead tweet by loony leftist Kirsten Gillibrand, who I’m willing to bet NEVER in her nutty life shot or stood next to a firearm being shot with a silencer, yet in true liberal fashion she chimes in as an expert. If you want some cheap entertainment read the comments on her tweet! LOL

    Sen. Gillibrand the “expert” on Silencers, even though she’s never fired nor heard a silenced firearm fired. That’s just priceless.

    People dismiss the comparative loudness of a firearm because it isn’t perceived as loud as, say, that jet taking off. However, because the firearm explosion lasts just a split second, it’s damaging potential is misleading.

    The SHUSH Act Can Save Millions From Hearing Loss

    For an idea of just how important this silencer bill is, and how significant the cost is related to hearing loss, have a look at this.

    The Real Cost Of Hearing Loss - SHUSH Act

    Why We Need The SHUSH Act

     

    There are a lot of environmental noises, many self-induced, which contribute to hearing loss. We can’t prevent all risks. We all get it. However, making firearm silencers available for anyone and without restriction is just common sense, much like the way we have mufflers on our cars, lawn mowers, etc…

    In fact, the same guy who invented the car muffler also invented the firearm silencer; see my article titled “Suppressor Laws | And Do Silencers Work” for more on that.

    So when we’re talking about hearing loss we should realize that three things directly impact the potential for damaging a shooter’s ears. They are:

    1. The Sound Level (how many decibels),
    2. The Time (or length) of exposure to the noise, and finally,
    3. The Distance to the source of the noise. This is illustrated in the Venn diagram below.

    Venn Diagram Factors Affecting Hearing Loss

     

    Like I said, it’s not just firearms which can damage our hearing, but guns produce a significantly higher level of sound and because of that it makes sense to muffle it as much as possible.

    Let’s look at comparative sound levels so we have a point of reference. In Table 1 below, from KeepAndBearArms.com, the effective sound level of a gunshot blast is equal to that of a jet plane. Put that in to perspective.

    Comparing Environmental Sounds - Silencing Guns

     

    The ASHA writes that:

    “Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage hearing. Almost all firearms create noise that is over the 140-dB level. A small .22-caliber rifle can produce noise around 140 dB, while big-bore rifles and pistols can produce sound over 175 dB. “

    The louder the sound, the more damage it can cause to your hearing, and the quicker this damage will occur.

    How Does Hearing Loss Occur – And Why Do We Need Gun Silencers

    It’s not necessarily important to the topic, but having a more clear understanding of how hearing loss occurs may be helpful for some people to understand what we’re talking about when it comes to the need for silencers.

    How Hearing Loss Occurs Gun Silencers Help

    Gun Silencer Laws – Why The SHUSH Act Is Important

    Think about the information we’ve presented here and then consider the very damage that is being done to people’s hearing, even if they’re wearing ear protection.

    Besides, from a safety perspective don’t you want a group of armed people to be able to hear one another?

    Then there’s the little talked about aspect of this debate, wildlife.

    Have you stopped to consider what effect it has on surrounding wildlife every time someone in their vicinity fires a gun? For areas with heavy hunting or in the area of a firing range, it must be horrific for the animals.

    Finally, more and more sensible people who are also gun enthusiasts are turning to silencers because they know how important gun suppressors are to protecting their hearing. And they know how important the SHUSH Act is to them personally.

    Steve Aoki Turns Down The Sound With SilencerCo Hardware

    Steve Aoki Turns Down The Sound With SilencerCo Hardware

    Finally, I urge you to help the NRA and NAGR (National Association of Gun Rights) fight for our rights. Join the NRA today, right here, and see just how much you really get with your membership. You can also sign an NAGR petition supporting the SHUSH Act here.

    If you haven’t yet made a choice on your next silencer, or want to learn more about the process to get one right now under the current laws, then take a quick look at SilncerCo’s website and their free “SupressedED” information packet.

    Until the SHUSH Act becomes law we need to keep putting suppressors on all of our firearms. Are your guns sporting suppressors, are you considering it? I’d also like to know your thoughts about the SHUSH Act and silencer laws.

    Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act of 2017 by Senator Mike Lee on Scribd

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Guns

1 Ted Cruz Booed For RNC Speech

Published

on

By

Ted Cruz Bafoon Deluxe

Texas Vote This Bum Out!

It’s official. Ted Cruz Booed as he shows that he cares more about himself and his ego and his career than he does for the United Sates of America, and certainly more than he cares about the 2nd Amendment.

The outrageous and embarrassing Ted Cruz speech at the RNC tonight did more than get him and his wife Heidi Cruz booed (security had to escort her out of the convention), he mistakenly let his own ego and pride and wallet ruin his career and simultaneously he left the 2nd Amendment hanging in the wind like a jackass’s tail following his convention antics.

I was one of the earliest opponents of Donald Trump for President; it didn’t seem right because of the preconceived ideas I had of him. Now I know Trump better, and his ideals (especially about the 2nd Amendment) and I love his candidacy. He’s been endorsed by the NRA much earlier than any Republican candidate in a long, long time… that says something if you care about the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, I’ve always had Ted Cruz at the bottom of my list (anyone who knows me can verify it), because he just comes across as arrogant and flippant, both of which he confirmed tonight. He cocks those eyebrows “at will” to convey his innocence and sincerity… yet he’s totally shallow.

If you didn’t see the Ted Cruz Republican Convention speech I have it at the bottom of this post so you can check it out.

And Cruz has PROVEN that he’ll throw your right to defend yourself, the 2nd Amendment, out the window for the sake of his petty ego! If Hillary wins this election I don’t see how he can show his face in Texas, let alone hold another office there.

Gun Control Thanks Cruz

Washington Establishment Fears Donald Trump

Cruz made his name on the back of his “outsider” claims and “anti-establishment” banter. In truth, Cruz is a bought shill no different from any of the other big-name, established candidates, and it’s EXACTLY that, which Cruz proved himself tonight, that will get Trump elected and which will ensure that Cruz will NEVER hold the title of President in this country… maybe Canada?

Donald Trump is the only candidate we have who is truly non-establishment and who truly isn’t afraid to stand on principle and fight for our Constitution. People may not agree on everything with Trump, but name one politician who ever had that honor, ever.

But what people can do is believe what he says and trust him when he speaks. He has far more class than any of the staged politicians fronted by the wealthy elite who want Washington power and favor.

Did you know that within minutes of it becoming clear that Trump was going to win the nomination, that Ted Cruz’s financial donors (not the little guys, the one’s dropping MILLIONS), that they immediately began dumping millions in Hillary’s campaign? And we should be surprised at the Ted Cruz RNC speech?

Some political shopper and hedge fund schmo named James Simons dumped millions into Cruz’s campaign, and now all of a sudden is dumping millions into Clinton’s election? Anyone besides me see the real issue here? This guy is trying to buy power, or influence, or favors from whoever he can buy.

In the words of the Observer as to why donors buy candidates like Cruz:

Wealthy individuals contribute to campaigns because they know that, in order to keep large donations pouring in every year, candidates like Ms. Clinton and Mr. Cruz will return the favor. This cycle enables massive corporations and wealthy one-percenters to maximize their profits through tax evasion, outsourcing and government subsidies and tax breaks.

How does that make you feel about Cruz now? That his donors consider Hillary Clinton his “next best”, or “similar to” candidate?

The same with the Bush donors… they’re dropping MILLIONS to Hillary’s campaign because they fear that Trump won’t “play politics” with them and I can only assume that means they fear they’ll lose their favors and sweet government deals. Oh I hope they do.

What does this all mean?

It means these schmucks think they can keep buying this country and they’re pouting that their “guy” didn’t win and that Trump won’t “play ball” with them.

Screw Mitt Romney, the Bushes and any of the other power-elites who are whining about their loss of influence. Their refusal to show up at the RNC or to endorse Trump says it all and they’ve lost a ton of respect for their petty actions.

They would rather have Hillary as President, the person who left Americans to die, lied about issue after issue, risked national security via her careless email practices, supports the killing of law enforcement by radical anarchists, and on and on… they would rather see her win at the cost of the party values they allege to hold, rather than seeing someone win who is much more closely aligned to their party’s “stated” values?

Hmmm, I think even the simplest minded among us can see what’s going on, and just who is part of the “bought and paid for” D.C. crowd.

Party doesn’t matter, only that you play along. Guess what? I don’t think Trump will and that’s why even now billionaire power-mongers are cuddling up to ensure that Clinton wins… they don’t want to upset their control.

I didn’t expect to see Ted Cruz at convention parties, but I did expect his to show more respect and class for the conservative values and the millions and millions of Americans who are voting for Trump.

Cruz complains about his wife being attacked and uses it as his “reason” for not endorsing Trump, yet Trump and others are fairly certain that at the very least Cruz knew about and allowed Trump’s wife to be exploited and abused for political gain.

The Super PAC Make America Awesome published this little gem, which resulted in Trump’s attack on Cruz’s wife.

Melanie Trump Shamefully Exploited

If you follow this site then you know I’m a registered democrat. I’m a moderate. I vote for America every time, not party lines. I love the old democratic platform and still believe in it, but the progressives and corrupt Washington elites are killing this country and robbing our youth of any tomorrow. They’re willing to start dismantling our Bill of Rights, too.

And no right I have, no passion I have, is more dear to me than my 2nd Amendment right. No party, no candidate, no amount of “coolness” is able to sway me to participate in destroying this country, period.

If you love America then get out and vote for it. Vote for Trump and for a fresh start, and not a Clinton “restart”.

You can read the article about Cruz’s donors at the link below, but first, please leave a comment and let me know how you feel with Ted Cruz booed by the RNC convention crowd after he revealed his true colors via his speech and failure to keep his signed pledge and word to voters and party officials and candidates.

Wealthy Cruz and Bush Donors Dump Millions Into Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

 

Continue Reading

Guns

99 Concealed Carry At Work | Corporate Culpability

Published

on

By

Concealed Carry At Work - Woman With PistolFor most people concealed carry at work isn’t an option unless they want to risk being fired thanks to corporate cowardice, and thanks to the too silent majority in America who let the fringe left run amok in this country.

If a business forbids employees from carrying firearms at work or visitors from carrying concealed on their property (despite them having a CCW), without then providing proper security and personal defense for those employees and visitors, is the company liable for injury or death that results from someone not being able to defend themselves?

In a sense, what these policies are saying is that you don’t have a right to protect yourself on their premises and the business won’t do it, either. So ultimately these “we are defenseless” laws are creating a sort of smorgasbord of helpless victims for any would be criminal.

Unfortunately, many of these victims are women who find themselves helpless to violent men. Which is why many people support the bring your gun to work laws.

According to the AFLCIO, 12.7% of ALL female violent crimes occurred at the workplace. Over 30% of women who are killed at work die as a result of a violent crime. In fact, Homicide is the second leading cause of death for women at work, behind only traffic accidents.

Think that this is mere hyperbole? Think again.

Could Concealed Carry At Work Save Lives?

Danny Fabro Deranged Murderer

#JAT Danny Fabro Photo: Columbus Police

In February 17, 2017, a helpless victim named Joyce D. Fox (50) was stalked and killed as she sat in her car, at work in the Far West Side UPS Distribution Center parking lot.

Danny R. Fabro, 54, who was her estranged ex-boyfriend, approached Fox’s parked car and shot her in the head. The maniac fled the scene in his pickup, and following a police pursuit ultimately attempted to commit suicide, unfortunately failing.

Charles Pepper, Joyce’s father, had urged her just a couple of weeks prior to buy a handgun because he feared her ex-boyfriend would hurt her. Fabro had beaten her a month prior to the point that she needed hospitalization.

It’s possible that had Joyce been lawfully armed this incident would’ve resulted in a minor obituary which mentioned in passing the death of JAT (or Just Another Turd for our progressive readers).

Ohio’s gun laws didn’t prevent Fabro from unlawfully acquiring a handgun (so throw out the “need more laws” argument), nor did UPS’s flippant anti self-defense policy help save another helpless woman’s life.

Concealed Carry Policy For Employees

When it comes to concealed carry at work Florida laws are CCW friendly. The Florida Governor, Charlie Christ, signed the first Bring Your Gun To Work law in 2008.

Titled the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008”, signed into law on April 15, 2008, the law mandates that employers permit employees who are licensed to carry concealed weapons to keep firearms in their locked vehicles at work. The law applies to any employee, customer or “invitee” with a concealed weapon permit.

A few other states have followed suit, but not nearly enough. Now I hear a few progressives snorts out there, and that’s fine. But just like outlawing drugs didn’t solve the drug problem, outlawing guns won’t solve the gun violence problem.

According to the FBI, a full 60% of active shooter incidents ended before the police ever got there (the suspect committed suicide or fled the scene). So much for letting the government protect you.

In fact, as a long-time law enforcement officer I can say that it’s very rare that law enforcement prevents a violent crime at all, instead officers usually arrive after the crime occurred.

States With Bring Your Gun To Work Laws

States With Bring Your Gun To Work LawsWhen it comes to guns in the workplace state laws differ, a lot. According to ConcealedNation.org, the so-called “parking lot laws” are so confusing (because they vary so widely from state to state) that you’re better served diving into your specific state’s laws to determine exactly what it is that you’re permitted to do in your state.

Your local NRA office or state legislator can help you interpret your state’s law. Whether that be keep your firearm inside a locked vehicle or actually taking your firearm in to work (which isn’t likely). Some places like government buildings, schools, chemical and nuclear facilities, etc… have exceptions and exemptions to any right to carry law.

And quite a few states are offering immunity to those businesses who do allow concealed carry at work. That is, if a business allows its employees to carry at work, and then an employee commits a crime with that weapon at work, the business isn’t guilty of failing to provide a safe working environment as a result of its concealed carry policy for employees.

In my state, Kansas, for example, the state extends immunity from liability to 1) businesses which allow concealed handguns in the workplace and 2) those that don’t, except that an employer that prohibits weapons is only immune if it “provides adequate security measures.” Kan. Stat. Ann. §75-7c10(c)(1).

Specifically, if employers want to prevent firearms on their premises then they need to pony up the money to provide for the physical security of their employees, customers and visitors. No exception.

Among the states that do have some type of concealed carry at work laws include Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alaska, Arizona and Utah. There are others and I’ll update this list when I’ve conclusively identified the states and their laws. If you know of any please let me know in the comments.

Concealed Carry At Work – Conclusion

Concealed carry in the workplace is a much debated topic and one that we’re not going to see resolved anytime soon. However, for those who support the 2nd Amendment and it’s implications then you need to make yourself aware of and familiar with the laws in your state. And also with your employer’s policies regarding firearms at work.

If your state allows you may be able to work with your company and help them to draft a ‘weapons in the workplace policy’ that helps protect your rights as well as alleviates their requirement to protect their premises from violent crime. Working together is our best hope at crafting reasonable laws.

I’d be interested to hear about your state’s “concealed carry at work” laws and also what you think about this issue, and any experiences you’ve had regarding it. Even if you disagree, let us know why and perhaps you can offer some intelligent information to the discussion.

 

Continue Reading

Guns

Officer Involved Shooting | Officer Shoots Air Force Airman

Published

on

By

Michael Davidson  |  Source: OANow.com

 

Officer Involved Shooting On Video

On a crisp evening on March 6, 2014, driving along Alabama’s I-85, active duty Air Force Airman 1st Class Michael Davidson had no idea he was about to be the target of an officer involved shooting.

The young man was on his way to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North Carolina after having finished training at Sheppard Air Force Base (F-15 Avionics) in Wichita Falls, Texas.

The then 20-year-old Davidson was a 2012 graduate of Beckville High School in Texas.

While driving along I-85 and through the jurisdiction of the Opelika Police Department, Davidson’s SUV lightly sideswiped a tractor-trailer (semi) and so dutifully both drivers pulled over to report the accident. The semi driver, Samuel Thomas Sanders II, was a witness to what would unfold.

Prior to this accident the Opelika Police Department had received a phone call about a SUV driving erratically along I-85 (Airman Davidson was driving an SUV), and so the on-duty officer, Phillip Hancock, was in the area trying to observe the reported vehicle.

When the call came in of the SUV / tractor-trailer accident, the officer was practically right there already. The officer’s dash-cam shows that he was pulling up behind the two vehicles as they were both still pulling off of the roadway.

The officer in question, Phillip Hancock (pictured below), began working as a Police Officer in 2006 for the same department.

Airman Davidson, displaying amazing consideration for the officer’s safety, pulls way off to the edge of the shoulder so that the officer isn’t forced to stand in traffic as he works the accident. It was this consideration that ultimately led to the chain of events that would result in the officer involved shooting.

Officer Phillip Hancock | Source: FB Photos

Because Davidson pulled over to the edge of the shoulder, and onto the grassy area, his SUV was leaning to the right which meant that as he tried to open his door it would keep trying to shut on him; probably every one of us has had it happen to us while parking.

This is a traffic accident investigation, not a narcotics intervention or the tail end of a police pursuit. So keep that “setting” in mind when understanding the actions of both the victim and the officer.

Officer Involved Shooting Unfolds

Next, in the video you can see that the driver of the semi-truck (Mr. Sanders) is walking back to talk to the officer and SUV driver. After all, no one outside of Hancock, not even the semi driver, thought this was a “dangerous situation”.  When Sanders reaches the back of his truck and Davidson sees him, Davidson also begins to exit his SUV. You know, exchanging information, whatever, it’s a fender bender.

Airman Davidson is exiting the vehicle with his hands visible and extended towards the officer for visibility, and his wallet (again, being considerate) in his hand. When the weight of the angled door tries to shut back onto Davidson it sets off what Officer Hancock allegedly mistook to be a “life-threatening” door shutting event.

Specifically, the door was shutting back on him preventing his from getting out, so he put his hands to the door to push it open. This was the fatal incident that specifically led to the officer involved shooting.

Officer Hancock yells at Davidson to “Let me see your hands” twice before firing. Not ‘Stop or I’ll shoot’ or ‘Let me see your hands or I’ll shoot’. Davidson got no fair warning that he was about to be shot if he failed to comply.

Ironically (in a twisted way) as Officer Hancock approaches the scene of the accident you can hear that his radio is playing the song “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

Officer Hancock fired two rounds. One of those struck Airman Davidson in the lower stomach area severing an artery and severely damaging his colon. Davidson can be seen laying on the ground and bleeding profusely as officers walk around him and ponder his condition. The second bullet apparently struck the ground.

Thankfully Officer Hancock wasn’t a good shot.

Remember, Officer Hancock was BEHIND his vehicle when the officer involved shooting occurred, so he had metal cover for protection. He had his headlights AND spotlight on Airman Davidson, so even if Davidson had wanted to shoot the officer with his wallet he couldn’t 1) see him and 2) have much of an opportunity to hit him (small target behind cover) before being shot himself.

Opelika, Alabama

Too Many Officer Involved Shootings

I was a law enforcement officer for many years (including as a county Deputy working alone in a remote area, so I’ve had the fear factor) and later served as an elected County Sheriff, and if this scenario in which Officer Hancock shoots Mr. Davidson qualifies as a reasonable standard for law enforcement use of deadly force then yes, we have a problem.

If an officer is so afraid that he shoots someone simply because a door is shutting on them, then we have a problem. There simply has to be a better way of vetting law enforcement candidates so that we’re not getting the types of officers who can’t adequately analyze proper ‘shoot’, ‘don’t shoot’ situations.

There are too many officer involved shootings, and the poor judgement calls are making it bad for those officers who genuinely needed to use deadly force.

And that’s my point entirely, that officers shouldn’t have to be criticized for saving their own lives while on duty and citizens shouldn’t lose their lives negligently to those sworn to serve them. We must get better and get this right, for everyone’s sake.

As Sheriff I had a deputy under my command lawfully use lethal force on a suspect who died of those injuries; I understand the peril that law enforcement officers face every day and I know first hand the effect it has on officers who are forced to use deadly force.

It’s never easy and the ramifications are often lifelong for the officer, too.

Let’s not create ridiculous standards so officers are afraid to use force, but let’s not lower them to ridiculous levels either. Click To Tweet

Police Shooting Video – Split Second Witness

Officer Involved Shooting ProtocolsIf the situation preceding this officer involved shooting were a police chase, or something with violent activity or potential, then perhaps we’re having a different conversation based on what could loosely be called a resemblance of a weapon (the wallet).

But on an accident investigation the shooting is way beyond a reasonable response by an officer.

I’m not saying that the officer should be held  criminally liable… I doubt that Officer Hancock had criminal or ill-intent. He was just poorly prepared to be in that situation, either because of training (or lack thereof) or he was simply mentally incapable of responding correctly in that type of split second situation (again, due to lack of training and readiness).

Hancock may be the nicest, sweetest, gentlest man to ever walk the streets of Opelika. But in this case he made a mistake. He’s not a demon or a bad guy. He made a mistake. And it’s one serious enough that there has to be consequences.

And because law enforcement officers face these situations frequently they must get them right, period. Failing to “get it right” in these situations means that we’re going to accept a certain number of innocent officer involved shootings and deaths of citizens, and that’s just not alright.

Anyone who knows me (you can read my opinions on this site) can attest, I’m a 100% hard-core law enforcement supporter. I hate crime and thugs. But sensible men and women cannot turn a blind eye to bad actions and then wonder when citizens start to doubt the police.

To my fellow law enforcement officers reading this, you cannot blindly support any and every officer involved shooting another cop is involved in regardless of the facts. If you love this country and her people, and our laws which provide us a veil of security and safety, then you must also condemn wrong acts by other officers, even if it’s simply an unfortunate event.

Otherwise we won’t have learned from it and a patriotic American suffers without compensation because of it. Airman Davidson shouldn’t be walking around with a Colostomy bag that he had to pay for, among what must be an enormous amount of other medical bills.

When turds pull weapons on cops, or threaten them in some physical way, and later get shot in the act of being stupid, then there’s no pity. Law and order means law and order. If you obey the laws, you shouldn’t get hurt.

When you do get hurt wrongfully, as did Airman Davidson, then there must be consequences.

And by that I mean at the least that the officer be removed from deadly-force capable positions (I said at the very least, because Hancock wasn’t), and the victim must be compensated and have their injuries and expenses covered, and in fatal cases their families need to be provided for.

I hope that this case is appealed to the Supreme Court and that the sensible men and women of the court can listen to the evidence and watch this case unfold for themselves, and see that this was a negligent act, plain and simple.

Officer Involved Shooting – Officer Hancock vs Wallet

Here’s the dash cam so that you can watch the officer involved shooting unfold for yourself.

What stands out after watching it? First, when I see this is just pisses me off. That could be you or I, or our family. Getting awkwardly out of the car now warrants deadly force… wow.

Over 5 minutes went by as this American citizen and U.S. serviceman laid on the ground bleeding (an artery was severed by Hancock’s bullet, as witnessed by the growing pool of blood) and not one police officer put on rubber gloves and tried to render medical aid (stop the bleeding, etc…), 5 flipping minutes! They walked around him like it was a side-show. How would you feel if it was your brother or son, or you?

Yes, law enforcement did later recover opened packets of the synthetic drug Spice (synthetic marijuana) from inside of Davidson’s SUV, but that’s really irrelevant because Davidson didn’t do or say anything inappropriate that would lead a reasonable officer to shoot him and the officer had no knowledge of it when the shooting occurred.

Davidson was in a fender bender and pulled over to report it. He went out of his way to be polite and cooperative. Click here to see the full front page of this police report.

Evidence of Spice Seized From Davidson Vehicle

Listing of evidence items taken from Davidson’s SUV

Hancock Cleared In Officer Involved Shooting

Davidson rightfully filed a lawsuit against the officer and the city, which you can read here.

The 3 Judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower courts ruling, in favor of the police officer, by stating:

“After careful consideration and review of a video recording of the shooting, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Davidson, we conclude that a reasonable officer in Hancock’s position would have feared for his life.“

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Eastern Division, which issued the original decision on the lawsuit in December 2016, also ordered Davidson to pay $15,354.82 for legal costs to the city of Opelika, Hancock and McEachern.

Can the B.S. get any deeper in this case?

People say “you don’t know what it’s like to be a cop” or “you do that job“. Well, yes I do. And I have.

Cops don’t get to shoot innocent people and get away with it. Even if they did it on accident or they “thought” they were acting properly but were later shown to “not” have been. There has to be consequences like getting fired, or at the very least the employer having to pay for damages.

Officer involved shootings are a fact of life in our hip hop and Hollywood fueled violent culture, but we must strive for better.

If you had a CCW and made a similar mistake you would almost certainly be in trouble.

Concluding This Opinion Piece

My parting words are this. If anyone pulls a knife or gun on a cop, or is reasonably believed to have a knife or gun, or otherwise shows the intent and capability to harm a law enforcement officer then those officers have every right (and I expect them to) shoot those suspects. Most police shootings fall into those categories.

Those people who threaten and do harm to law enforcement, what do you suppose they would do to you and your family in a confrontation? Exactly… they’re bad people and when those criminals are killed or injured by law enforcement in a justifiable way then it’s one less turd on the street.

We can’t let officers who wrongfully shoot a citizen cloud our judgement against the men and women who do the dirty work of keeping us safe. Clearly there is an overwhelmingly larger percentage of good cops and great law enforcement happening in our communities, than there are officer involved shootings like the one with Airman Davidson here.

In fact, so many people fueled by ignorance or hate (often both) forget how much these men and women give for us and our families every day. Let’s never forget the price so many have to pay doing it.

However, we live in a society of laws and moral decency, and we expect it from every citizen and even more so from the men and women who wear the badges of honor that we bestow upon them.

In my opinion officers get into situations like this if they’re always looking for the bad guys and fail to see the good ones, that’s why it all becomes a blur and this shit happens.

Likewise, when the media and political scumbags use these rare police shooting instances as a platform for creating more divide for dollars (see my article on mass shooting statistics to see what I mean), then good citizens need to call then out.

Law-abiding citizens should be safe from negligent officer involved shootings, and there should be consequences when citizens are harmed by their protectors.

I hope the Davidsons pursue this appeal and perhaps even start a GoFundMe.com page.

And I hope Americans start having the back of good law enforcement officers. They need us as much as we need them, and officer involved shootings are truly a minor fraction of all police contacts. Don’t you agree?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.