Police Corruption is Connected to Anti Gun Legislation

esqappellate said:

Jack: This hypothesis assumes that the Baltimore City Democrats actually believe that gun legislation will actually help reduce violent crime. If that belief is genuine, then it amounts to willful ignorance. Since these are otherwise intelligent individuals, the alternative explanation appears to be more likely, viz., that the focus on guns allows them to actually avoid, politically, the expensive remedies that everyone knows will be actually effective, including longer incarceration times and no parole or suspended sentences for those individuals convicted of using a firearm illegally. Most violent crime in Baltimore, like elsewhere, is committed by recidivists. With respect to Gov. O'Malley, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he pushed for SB 281 (he wrote it after all), for the basest of political reasons: He wanted to appeal to the Left Wing of the party nationally in prep for his run to be President. No amount of facts will change such a strategy.

Click to expand...

The only problem with healthy cynicism is that it remains negative; it does not suggest a viable alternative, going forward.

I'm certainly not saying it's misplaced, or inaccurate.

Bob A said:

Outrage against what?

MoCo voters believe the anti-gun rhetoric that the Left has been spewing for decades. Their level of sanctimony is such that they are fine with whatever their reps do to solidify the position they believe in.

Their reps, Dumais for example, will do whatever they must to gain increase in power and influence - it's what they feed on, and it pays the bills, too. The political climate in MD is as corrupt as can be found anywhere, and those who are elected into the belly of the Democratic machine will do what they must to continue their climb.

Personal beliefs are personal in that atmosphere; adhering to the Party line is necessary to keep the Party's support.

Since the Party gives the voters what they think they want, those voters are happy to get the results they hope for. Doubtless they'd applaud the clever methods used to ensure these results, if they knew. But they don't care to know, so long as the scene plays out in the proper fashion.

So where's there room for outrage? Only in the hearts of those whose position has been marginalised, who cling to their Bibles and guns, and are made to look like cretins from the hills. Who would want to self-identify with that bunch of ignorant semi-savages?

Click to expand...

bingo bingo bingo

esqappellate said:

Jack: This hypothesis assumes that the Baltimore City Democrats actually believe that gun legislation will actually help reduce violent crime. If that belief is genuine, then it amounts to willful ignorance. Since these are otherwise intelligent individuals, the alternative explanation appears to be more likely, viz., that the focus on guns allows them to actually avoid, politically, the expensive remedies that everyone knows will be actually effective, including longer incarceration times and no parole or suspended sentences for those individuals convicted of using a firearm illegally. Most violent crime in Baltimore, like elsewhere, is committed by recidivists. With respect to Gov. O'Malley, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he pushed for SB 281 (he wrote it after all), for the basest of political reasons: He wanted to appeal to the Left Wing of the party nationally in prep for his run to be President. No amount of facts will change such a strategy.

Click to expand...

I am with you. But as I witnessed those who testify before their legislators in Annapolis or from communication on this forum I only repeatedly hear the same thing over and over ("shall not be infringed, God given right, Right to bear arms.") Don't get me wrong, I agree with those slogans or chants or whatever you want to call them. But if you are going to testify, speak the truth. Tell them exactly what you said...real solutions are expensive. They are either willfully ignorant or unwilling to seriously address the issues appropriately. Speak to your friends, write letters, educate as many people as possible. We still have groups that don't know the difference between breech and muzzle telling us what guns should be banned and how it will save the lives of children. I think these people honestly believe that things like universal background checks really save lives. We need to continually tell them about other issues that are affecting violence. Even if the change I am proposing would only be minimal, it would at least be a change. More background checks actually has the opposite effect. It takes police resources away from fighting violent crime. There is an education to be given and trust me, when people from these groups hear that familiar slogan, "shall not be infringed," they turn you (us) off immediately. Leave the slogans out, leave the solutions in. All I am saying is let's bring to light these other issues and continually steer our lawmakers away from poor legislation. They have to respond to their constituents concerns; concerns that come from what the liberal media is incorrectly spewing. Give them something to talk about other than, "tighter gun control."

Bob A said:

The only problem with healthy cynicism is that it remains negative; it does not suggest a viable alternative, going forward.

I'm certainly not saying it's misplaced, or inaccurate.

Click to expand...

I do not intend to be cynical. Only factual. To make a difference in violent crime, the Democratic Party elites must must focus time (and money!!) on what works. This is not all that hard, as an empirical matter. What works is incarceration of violent criminals so as to remove them from society. Just check the recidivism rate -- it is staggering. Yet, that costs a lot of money (prisons are really expensive) that the Party rather use for other political priorities (offshore wind mill farms?! The Purple Line?! Wage increases and pension benefits for teachers and state employees?!) so it is simply much cheaper to respond to the public outcry to heartbreaking news by regulating the law-abiding with gun laws, on the false pretense that it somehow will make a difference. Judge Ginsburg said it well yesterday in the Heller III argument close, The King's answer to Humpty Dumpty's fall was to demand MORE horses and men, as if that would somehow work to put poor Humpty back together again. Meanwhile the violent crime continues unabated, resulting in still more ineffective gun laws which merely criminalize otherwise law abiding persons. I don't know how to break through this cycle of stupidity, but break it we must. Otherwise, at some point, Baltimore will fall apart and become Detroit. Those who can will move away. Those who can't will be consigned to live in a Hell Hole that Detroit has become. The only difference is that at least Michigan is "shall issue" so folks have the option of protecting themselves the best they can.

Jack McCauley said:

Great question. Montgomery County has an outstanding law enforcement agency. In my personal opinion, they are the best department in the State of Maryland. You will never meet an officer from that department that has not been trained to the best of law enforcement standards. I will try to explain my theory, based upon my experience.

Baltimore City is a central focus of politics. Mayor of Baltimore = Potential Governor of Maryland = Potential staffing positions. Crime in Baltimore City is the worst in the state. The most news media we have in Maryland comes from Baltimore. The most rhetoric we hear comes from the liberal news media in Baltimore. All eyes are on what is happening in Baltimore. The Maryland legislator is made up of primarily Democrats. Former Governor O'Malley steered the ship and told his party what to do. His political aspirations were centered on crime reduction. Delegate Kathleen Dumais (Montgomery County) was the co-chair of the committee that dealt with the FSA13. In early January of 2013, before she was named as the co-chair, she told me personally she did not feel any gun legislation would affect violent crime. She acknowledged to me personally that she felt the proposed legislation was a bad idea. After our conversation, she was named co-chair and suddenly it was the best decision ever. She was undoubtedly influenced by the political demands of Governor O'Malley. I personally watched her staff member bribe Baltimore City Delegate Oaks to remain for a late evening voting session by serving him cup after cup of wine from Dumais' office. I watched her admonish another Delegate, who moments before a committee hearing, complained that "he did not want to vote for SB281, but he had a bill to get out and the party was voting for it." Dumais told me she had no other option but to support the bill because no one had giver her any alternatives. Montgomery County legislators support antigun legislation because of politics. Those politics are driven byBaltimore City. But this is a nationwide problem. It has become an issue that like many others, is driven by party lines. We need to explain to our legislators that there are other options to address gun violence. Police corruption is but one small piece to the puzzle. There are many issues to deal with. But this is my area of expertise and I often discuss these issues and how they affect violent crime and legislation.

Click to expand...

I can't find the GIF, so insert "Slow Clap" here.

Jack McCauley said:

I am with you. But as I witnessed those who testify before their legislators in Annapolis or from communication on this forum I only repeatedly hear the same thing over and over ("shall not be infringed, God given right, Right to bear arms.") Don't get me wrong, I agree with those slogans or chants or whatever you want to call them. But if you are going to testify, speak the truth. Tell them exactly what you said...real solutions are expensive. They are either willfully ignorant or unwilling to seriously address the issues appropriately. Speak to your friends, write letters, educate as many people as possible. We still have groups that don't know the difference between breech and muzzle telling us what guns should be banned and how it will save the lives of children. I think these people honestly believe that things like universal background checks really save lives. We need to continually tell them about other issues that are affecting violence. Even if the change I am proposing would only be minimal, it would at least be a change. More background checks actually has the opposite effect. It takes police resources away from fighting violent crime. There is an education to be given and trust me, when people from these groups hear that familiar slogan, "shall not be infringed," they turn you (us) off immediately. Leave the slogans out, leave the solutions in. All I am saying is let's bring to light these other issues and continually steer our lawmakers away from poor legislation. They have to respond to their constituents concerns; concerns that come from what the liberal media is incorrectly spewing. Give them something to talk about other than, "tighter gun control."

Click to expand...

Oh, I completely agree. The slogans and the foot stomping about "rights" are simply irrelevant to these folks. The rights argument is for the courts -- it is not a political or a practical argument until the state loses in court and they have to decide what to do about it. Until then, the rights argument is ignored. What does resonate is information about criminalizing the otherwise law abiding. Heads turned in Senate testimony in 2013 as to what would happen to a deployed soldier or Marine who failed to register his AR in the 30 days and, upon his return from Iraq, would have been deemed a criminal punishable with 3 years in jail and the loss of all his 2A rights for life. What they need to hear is truth from folks like you who have walked the talk and know what they they are talking about in this area.

Spot on stuff in this thread. Thanks Jack.

Schipperke said:

Police Corruption is Connected to Anti Gun Legislation

Explain Montgomery County? I have no knowledge of police corruption in this county at the level of Baltimore City or violent crime here for that matter that would incite anti gun legislation here. Our delegates are probably more anti gun than those surrounding Baltimore. I see no connection "here", unless the argument everyone in Maryland uses Baltimore as an excuse.

Click to expand...

WaPo or the Sun are not going to air the Pasha's dirty laundry.

Jack McCauley said:

...Delegate Kathleen Dumais (Montgomery County) was the co-chair of the committee that dealt with the FSA13. In early January of 2013, before she was named as the co-chair, she told me personally she did not feel any gun legislation would affect violent crime. She acknowledged to me personally that she felt the proposed legislation was a bad idea. After our conversation, she was named co-chair and suddenly it was the best decision ever. She was undoubtedly influenced by the political demands of Governor O'Malley. I personally watched her staff member bribe Baltimore City Delegate Oaks to remain for a late evening voting session by serving him cup after cup of wine from Dumais' office. I watched her admonish another Delegate, who moments before a committee hearing, complained that "he did not want to vote for SB281, but he had a bill to get out and the party was voting for it." Dumais told me she had no other option but to support the bill because no one had giver her any alternatives. Montgomery County legislators support antigun legislation because of politics. Those politics are driven by Baltimore City. But this is a nationwide problem. It has become an issue that like many others, is driven by party lines. We need to explain to our legislators that there are other options to address gun violence...

Click to expand...

I take issue with the emphasized passages. I do not know Del. Dumais at all. But I noted your defensive description of her sudden about face after being rewarded, and her opinion that "no one had giver her any alternatives." That is the weak excuse of a self-centered career politician. If she truly had her constituents' interests at heart and had anything like moral fiber she would have acted on her original statement of "not feel{ing} any gun legislation would affect violent crime."

I agree, we need to explain to our legislators that "there are other options to address gun violence." I feel we should also show them again that if they do not pursue these options and abandon their misguided gun-control Jihad we will see to it that they need to look for new employment after their next election cycle.

Perhaps what's needed is more action and less analysis. There is no need for yet another Apostle of the Obvious." We need more of what you've been doing, not more learned studies that push the goalposts further back on meaningful reform.

esqappellate said:

I do not intend to be cynical. Only factual. To make a difference in violent crime, the Democratic Party elites must must focus time (and money!!) on what works. This is not all that hard, as an empirical matter. What works is incarceration of violent criminals so as to remove them from society. Just check the recidivism rate -- it is staggering. Yet, that costs a lot of money (prisons are really expensive) that the Party rather use for other political priorities (offshore wind mill farms?! The Purple Line?! Wage increases and pension benefits for teachers and state employees?!) so it is simply much cheaper to respond to the public outcry to heartbreaking news by regulating the law-abiding with gun laws, on the false pretense that it somehow will make a difference. Judge Ginsburg said it well yesterday in the Heller III argument close, The King's answer to Humpty Dumpty's fall was to demand MORE horses and men, as if that would somehow work to put poor Humpty back together again. Meanwhile the violent crime continues unabated, resulting in still more ineffective gun laws which merely criminalize otherwise law abiding persons. I don't know how to break through this cycle of stupidity, but break it we must. Otherwise, at some point, Baltimore will fall apart and become Detroit. Those who can will move away. Those who can't will be consigned to live in a Hell Hole that Detroit has become. The only difference is that at least Michigan is "shall issue" so folks have the option of protecting themselves the best they can.

Click to expand...

I used to think simple incarceration-based strategies worked, but they keep making more criminals. The city needs to focus on jobs and getting people to move back to the city.

Lowering taxes might help a small amount, but no one will move into Baltimore if they have kids. Most of the things the city/state could do would actually be really cheap but the city/state would have to give up control over things like development and education.

Unfortunately, the machine is self sustaining: High taxes and regulations cause people like Plank to negotiate for tax breaks and streamlined approvals, and in return supports the politicians who granted the favors.

aquaman said:

I grew up outside of Baltimore city and quite honestly I can't fathom how it can have such influence over state politics. 2/3 of the city is a wasteland. Maybe 60 years ago Baltimore mattered, now the real money is by counties that border DC & Balt co.

Click to expand...

You are completely right. I'm not saying that's good - quite the opposite - but it is what it is.

Bob A said:

Outrage against what?

MoCo voters believe the anti-gun rhetoric that the Left has been spewing for decades. Their level of sanctimony is such that they are fine with whatever their reps do to solidify the position they believe in.

Their reps, Dumais for example, will do whatever they must to gain increase in power and influence - it's what they feed on, and it pays the bills, too. The political climate in MD is as corrupt as can be found anywhere, and those who are elected into the belly of the Democratic machine will do what they must to continue their climb.

Personal beliefs are personal in that atmosphere; adhering to the Party line is necessary to keep the Party's support.

Since the Party gives the voters what they think they want, those voters are happy to get the results they hope for. Doubtless they'd applaud the clever methods used to ensure these results, if they knew. But they don't care to know, so long as the scene plays out in the proper fashion.

So where's there room for outrage? Only in the hearts of those whose position has been marginalised, who cling to their Bibles and guns, and are made to look like cretins from the hills. Who would want to self-identify with that bunch of ignorant semi-savages?

Click to expand...

I'm curious: How many Democratic Party (not elected officials) apparatchiks are still around and running things from, say, the post-Agnew days? Anyone know?

danb said:

I used to think simple incarceration-based strategies worked, but they keep making more criminals. The city needs to focus on jobs and getting people to move back to the city.

Lowering taxes might help a small amount, but no one will move into Baltimore if they have kids. Most of the things the city/state could do would actually be really cheap but the city/state would have to give up control over things like development and education.

Unfortunately, the machine is self sustaining: High taxes and regulations cause people like Plank to negotiate for tax breaks and streamlined approvals, and in return supports the politicians who granted the favors.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no one who works this area seems to have a clue how actually to prevent recidivism. Most private employers want little to do with convicted violent criminals -- they are just bad bets for being good employees. Putting a violent criminal into jail does not make a criminal -- he was already that when he was convicted. The recidivism rate for violent criminals (I am not talking about drug offenses here), is depressingly high (71.3 percent of violent offenders, nationwide). See http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx A high rate of violent crime in a community is utterly destructive. People who can leave, do, leaving poor people without the money or economic base for jobs or advancement. Without people, a city dies. I hate the idea of incarcerating a person for long periods of time. What a waste. I hate even more the idea of letting that violent criminal out to commit more violent crimes on the rest of us.

I don't believe they actually want to prevent recidivism. By getting rid of the death penalty, and making a revolving door policy in the jails, they have guaranteed themselves a constant stream of revenue in fines and legal fees. Another tax on the stupid, just like the casinos.

Having served with the Montgomery County Police Department for 26 years I am very proud of the people I work with. We have hired many good officers that came from Baltimore City P.D. I am not knocking BCPD but I feel that if the pay and working conditions were better in Baltimore these officers may not have left. Officers there deserve better but probably won't happen.....

Well, the good folks of West Laurel, where we have lived since 1984, are voting with their feet. I've never ever seen so many vacancies in 30 years (sold residential RE from 1985-2000, too) or so many for sale signs where turnover used to be nill. Owner of one property that just had the For Sale sign installed is a {G LEO who lives on Bond Mill Road.

Most of those who retire while living here depart for out of state sites or, at least, saunder off to Carroll, Frederick or outlying counties.

I don't envy the job of any law enforcement officer, but this latest incident in Baltimore City where the perp had his spine severed while in custody isn't going to sit well with anyone.

And, if we can muster the energy, we are 75, we will return to our roots in PA.

Lew--Ranger63

Great comments from everyone. I enjoy the discussion. Every time I think I'm trying to make a point, I get more information than I put out. It is,"We" that will move things forward, not me or he. There are some outstanding men and women on this forum that are full of knowledge and understanding of the political climate and the problems we are facing. I hope we can keep pushing together. I'm not giving up yet. I had a chance to leave Maryland but I wanted to stay and fight on this subject just a bit longer. Thank you to everyone who shared their thoughts.

I work in Baltimore city almost everyday. They have a population that DOES NOT vote. So the few that do "Vote for the Democratics". You end up with the most corrupt elected representatives in Maryland. It is so tow the line or get in the unemployment line. The Wire was so damn true its not funny. If they did loosen their gun laws they would be proved wrong and you can't have that in Baltimore.

Someone said that cities are what's left over from making money.

That makes sense regarding Baltimore; most of the reasons the city exists are gone. The port has been sidetracked to a degree by the Virginia end of the bay; the Bay as a producer of seafood has been diminished to a fraction of its former production levels; the heavy industry is mostly gone. The people who made it a thriving city are long dead, buried, or migrated elsewhere.

The city tried to reinvent itself as an amusement park, but there's not enough mass to hold it together, to say nothing of attracting something from outside. Football and baseball can only do so much, especially with major teams forty miles away, in a town where the money is created.

I've seen central cities collapse before; once serious economic activity dries up, property devalues, and is filled up with those who can't afford anything else. Then the usual situation prevails, with bad news generating more bad news.

Jobs would be a good thing, if there were any. Increased productivity has a tradeoff; when one worker can do the job of five, the other four have to find something to do. Really, most jobs these days are in the service occupations, where computerisation doesn't readily replace human labor.

Most of these jobs don't pay well. Combine that with the deteriorating educational system, and you can see why it's a better deal all around to go on the dole.

In the old days, there were farms. Tobacco was a big business in MD; you know what happened there, between the Surgeon General, the lawyers, and the fact that it was an awful lot of work to raise and cure the stuff. Much easier to get another job. Big Farma has eaten the family farms and increased production dramatically, while eliminating a number of jobs that people didn't want to do anyway. Farming is hard work.

The more I write, wondering just what to do with the surplus population, the more it seems like a massive land war in Asia would help, except the military has modernised to the extent that they no longer need cannon fodder. The modern military is highly trained and technical, and has little use for people who aren't good for much.

Pyramid-building soaked up a lot of surplus labor in Egypt, but that was a long time ago. I don't see us going toward slavery, except the common wage slavery that many experience every day. The only hope here is a massive government-funded movement toward infrastructure repair/replacement.Heaven knows we need it. But the phrase "shovel-ready" rang hollow, when it became obvious that the current administration didn't really mean anything it said.

While we've managed to create a world where a huge population can be supported, there's not enough for them to do. Education is a stopgap, but once you have an educated population, you need to have something for them to work on. Algeria had the most modern economy, and the largest number of college-educated people in the Arab world, and they gave us the Arab Spring.

War, Famine, Pestilence and Death are presumably grooming their horses. Look for a cloud of dust on the horizon, and be prepared to flee.




Gee, I have to stay away from these sites, I'm getting pretty downbeat, along with being beaten down. Battered Citizen Syndrome?

DC-W said:

Spot on stuff in this thread. Thanks Jack.

Click to expand...

I agree and, more than just subscribed, bookmarked. It's out of the WC too, so viewable by all. Real solutions cost money, anathema to those with grander political aspirations, so expediency and deflection rule the day. As esqappellate noted, Detroit is the cautionary example, but the present day politics are going to be a huge hurdle. To reduce crime in the short term, one needs more police and to keep violent offenders imprisoned longer. Can Baltimore afford either? Is there the political will in MD to do either (during a time that the news media has shifted their focus, ever so slightly, from guns to a new police action in a new city each week since Ferguson)? Wouldn't embracing shall issue be one less expensive option to helping reduce some violent crime in urban areas?