Bernard Kerik

[A-R]

The white house doesn't mind people carrying arms outside Obama events.

That pretty much settles it for me, and should settle it for anyone else, too.

Nitrogen, thanks for the link to this story. I'm having a blast with it arguing with friends on Facebook

[casingpoint]

(Our own DPS CHL application processing delays is yet another fine example of this.

That long delay coupled with the prohibition in Texas against open carry amounts effectively to a ban on handguns for the duration of the waiting period. This is certainly unconstitutional in light of Heller v. D.C.

Cops making up the law as they go along is nothing new. You typically get a person out of high school with no further education as a local cop. Maybe they went to some two-bit JUCO for a year or two it they're lucky. Their overall education wasn't worth a pile of pinto beans, and all of a sudden they are in a position of authority and working off statutes it takes legal scholars to understand. That would first be the district attorney and later if it goes that far, the judge. I believe the correct descriptive term for such a scheme is "gristmill."

I'm reminded again of the forty-something retired school teacher in New Jersey who applied to the local police force and was told he was too intelligent to be a cop and was thus disqualified. "Nuff said.

[joe817]

Cops making up the law as they go along is nothing new. You typically get a person out of high school with no further education as a local cop. Maybe they went to some two-bit JUCO for a year or two it they're lucky

I take issue with that in a big time way. I don't know where you live, but here in Arlington, you can't even apply unless you have a BA from an accredited University. From the Arlington PD website:

"General Requirements You must be a citizen of the United States, 21 years of age or older.
Possess a Bachelor’s Degree from an accredited college or university, Education is not waived for prior military service or prior police experience."
http://www.arlingtonpd.org/index.asp?ne ... equire.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the DPS website: "Education: Applicants must have an approved Associate’s degree or a minimum of 90 semester hours from an accredited college or university."
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/trainingac ... requir.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From Houston PD website: "Has either (1) completed sixty (60) semester hours from an accredited college or university with a "2.0" grade point average or (2) military service with an honorable discharge and two (2) years of active duty. - Age: 21-44 years of age, but must not have reached their 45th birthday prior to oath of office or certification."
http://www.hpdcareer.com/requirements.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you can see, LEO hiring standards are MUCH greater than you protray. It saddens me that you hold LEO's in such low esteem.

[shootthesheet]

quote="lonewolf"]Based on the indictments, I guess this guy can't get a concealed carry license here in Texas. We try to limit those to good, law abiding citizens......He doesn't appear to merit a CHL, but runs a huge, multi-national presumably armed corporation? And here I am, trying to find a job after being laid off twice in a year, just went on an interview at a place that likely will not hire me simply because I smoke.... Big sign in the entrance that says if you have used tobacco products in the last 24 month, you will not be considered for employment. Cigarettes are still legal aren't they? Will this affect my CHL app?

Gotta love big corporations and big governments......... [/quote]

It is incorrect to compare corruption in a privately owned company with corruption in government. Any corrupt leader is bad but if that person is in the government they have power we do not allow private people to exercise. Misusing that power not only hurts those directly affected but it shatters confidence people have in government. If it is a company another will step in to take its place. If it is government it opens a greater hole for even more corrupt people to destroy our entire way of life because the governments main task is to protect the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens. If that government is the perpetrator of denying people of their rights then where will we go to insist that wrong be corrected and the guilty punished?

Take the Catholic Priest problems we witnessed not so long ago. When the Priests who have the power of leadership took advantage of people that trusted them they not only hurt those that the Priest molested but also the many peoples opinion of every Priest. But it doesn’t end there because much of society no longer trusts Catholics or Protestants even though they may have been victims themselves. It tarnished both the reputation of Christians but also Christianity and ultimately Christ in some peoples mind. It is the perception as much as the corruption that matters. So now some that may be seeking God may be afraid to trust that Christ is the answer where they may not have if those few Corrupt Priests had chosen a life outside the church. We cannot allow anyone in a leadership position in government to ever get away with corruption or we will allow their actions to destroy us along with themselves.

Obama had no choice but to say that. The last thing he wants right now is to motivate gun rights activists. If it is legal it is legal and any pressure from him will correctly be viewed as the Federal Government interfering in a clear states powers issue.

[casingpoint]

it saddens me that you hold LEO's in such low esteem.

I don't for the most part. And I'm sure the bar has been raised in many places. One things that stands out: performance seems to be a direct corollary of the level of education. Back in the day, not all cops made it past grade 12, and I sometimes wonder if they got that far. I'm sixty years old, and I've around the block several times and done my time in the barrel. I could tell you some stories which would lead you to believe I have grounds for reasonable suspicion when it comes to cops. I also have an expectation that most cops I encounter are going to be pretty reasonable people, and time has proven that out. But a person gets burned in a few fires he didn't start, it's not so easy to forgive and forget.

[casingpoint]

Here's a light take with an old joke on android's post about police thinking:

One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and
Decides to take a nap. Although not familiar with the lake, the wife
Decides to take the boat out. She motors out a short distance,
Anchors, and reads her book.

Along comes a Game Warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside the
Woman and says, "Good morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?"

"Reading a book," she replies, (thinking, "Isn't that
Obvious?") "You're in a Restricted Fishing Area," he informs her.

"I'm sorry, officer, but I'm not fishing. I'm reading."

"Yes, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start
At any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says
The woman.

"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden. "That's true,
But you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any
Moment."

"Have a nice day ma'am," and he left....

[LaUser]

When W. Bush was Prez, protesters were relegated to designated areas out of sight and harms way of the Prez. Those protesters who were not in the controlled areas were arrested by local authorities at the direction of the Secret Service.

Things have changed.

[boomerang]

When W. Bush was Prez, protesters were relegated to designated areas out of sight

More lies.

[lonewolf]

Deleted: somehow this was posted in the wrong place. Sorry.

[WildBill]

Bernie's back in the news again.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was jailed on Tuesday when a federal judge revoked his bail a week before his trial on conspiracy and fraud charges was due to begin.

The judge agreed to a request to jail Kerik for leaking sealed information to a legal defense fund-raiser -- information the fund-raiser shared with the Washington Times newspaper.

Kerik was a close friend of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was New York's police commissioner the day of the September 11, 2001, attacks. His career began to unravel upon being subjected to background checks when President George W. Bush nominated him in 2004 to become Homeland Security secretary.

Kerik withdrew from that nomination and his legal troubles became an embarrassment for Giuliani during the former mayor's unsuccessful run in 2007 and early 2008 for the Republican presidential nomination.

Kerik could become a campaign issue again next year should Giuliani decide to run for governor of New York state.

Kerik had been allowed to remain free under a $500,000 bail package after he pleaded not guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges in November 2007.

But a federal judge granted prosecutors' request on Tuesday to revoke bail because of new accusations of criminal contempt for disclosing nonpublic case information, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in White Plains, New York, said.

Kerik is accused of receiving apartment renovations from a construction firm that had been suspected of organized crime ties in exchange for helping the company win city contracts, according to his indictment.

Kerik tried to convince city regulators the contractors were free of mob ties and should be approved to do business requiring city permits, the indictment alleges.

Kerik and Giuliani were acclaimed nationally for their handling of the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

While preparing for his hearings to run Homeland Security, Kerik said he had uncovered information questioning the legal immigration status of a former housekeeper and nanny.

Kerik faces other charges -- including other fraud and tax charges as well as lying to White House officials during their background checks on him -- that will be prosecuted separately at a later date.

(Reporting by Christine Kearney, editing by Daniel Trotta and Philip Barbara)

http://www.reuters.com/article/domestic ... W920091020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jsimmons]

You can't drive drunk... because you MIGHT cause an accident.

You can't seriously think driving drunk is okay "as long as you don't cause an accident".

[Carrots]

You can't drive drunk... because you MIGHT cause an accident.

You can't seriously think driving drunk is okay "as long as you don't cause an accident".

If everyone who drove drunk either got caught or caused an accident no one would do it. I do not condone drink driving, but it is a fallacy to suggest that drink driving = inevitable consequences. Lots of people get away with it every day all over the world. It doesn't make it right, but for much the same reason that a lot of folks ignore the legal and health "risks" and enjoy their narcotics 9 times out of 10 it will all work out just fine. Real world experience will always trump the percentages in the minds of many and from my experience here in Houston drink driving does not seem to be the big taboo that it was in London. I haven't done it for nearly a decade and so I have no firsthand experience, but I see plenty of folks who do.

[Purplehood]

You can't drive drunk... because you MIGHT cause an accident.

You can't seriously think driving drunk is okay "as long as you don't cause an accident".

If everyone who drove drunk either got caught or caused an accident no one would do it. I do not condone drink driving, but it is a fallacy to suggest that drink driving = inevitable consequences. Lots of people get away with it every day all over the world. It doesn't make it right, but for much the same reason that a lot of folks ignore the legal and health "risks" and enjoy their narcotics 9 times out of 10 it will all work out just fine. Real world experience will always trump the percentages in the minds of many and from my experience here in Houston drink driving does not seem to be the big taboo that it was in London. I haven't done it for nearly a decade and so I have no firsthand experience, but I see plenty of folks who do.

I personally have zero tolerance for drunk drivers. Smokers may be putting out carcinogenic fumes that might have an effect on others, but a drunk driver is effectively wheeling a ton of steel around the roadways and immediately endangering others.