Revisiting Rodney

So Rodney King died yesterday.  I have to say that he made it longer than I thought that he would have.  The guy has a mess load of problems even before he had the holy snot beat out of him by a bunch of a-hole cops.  If you look at statistics for guys like Rodney (who apparently went by Glen most of the time), they don't usually make it to 47.  And really, he's lucky that he made it past that one night.  But now he's dead and as is the custom, people have spent a lot of time reflecting on the riots that took place and on the beating that he received.  I guess I won't try to be any different.  Here's the video of Rodney King getting the crap beat out of him. You know, he was pretty forgiving after all of this happened. Probably a hell of a lot more forgiving that I could ever be. Maybe we can all learn just a little bit from that. I can certainly think of at least one person who could use a pretty good lesson in forgiveness these days.

Sphere: Related Content

Then What Was It?

DISCLAIMER (Or maybe it's a WARNING. I'm not sure what to call this. But whatever it is, just know that you've been informed.): Today's post is going to be kind of short. And that's pretty much a coincidence when you compare it to how the rest of the week is probably going to be. The posts for at least the next eight days are going to be kind of short. I don't think that what I am embarking upon what can be considered a "vacation", but it does involve a lot of traveling, a hell of a lot of driving and at least three different states. It will also involve seeing a whole lot of people that I haven't seen in years and that's going to be quite fun. But don't worry! I'm not going to forget about you, my loyal patrons. My posts might be short and they might even be a little late on some days, but they will be there. I promise. Now that you've been sufficiently warned and informed, what say you tell me if you can explain something to me.

What we have here is a young woman who was found dead at a mansion in Coronado, California. According to 10news.com, "Autopsy results and evidence gathered...will not be available to the public as the investigation continues". OK, I get that. That seems reasonable. Here's the part I'm having trouble with: See, "The woman found dead at a Coronado mansion on Wednesday was discovered naked with her hands and feet bound hanging from a balcony off the main house by a rope around her neck". Yipes. Horrible, right? Absolutely. No doubt about that. That's not my question. My question comes after learning that "...authorities are not prepared to call her death a homicide." Because seriously? What else are you going to call it?!

The chick is totally naked with both her hands and feet bound by "...what appeared to be an orange electrical cord". And she's hanging off of a balcony with a rope tied around her neck? But they're not just quite ready to jump to the crazy conclusion that it was a homicide?! What the hell else would it have been? (If she offed herself, that's one hell of an impressive suicide. She should get some sort of posthumous medal or plaque or something for that.) I can't possibly imagine. But the Sheriff's Captain, a one Tim Curran, said that the woman died "violently" and "I'm not really prepared to comment on what led us to believe that, but the scene does indicate some type of very suspicious circumstances." Huh??

Look, I wasn't there or anything. I wasn't present when a search warrant was executed. I'm not a cop and don't even play one on TV. But come on! Do they really need more than a woman with all of her limbs bound with an electrical cord and a noose around her neck hanging off of a balcony to indicate some type of "very suspicious circumstances"?! I'll comment on what led them to believe that, and it's what I just said! If that situation isn't suspicious then I don't know what in the world would be suspicious.

I really hope that they can get to the bottom of this, but with the sort of logic that has already been demonstrated, forgive me if I don't hold my breath, OK? Seriously, what else could it possibly be? I'm open to suggestions.

Sphere: Related Content

Who Cares WHERE He Found It?!

Here's a story that I don't understand at all. I feel like I'm missing an integral part of the whole thing because it doesn't make a lick of sense. It starts out cool and then becomes unbelievably ridiculous. I guess I'm just amazed at some of the opportunities in which certain people choose to be incredible jackasses. In this case, the jackasses seem to be the Rolling Meadows Police Department who got their uniforms in a wad when someone lied about where they found seventeen thousand dollars that they turned in.

According to the story in the Chicago Tribune, a one 54-year old Robert Adams "...found a Chase

Bank bag full of cash totaling about $17,000 near a Walgreens ATM in Midlothian". (By the way, I'm guessing that all of these places are somewhere around Chicago. It's their Tribune, after all.) Holy canoli! Seventeen grand! That's a lot of cheese. I have to admit that if I found that sum of money, I would be giving some serious thought to what I would be doing with it. I'd like to think that I'd do the right thing, but would I really? I have no idea. But for some reason, this guy, Mr. Adams, "...drove to Rolling Meadows and turned in the bag at a Chase Bank." OK. I don't get that, but at least he turned it in. It's seventeen grand, for cryin' out loud. What more do these people want? And apparently Mr. Adams "...later told police he found the cash outside a newspaper stand in Rolling Meadows."

OK, look, I don't know why he told the police that. But if it were my seventeen thousand dollars that I lost, I wouldn't give a fat rat's ass where someone SAID that they found it. Someone gives me my seventeen grand back and they can say that they found it wherever they want. Where they actually found it is the least of my concerns after I have received it back. Funnily enough, I'm like the only one who sees it this way because the police decided that he needed to be fined for his horrible misdeed. Wait. What now?

That's right. He was FINED $500 for filing a false report! And look, I don't know why he did it. According to him, he said "...he felt more comfortable turning the cash in to Rolling Meadows officials and filing the report with Rolling Meadows police." OK. I don't get that, but I'm OK with it. He says that "...It was a hot day and he just wanted to get home". I totally get that. Whatever. Seriously, who the hell cares WHERE he found it?! He RETURNED seventeen THOUSAND dollars and he was under NO obligation to do so. And he was really fined five hundred bucks?!

What is wrong with you people? Why couldn't that have just been let go? This is Illinois, where four of the last seven governors have ended up in JAIL for various convictions for corruption, bribery and the like. And they're going to get all bent out of shape and actually fine someone $500 for returning a boatload of money but not being totally honest about where he found it because he said it was hot outside?! Note to self: If ever running across large sums of wayward cash whilst in Illinois, keep for self. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT turn it in...especially if it's hot outside.

Sphere: Related Content

You're Not Being Kidnapped; You're Drunk

You know, there's being drunk and then there's being drunk. But apparently, you can get so drunk that you're completely unaware of what is going on around you. On top of that, you're also so obliterated that you're completely unable to process anything going on around you. That's when you call 911 and tell them that you're being kidnapped. That's right. Kidnapped. By those nice police officers giving you a ride home. Wait. What?

Correct. According to the fine folks over yonder at NJ.com, this intoxicated individual, whose name was not released (and for which this individual is probably thanking God for repeatedly) had been found by law enforcement officers when they were investigating a different call. At some point and for some reason, they decided to transport the man home. Now, to do so, they had to put him in the back seat of the police cruiser. Seems reasonable.

I don't know about you, but I've been in a police car before. (I'm not saying whether it was the front or the back, either.) And I can tell you that it looks nothing like a regular car. In fact, it looks pretty different from most cars except cars that are police cars. It wouldn't be all that hard to discern that one was in a police car even if one was completely obliterated. I mean, even if you couldn't figure that out from the interior of the vehicle, you'd think that the uniformed chaps driving the thing might be a clue. Nope. Not for our hero here.

Nope. As he was "...being driven to his southern New Jersey home by troopers" the man "...called 911 and claimed they were kidnapping him." Now, can someone explain to me why every single recording of someone calling 911 because the McDonald's was out of McNuggets is available for public consumption, but something as highly entertaining as this has not yet been released?! Why is that?! I need to hear how THAT went down!

The article states that "After making the fake 911 call, he continued to be disorderly despite repeated warnings." What's more disorderly than calling 911 and saying that you're being kidnapped when a couple of state troopers are giving you a ride home because you're completely plowed? I can't imagine and the article doesn't say. It's quite unfortunate if you're asking me.

I'm sure that you can guess how this whole thing worked itself out, right? You got it. "When the troopers pulled over and tried to arrest him, he resisted but was eventually restrained and taken back to the barracks. He was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and obstruction." That man is a genius. Pure genius, I'm telling you. Oh, but how I wish they had done a breathalyzer test on him. I'd like to know exactly what one's blood alcohol content has to be in order to not recognize that some policemen are giving you a ride home and you are not being kidnapped (in what must have seemed like a technologically well-outfitted gang of kidnappers).

Sphere: Related Content

Private Public Safety Gone Too Far

I don't use the word stupid very often. I have no problem with other words which indicate stupidity, such as moron (my personal favorite) and, on occasion, idiotic. I'm also a big fan of the word ridiculous. But for some reason, stupid just seems a little harsh to me. That being said, I have just read what might be one of the stupidest ideas that has ever popped into the head of a human being (or animal, for that matter, and animals have been known to eat their own feces, so that should give you a measuring stick for how stupid I think this really it).

Let's hop on over across the pond to Macclesfield, Cheshire (that's in England). It is there that the fine folks at Mail Online bring us the tale of "...an initiative called Operation Golden which aims to slash burglary rates." Now, I don't know what the burglary rates are in Macclesfield, but I highly doubt that they're high enough to implement something this stupid. And that's because it's very difficult to justify stupidity to begin with.

Here's how Operation Golden works: Officers have begun testing windows and doors at night as part of a campaign to increase home security." Hmm. Now, I admit I find that concept odd. I understand wanting to increase home security. That seems like a reasonable idea. But I don't know how the window and door testing is going to help. What's that? There's more? Oh, yeah. There is.

"If they find one open, they are under orders to knock on the door and drag sleepy residents from their beds and lecture them." Um, what now?

I am admittedly completely unfamiliar with the gun laws in England. I know y'all are a bit knife-y over there, but I don't know how shoot-y things get. See, over here in the US, there are quite a few of us who exercise our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And if my door gets knocked on in the middle of the night or I hear someone messing with my windows in the middle of the night, I'm going to exercise that 2nd Amendment right faster than anyone is going to be able to explain to me that they're the police and they're just doing a little safety check.

According to a one Inspector Gareth Woods (he's the chap who is in charge of this lunacy), "He admitted that some residents will not be happy about the wake-up call, but said: 'If we're told to get lost then that's a risk we take." It's not so much the getting told off that would be the risk I'd be worried about if I were you folks. It's the getting shot part that would concern me.

"Police say their actions are necessary as almost 40 per cent of all burglars gain access through an unsecured window or door." I can imagine. But I'm here to tell you that although only 40 percent of burglars gain their access through the windows or doors that are unsecured, 100 percent of that 40 percent would be shot at here at here at my walled off compound.

Here's my question (well, aside from the one about why anyone would think that this is a good idea): How is this not trespassing? If you're wandering about the perimeter of my home and you're trying to open my doors and trying to open my windows, how are you not trespassing? Is trespassing only something that exists in the United States? I don't think that it is. So how is this justified? Sadly, the article does not say. But it does say that "Most reasonable people will say thanks for letting them know and be grateful." Ummm, I don't think that they will. That, of course, is provided that they are, in fact, "reasonable people". Reasonable people are not going to be grateful that someone is sneaking around outside of their house and seeing if they can get in. No, if the doorbell is rang at 2 in the morning and it's a cop standing there who begins to lecture them on the safety of their own home, reasonable people are going to flip out! That's what reasonable people are going to do. It's the numb nuts who are going to thank these officers for attempting to break into their home. What is wrong with people?

While I can appreciate the whole wanting to educate the public on keeping their home safe, I'm thinking this goes a bit too far. After all, what ever happened to personal responsibility? If you leave your home unlocked, it's reasonable to think that a burglar might try to get in and steal your stuff. A reasonable person (see the paragraph above) would realize this and would lock their home. If your home is unlocked and someone steals your stuff, hey, live and learn, I suppose.

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with this plan? I'm thinking plenty. Plenty could go wrong. It's only a matter of time before an officer is shot or stabbed or whatever it is that you folks over there in England do to protect your family and your belongings from an uninvited and intrusive stranger in the middle of the night. It won't end well. It won't end well because it's stupid.

If you're reading this and you happen to live over there, please tell me what in the world is going on. I'm so confused that something so idiotic would ever be implemented that I feel as if I must be missing part of the story. I'm terrified that I'm not, but I'm hoping that I am.

Sphere: Related Content

Facebook Police to the Rescue

Look, we all know that there are people out there who are a-holes. And the best defense against said a-holes is to keep away from them. You know them when you see them, so just stay away. And while that is perfectly logical rule of thumb to follow, that sort of logic seems to just go right out the window when it comes to Facebook.

See, on Facebook, if someone sends a "friend request" to someone that they hardly know, barely know or perhaps don't even know at all, chances are good that the other person (the one whom they don't know, that is correct) will accept their "friend request" and allow them access to their sequestered Facebook world. This is something that I do not understand. It may be that I don't get it because I don't feel the need to boost my own ego with a falsely inflated friend count. Currently I have 42 friends on my Facebook page and I have some sort of a personal relationship with every one of them. Even so, from time to time I find myself wondering what in the hell I'm doing with 42 friends and briefly perusing them to see if there's anywhere that I can cut back. (I haven't found anyone yet. Nice work, guys. Keep it up!)

Look, having people that you don't really know on your Facebook page means that you could be electronically fraternizing with psychopaths, serial killers, child molesters and the list goes on. I highly doubt that is the case in most instances, but what I will guess is the case in most instances is that you're electronically fraternizing with morons. Mouth breathing, paste eating morons.

I'll attempt to make my case by bringing you the ordeal of a one eighteen year old Rebecca Davey of Southend, Essex (that's in England) and her small child, Ollie (cute name). According to the folks across the pond at the Mail Online, Rebecca had posted a picture on Facebook of her child, the previously aforementioned Ollie, with an unlit cigarette in his mouth. Behold!

OK, part of me sees that picture and the first thing that part thinks is "Awww..." Then the other part of me sees that picture and wonders if that first part of me should have been thinking "Awww..." Whether I should have thought "Awww..." or not, I know what I most certainly should not have been thinking. What I shouldn't have been thinking was, "Oh, my God! I have to call the police!" Wait. What?

Correct. According to the article Rebecca "...was reported by online friends who spotted the picture of baby Ollie." What I find most disturbing about that, other than all of it, is the part where it appears to be plural. Plural. As in 'more than one'. More than one person who acted like a Deutschbank and called the cops because the kid had an unlit cigarette in his mouth. Are you kidding me? What is wrong with you people?

It became apparent that something was amiss when "Some w***** reported me to the police abwt picture off ollie." Being as how this was in England, I'm guessing that the "w" word is wanker. And wanker indeed. (I did not know that you couldn't print wanker in the papers in England. What's the American equivalent of wanker? D**khead? You certainly can't print d**khead, but I don't think you could print that in England either. I'm open to any theories or knowledge on this subject.)

Here's what I am going to hope happened. I'm going to hope/assume that Rebecca 'friended' a bunch of people on Facebook that she didn't actually know. People that you don't' actually know are more likely to act like morons than people that you do know, especially when it comes to being sanctimonious and calling the cops for something as harmless as a photo of a baby with an unlit cigarette in his mouth. Those people, those self-congratulatory, pious, judgmental individuals are the ones that were the problem. I'm hoping that if she had only kept people that she actually knew on her Facebook that this wouldn't have happened because when people actually know you they don't tend to go running off to the police for something as asinine as this. Granted, having a photo of your kid with a cigarette plastered on Facebook probably isn't the best idea anyone has ever come up with, but it shouldn't result in having the cops come to your house for a welfare check on the kid.

By the way, "Essex police visited Rebecca's home in Southend, Essex, but said there were 'no immediate concerns' for the child's welfare. Social services also made inquiries." See? Just because you've got a cute little picture of a child with tobacco doesn't mean that you're a bad mother. Rebecca later posted "Why Would SomeOne Do That To Me U Ollie No was taking U Yur Mine for lyfee Darlinggg Mummy Loves You :)" There you have it. If you're going to turn this chick in for anything, what say you make it to the Grammar Police or something. But if you're going to make your life available on Facebook, what say you only 'friend' people that you know and lessen the chances that you're going to have some moron go running off to the cops because they have deemed your parenting skills to be less than able. After all, there's a reason why it's called "friending". Think about it.

Sphere: Related Content

Driving? I Wasn't Driving.

Let's take a gander at what's going on down there in Flori-duh for a moment, shall we? Trust me, it won't take long.

Over there at the NWF Daily News, we learn of a one Charles Jesse Johnson who was out for a little drive on Christmas Day. Sounds nice. Nothing wrong with that. But the thing is that when he was at a red light, he decided he was better than the red light and just went right on through.

Now, I'm not necessarily judging that. We've all been there. The light is red. It seems like it's red forever. And we just want to go. There probably isn't another car around for miles. It's probably safe to go. But the difference between when I think that and (probably) when you think that and when Mr. Johnson thinks that is that you and I would look around for a cop. Once we've determined that there isn't one and that we are, in fact, the only car around for miles, we then proceed through the light. Mr. Johnson skipped the first part of those steps and went straight for the going through the light. And that was unfortunate because had he taken the time to complete Step One, he would have noticed that there was, in fact, a cop in the vicinity. That is, if you consider right behind you to be "in the vicinity".

That's right. There was an Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office deputy sitting right behind him. So Mr. Johnson turns left, the deputy follows suit and pulls Mr. Johnson over. This is where things start to get weird.

Mr. Johnson was the only individual in the vehicle. He was the only individual in the vehicle before the traffic stop and he was the only individual in the vehicle after the traffic stop. That is key as to understanding my complete bewilderment as to what Mr. Johnson thought that he was going to accomplish by getting into the back seat after he stopped his car. Wait. He what now?

Correct. According to the police report "He had jumped in there when the vehicle came to a stop." The article also stated that when Mr. Johnson's driving history was checked, it was discovered that his license had been revoked in June, but the he had also had his license revoked four other times and had it suspended seven times as well! He ended up being charged "...with driving with a revoked license as a habitual traffic offender." It's unfortunate that he couldn't have been charged with being a dumbass as well.

Seriously, what was he hoping to accomplish? Did he think that the cop was going to see him in the back seat and think "Huh. That's odd. I wonder how this vehicle was driving itself down the road. Clearly the only guy in the car couldn't have been driving it, as he is obviously in the back seat and we all know that wouldn't be possible." I don't think that could have happened, would have happened or even had the slightest chance of remotely happening ever! When the cop asked him for his license (provided that he didn't just go with the "What in the heck are you doing back there?" first), did he use his oh-so-rational line of thinking and try something along the lines of "What are you asking me for my license for? I'm in the back seat. What makes you think that I was driving?" I can't imagine.

So kids, pay attention here. If the light is red, please wait until it turns green before proceeding through the intersection. If you're going to even think of breaking traffic laws, use those shiny and reflective objects in your vehicle known as mirrors and make sure that law enforcement isn't in the area (or, at the very least, right behind you). And if you do end up getting pulled over, don't be playing musical chairs inside of your car and hopping from the driver's seat into the back seat. You're still going to get a ticket. The only difference will be that you'll get a ticket and you'll look like a freaking idiot.

Sphere: Related Content

Welcome to the Chattanooga Walmart

If we're going strictly by what we see over at People of Walmart (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, please click that link and take a gander and you'll see what I mean), we could be left with the impression that those sorts of people would behave in a certain sort of way. Then again, if we had evidence to back up that theory, it wouldn't be much of an assumption now, would it? No, it would not. And trust me, it isn't.

Dateline: The Chattanooga, Tennessee Walmart.

Sub-dateline: On Gunbarrel Road. (No, I did not make that up.)

According to the Chattanoogan.com (didn't make that up either, but I kind of wish that I had), on December 27, 2009, a one Joseph Anthony Hill tried "...to force his way pass the Wal-Mart greeter with a shopping cart loaded with TVs and a computer." Of course he did. At that point "Wal-Mart loss prevention personnel attempted to stop Hill" but "he forced his way past them and refused to produce his receipt." Huh. They don't seem to be very good at the "loss prevention" part of their job if they can't stop the "loss" of some TVs and a computer, though I will note that they called them "personnel" and not "specialists", so I guess they've kind of admitted right there that there's not much they're going to be able to do. But, rather than discussing the semantics of job titles regarding the Walmart door Nazis, let's take a gander at Mr. Hill, shall we? Behold!

Yeah, that seems about right. Back to the loss prevention personnel. It's highly likely that they probably wouldn't have been able to do anything if it hadn't been for an off duty policeman, a one Officer Josh Wright, who saw the hubbub and stepped in. He identified himself as a cop and showed the (allegedly) thieving Mr. Hill his badge. Mr. Hill looked at said badge, determined it was fake and attempted to continue on his merry and feloniously thieving ways. This resulted in Mr. Hill getting taken down to the ground by Officer Wright and placed under arrest. No word on where the loss prevention personnel was during all of this. I'm guessing that they were probably scrutinizing the receipt of someone that they just barely watched buy a pack of gum not five feet from where they were standing.

Now, in some states or in some shopping establishments, that might have been the end of the ordeal. But when I tell you that Mr. Hill was there with his wife, a one Lisa Hill, you can probably ascertain for yourself that the incident did not stop there.

For some reason, within moments of her beloved spouse's arrest, Ms. Hill "...began acting as if she was having a heart attack and stated she did not know Hill." Wait. She what?

She feigned a heart attack. A heart attack that...also...brought upon...amnesia? What now? How does that happen? "OH, my God! My heart! My heart! I think I'm having a heart attack and I definitely do not know who that guy is! Nope! Never seen him before! Ever! My heart! My heart!" The article doesn't explain how these two go hand in hand, so we're going to have to assume that it was just like the scenario I just laid out there.

Some time during the midst of this production, a witness "...told Officer Wright that Lisa Hill was lying and that she had observed both the Hills in the store together." Really?! I am shocked. Simply shocked! What else?

Well, I guess that the witness figured that she had done her good deed for the day and attempted to leave the Walmart. That's when Mrs. Hill suddenly recovered from her cardiac arrest sufficiently enough to begin calling the woman a liar. She had made such an improvement from her alleged heart attack only moments before that she managed to summon the strength to follow the witness out to the parking lot and even found the energy to threaten the woman along the way. At some point, her complete recovery was witnessed by Mrs. Hill grabbing the woman's hair, throwing her to the ground and pummeling her with her fists. All they need now is a referee and a whole lot of Jell-O and they've got themselves a party! (And probably a traveling reality show.)

Now, I don't know what I would do in that situation if I were the one being attacked by a recently recovered cardiac arrest induced amnesiac. I'm sure I would have been yelling for help. I might have tried to grab for my cell phone. (No! Not to video it and put it on YouTube! To call 911, you cynic!) But the woman in this situation knew exactly what to do. That's right. She took a knife out of her purse and stabbed the woman!

Oh, my God! What the hell is going on over there at the Tennessee Walmarts?! Good Lord! Look, there are plenty of people out there that I'd like to stab. There are certainly plenty of people out there that I've thought about stabbing. The problem is that it is rare that I ever have a stabbing implement with me at the time. This woman had one all ready to go and handy right there in her purse! The article doesn't state what kind of knife it was. It could have been one of those big ol' Bowie knives that you can behead a deer with. Or (and I'm guessing, most likely) it could have been one that she had stolen from the Sizzler. The bottom line is she had a knife in her purse and she stabbed a crazy fake heart attack woman in the parking lot of a Walmart.

What have we learned here? Quite a bit, I'd say! We've learned that loss prevention at Walmart isn't very effective unless, strictly by coincidence, there is an off duty cop there at the same time. We've learned that the mass theft schemes of folks like Joseph Hill are highly ineffective. We've learned that some people believe that a heart attack will also cause you to lose your memory for a very short period of time, but that you can be reinvigorated a short time later and just enough to assault a fellow shopper. And finally, we've learned that it doesn't seem all that odd for a woman to be packing some sort of stabbing utensil in her purse for just such an occasion while she shops at Walmart.

Oh, and we've also learned that those pictures over there at People of Walmart are definitely worth at least a thousand words and that we can make a fairly reasonable guess as to what those words are going to say.

Sphere: Related Content