A Man with Sword Subdues Portland Police Officers / You're kidding, right?

An article of interest in The Oregonian 6/28/15 by Elizabeth Hovde:  “Police Afraid to Police Creates Public Danger.”

“…June 7, a citizen called Portland police about a man described to be in his 30s threatening people with an approximately 4-foot-long Samurai sword.  This was at a pedestrian-popular riverfront location…”  “The call came in at 9:27PM.  Police responded.  The man refused to put the sword down…”  “Sword guy threw rocks at officers, and he was eventually hit five times with bean bag bullets, which didn’t much phase him.”  “A little after midnight, police left him with his sword near the riverfront.”

Ms. Hovde’s article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but she has described a very real problem with modern law enforcement.  Basically, is law enforcement starting to ‘pull-back,’ concerned about confrontations that might lead to a civil suit or public criticism – even if that decision might subsequently put the public in danger?

In my opinion the answer is ‘yes.’  The officers were apparently dealing with a mentally troubled individual armed with a potentially deadly weapon.  However, when the man would not give-in to their demands after being shot several times with a bean bag gun, supervisory personnel decided they’d just call it night – and hope he didn’t kill anyone.  Is this what the motto:  ‘To Serve and Protect’ implies?  Apparently, that is the case around this locale.  Maybe the Portland Police Bureau needs a new motto?  Some of you might have some good ideas.

Portland police administrators may have a justification, or more accurately a rationalization, as to why their officers walked away from a mentally ill man brandishing a sword in a public area; but, under the described circumstances, I can’t really think of a really good one to offer; but I will give it a try.

The reported criminal act alleged was 'brandishing a sword and scaring the public.'  The police categorized that crime as ‘Menacing,’ which is a misdemeanor under Oregon law.  When the police arrived the ‘victims’ (who had summoned the police) had left the scene.  Police can’t make a misdemeanor arrest unless it occurs in their presence – and they might say that the ‘victim or victims’ were not present to file a complaint, therefore they have no basis to arrest – a somewhat tortured logic under the circumstances.

However, it has been my understanding that throwing rocks at police officers, while brandishing a deadly weapon, would constitute at very least misdemeanor assault, disorderly conduct and/or probably ‘menacing,’ which would land you in the hoosegow under most circumstances.  It would appear that crazy courage has a demoralizing effect on our local gendarmes.  Perhaps, they should have called the SWAT Team.  Well, maybe SWAT quits at midnight too – and you know how that overtime money can drain a police budget.

Good news:  Apparently “sword guy” has not killed anyone so far – at least no one we’ve discovered.  I wonder if they ever identified this guy.  Oh, I guess it doesn’t really matter.

True Nelson

The Confederate Battle Flag / Mass Murder, Mother of Emanuel Church, Charleston, SC / My Thoughts...

This is about The Confederate Battle Flag; and a thought precipitated by a discussion with a friend.

So now, it appears, The Confederate Battle Flag is directly, indirectly, or incidentally associated with / responsible for the mass murder at the Mother of Emanuel Church in Charleston, SC, on 6-17-15, by Dylann Storm Roof.

I probably don’t have ‘standing’ to have an opinion on this subject.  I’m not a Southerner, or Black and never had any ancestors – as far as I know – who fought in the Civil War.  I guess my main thought is how easily public opinion is manipulated; and how deceptively politicians pervert and use to their advantage almost any tragedy.  It really is unconscionable.

That aside, I’ve heard this refrain numerous times recently about how symbols influence.  Yes, that might be true.  On the other hand, how can we hope to predict what type of symbol influences a psychopath?  I’ve known psychopaths to be influenced to commit murder by the appearance of a woman’s bare feet, or by a woman’s straight brown hair (some of Ted Bundy’s favorites).  But I digress…

Personally, I don’t really care if they stop selling or displaying the Confederate Flag.  I don’t have one and never even considered owning one.  I live in the West.  I suppose it’s a mute-point in this venue.  But, you know, somehow the banning of innocuous items or pieces of material seems somewhat un-American – not to mention that such an activity is always, and I mean always, indiscriminately applied.  Nonetheless, many would say, ‘What the heck - get rid of the damned thing - who really cares anyway?’  OK.  I hear you.  But…

Now, some doofus politician, Mayor Mitch Landrieu, wants to tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee in Lee Circle in New Orleans.  “Symbols really do matter”, he so eloquently, if not originally, opined.  Alright, citizens of New Orleans go ahead and tear it down.  This Oregonian couldn’t care less.  But, I do think you’re getting your patties in a bunch about pretty much nothing.

For those who are familiar with the basic facts of the Civil War, the South was not just defeated, it was destroyed.  If a Southern Civil War hero is revered by the South, so what?  If a small token, a flag, is a form of solace, I say what can it hurt?  General Grant, the Union victor, treated Robert E. Lee with respect and honor during the surrender at Appomattox in 1865, even though he could have had Lee hanged – which is what Lee actually expected would happen.

Where are we going with this process anyway?  Should the statues of Jefferson and Washington be torn down?  As most of us know, they owned slaves.  Whereas, the vast majority of the Southern soldiers who were killed or maimed during the Civil War never owned a slave.  If some flag (and it is an American flag after all) gives some people a bit of sentimental remembrance and respect for those soldiers who died when duty called.  Well, as far as I’m concerned, let it be.

True Nelson

Montana Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents / and those little white crosses (Part 2)

It’s interesting.  First off, the State of Montana does not run the ‘little white cross’ program.  Since 1953, this program has been promoted and maintained by local chapters of the American Legion.  They have received the endorsement of several Montana governors, but apparently no significant State funds are expended.  The State has participated to some degree in erecting signs, upon entry into Montana, explaining the highway ‘cross’ meaning.

Officially, the program is now known as the “White Marker Highway Fatality Program.”

The crosses are not meant as a memorial to any particular person; nor (officially) is there any religious connotation intended.  The ‘cross’ purpose is to raise awareness among the public; and increase motor vehicle safety.  The crosses are not in every county, but are in most.

There is one cross for “each fatal accident,” which makes one wonder about the five crosses displayed together that I noted in my previous post.  I guess it depends on how you count fatal accidents (body count or actual accident count).

The dimensions and manner of presentation for each cross is consistent state-wide.  They are not to be decorated – although clearly many are – apparently by friends or family of the deceased.  When a road is improved the cross is removed – unless a family member specifically requests a new cross be installed.  Furthermore, family members can request that a cross not be installed at an accident scene; or that they would like to have a cross removed.

The Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the Montana Highway Patrol have praised the program.  So who am I to disparage it?  Now that I know more about it, I guess it’s OK – but, I still feel it is a little bizarre.

The question is, ‘does it work?’

Well, Montana has 1.96 fatal motor vehicle deaths per 100 million vehicle miles driven.  Oregon has .94 deaths.  In other words, Montana roads are twice as deadly.  Apparently, the ‘little white crosses’ are accomplishing very little.

Oh, regarding motorcycle deaths, remember I previously mentioned the inordinately high speeds on some roads and no helmet requirement in Montana.  Well, I did find some statistics on that.  Although Oregon’s population is three times the population of Montana, the number of fatal motorcycle accidents is pretty much the same:  In 2013, Oregon had 34 deaths (32 were wearing helmets).  In 2013, Montana had 35 motorcycle fatalities (12 were wearing helmets).

True Nelson

Montana's Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents / and those little white crosses

I recently returned from a trip to Glacier National Park.  Yes, I occasionally do other things besides this blog.  The Park is, of course, in Montana and is spectacular; but this is not a travelogue.  This is about the little white crosses that dot the Montana highways.  Each cross indicates a traffic fatality at a given location.

Now, I must say that I initially found them to be kind of morbid and distasteful.  Imagine riding along with your small children or grandchildren and explaining every few miles, ‘Yes, someone was killed here in a car wreck.’  However, even children would grow bored with the concept after a while; and so, perhaps, that's nothing to be particularly concerned about.

At one location there was a rack of five crosses displayed – apparently five people died – probably in the same accident.  It seemed strange.  It was a straight stretch of road.  One might tend to imagine the intoxicated driver, flying high on alcohol or the recreational marijuana he purchased in Oregon or Washington (my apologies to those who smoke weed responsibly), crossing the center line and plowing into a family’s minivan.

Then there is the less morbid, practical side of me that says, ‘Doesn’t the State of Montana have better projects to spend their money on?’

I was thinking all these things as I was rocketing along a rather curvy road at seventy MPH.  Say what, you ask?  Yes, Montana’s infatuation with little white crosses is complimented by their excessive speed limits along some questionable two-lane roads.  Seventy is quite common.  Now, because I’ve matured over the years, I tend to slow down on the curves; but, I’m not sure that I would have done that at eighteen – due to my then immature and perhaps more literal understanding of what the speed limit meant.

Furthermore, Montana, interestingly, does not require helmets on motorcyclists who also travel seventy plus along these curvy roads.  Which, I’m sure can be a lot of fun.  It has also brought the state, I would imagine, an abundant supply of organ donors – incidentally or purposely, I’m not sure – organs for a little white cross – seems fair.

Anyway, those were my thoughts.  So, I decided to look into it.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Is there hope for the future? Sometimes, I think there is.

It’s odd the things you learn in childhood that stick with you through a lifetime – strange things.  Do you know that I still bend down to pick up a penny that I see lying on the sidewalk or in a parking lot?  “See a penny and pick it up and all day long you'll have good luck.”  My mother taught me that rhyme as a small child.

These days, of course, a penny is basically worthless.  I no longer need the penny, never did really; and, quite frankly, picking up a penny requires more effort as the years go by.  In fact, I almost feel a little embarrassed when I do it; but I do it nonetheless.  Why?

As I grew older, I interpreted the rhyme to mean that, if you’re so prideful that you would not bend over and pick up a penny, you don’t deserve good luck or good fortune.  And, moreover, it takes so little effort... well, why not?

Here’s where I segue into a recent experience I had.  It was nothing I suppose.  But, it’s funny how it impressed me.

I was in McDonalds.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t eat there much (hardly ever), but I do occasionally stop for coffee.  Oh, I can afford to go to Starbucks and I do once in a while.  The demographics are different in Starbucks.  That’s for sure.  Many of the customers are fixated on their laptop computers and cell phones.  Generally, Starbucks customers are slimmer, tidier, more mannerly, and presumably better educated. 

But…  Have you ever heard the saying (It’s a country song by Lester Flatt):  ‘Don’t get above your raisin’?  Meaning you better remember where you came from.  I try to do that – remember that is.

So, to continue, I walked into McDonalds.  There was a line of three boys, probably sixteen or seventeen, waiting to place their order.  I formed-up behind them.  The boy in front turned to me and said, “You go ahead sir.”  I went to the front and ordered my senior coffee.  I turned to him and said ‘thank you.’  I wanted to say that you must have great parents, but I didn’t.  He probably wouldn’t have understood why I said that anyway.

In telling this story to someone later, they asked me if I would have done that when I was sixteen or seventeen.  I said, ‘yes, I think I would have.  I hope I would have.’

I know this isn’t a big deal.  It just one of those little transitory life situations that gave me a bit of hope for the future.

True Nelson

Smart Guns are Here; But You May Not be Able to Buy One (Conclusion)

Who would benefit from the development of a ‘Smart Gun?’  Potentially, if perfected (which they aren’t), all of us.

As you might recall from my previous post, the iP1 is a .22 caliber pistol (not pictured at right).  The iP1 could be a good personal protection weapon for the ‘beginner’ gun handler.  It’s light.  And, the recoil is minimal.

Most gun enthusiasts, however, would consider it little more than a conversation piece, a possible collector's item, a target pistol, and of no consequence in an actual survival or combat situation.  The reason for the .22 caliber of the iP1 is the associated lack of recoil.  A heavy recoil would be hard on the internal circuit board; and, perhaps, lead to malfunction.  Therefore, military personnel wouldn’t be interested, nor would police, nor would serious competitive shooters.

That said, the technology could evolve to include larger calibers and/or improved (more deadly) bullets.  I know the anti-gun folks don’t like the sound of that.  Nonetheless, regarding bullets, most law enforcement agencies now use ‘hollow-points,’ for their shock-impact value and the resulting, immediately-disabling wound.

It should be noted that a perfected ‘Smart Gun’ would be a tremendous step forward in police officer safety.  “According to FBI statistics, 33 police officers were murdered with their own weapons,” between 2004 and 2013.

Fortune Magazine pointed out the many accidental shootings by children of other children or even adults.  Fortune cited the tragic incident in an Idaho Wal-Mart when a two-year-old reached into his mother’s purse, which was sitting in the shopping cart, took the gun out, pulled the trigger and killed his mother.  A ‘Smart Gun’ might have prevented that accident.  But, I suppose safe gun-handling practices would also have prevented it.

So, who would be against the ‘Smart Gun’ if, theoretically, it could be perfected?  

Well, it seems most folks interested in guns (pro and con) – at least for now - are against it.  Why?

The NRA isn’t exactly against ‘Smart Guns,’ but they are against any accompanying mandates.  Like, for example, outlawing other guns not so designed.  However, law makers love mandates.  It’s their nature.  It gives the appearance of doing something constructive.  And, State Legislative bodies (particularly New Jersey) have considered, even tried, establishing laws prohibiting gun ownership - other than ‘Smart Guns.’  This is a potential way to tax, license, regulate, perhaps make illegal, most guns – their real objective.

Trial lawyers have expressed the opinion that manufacturers of traditional guns could be sued on the same basis as cigarette companies – on the premise that guns that don’t possess ‘smart’ technology are inherently dangerous to the public.  Unless some legislative protections are put in place to protect ‘Smart Gun’ manufacturers, they will be unwilling to risk the necessary investment and potential liabilities.

Many folks are against any guns, particularly handguns, and consider a ‘smart’ handgun to be unnecessary and basically an oxymoron.  They state that there is no such thing as a smart or safe handgun and that they should all be banned.  An untenable position that runs head-on into those who appreciate guns for various reasons; not to mention the 2^nd Amendment.

My opinion:  ‘Smart guns’ could be a good thing, a very good thing.  They should be promoted and perfected.  However, manufacturers and gun innovators should be protected from punitive lawsuits.  Who knows, maybe 50 or 100 years from now, all guns will be ‘Smart Guns’ and others not so enhanced will be considered antiques.  

But, that’s then and this is now.

On a lighter note, I was hoping that the development of ‘smart’ golf clubs was on the horizon – and the sooner the better.

True Nelson

Smart Guns are Here; But You May Not be Able to Buy One

I read an interesting article in the current edition of ‘Fortune Magazine,’ titled “Smart Guns – They’re Ready.  Are We?”  This article contains information that should be of interest to all, regardless of whether you love guns or hate them.

The article’s poster child (so-to-speak) is the Armatix iP1, .22 Caliber, (pictured) with a projected purchase price of $1800.  I won’t attempt to explain the RFID (radio frequency identification) technology.  But, basically, the gun’s owner wears a watch or bracelet, or some other similar device; and when the gun is farther then approximately one foot from the owner, and his device, it won’t fire.  The technology is battery operated.  However, the manufacture states the batteries will last for approximately one thousand shots and a red light will flash when the batteries grow weak.

This sounded like a good idea – at least for some.  However, personally, I wouldn’t want such a gun for several reasons, not the least of which is the high price.  I’ve had considerable training with guns and I’m very comfortable with them.  I’m old school.  ‘You load the gun.  You point the gun.  You squeeze the trigger and it goes bang.’  A quality gun and ammunition completes this cycle 100% of the time.  In the proper hands guns are very safe.

That said, the iP1 sounded like a valid alternative for some less trained individuals, who for various reasons might require a gun for protection.

When I was doing security consulting / private investigations, I would occasionally get requests for help from women being stalked.  They were scared, often with good cause.  There are several things that a woman, or sometimes a man, can do in these situations to protect themselves.  But, the bottom line, I would tell these folks, is that if you were depending on the police to protect you – good luck.  At best, the police would arrive too late to help you; but in time to conduct the crime scene investigation.

I would advise these women to get a gun, get some professional training with the gun, and do not aspire to be one more crime statistic.  Take charge of your own safety – your own life.  The unfortunate side of this advice was that these potential victims might actually acquire a gun, but didn’t think they needed any training.  Consequently, they were petrified to even handle the gun; and often hid it away where it wouldn’t be available if they should require it.  Some would later tell me that their greatest fear was the possibility that the stalker would take the gun and use it on them.

But I digress.  Apparently, the iP1 will not be commercially available anytime soon.  Why?  The concept is being opposed by two factions, the pro-guns’ faction and the anti-guns’ faction.  Seems strange doesn’t it?  I’ll explain.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Leonard Peltier Murdered FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald A. Williams (Part 3 - Conclusion)

When you read about those who are advocating for a Presidential pardon for Leonard Peltier, Robert Redford seems to be one of the principals pushing that action.  I’m always suspicious of celebrities.  What exactly is their real motive?

For example, Robert Redford is a very rich man; a pampered, insulated man.  If he was sincerely concerned about Leonard Peltier, one might ask why he doesn’t just open his wallet and hire the best attorney in town for Leonard.  But, you see, Redford isn’t going to do that.  He gets more play for his money advocating a cause.  It’s trendy – gives him something to talk about at cocktail parties I suppose; makes his life seem just a bit more meaningful, maybe even benefits his career in certain circles.

Furthermore, Redford knows that the attorney route wouldn’t work anyway.  Peltier has already appealed his case through various legal channels; and those appeals have all failed.  So, Mr. Redford will pursue the Presidential Pardon route.  He knows President Obama is probably receptive to the idea – the President being a celebrity junky in his own right.  And, hell, screw the FBI Agents.  They’ve been dead for forty years anyway – who really cares.

Some of the other celebrities like Willie Nelson and Pamela Anderson – well, does anyone really take anything they say seriously?

I guess my questions for Mr. Redford would be, ‘Will you really be happy when Leonard Peltier, a convicted murderer, walks?’  ‘Will you invite him to your home?’  ‘Introduce him to your family?’  ‘Really?’

As a young Agent who spent a couple of months at Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, during the 1973 dust-up, I do take this a little personally.  The thought does cross my mind that this could have been me.

True Nelson

Leonard Peltier Murdered FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald A. Williams (Part 2)

The casual reader, regarding the murders of FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald L. Williams (1975 – Pine Ridge Indian Reservation), might presume that Leonard Peltier, convicted for the Agents’ murders, has been unjustly convicted.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

But, you say, what about all of Peltier’s alleged supporters to include such luminaries as:  Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Willie Nelson, Pamela Anderson, Common (he was great in 'Hell on Wheels') et al.

Well, I did research this.  And, if you’d like to do your own research, make sure the Excedrin is close-by.  There seems to be a flood of information with little specificity.  The bottom line, as I see it, is that Peltier has become a cause célèbre to American Indians and those others who wish to be sympathetic to their plight (a plight that is allegedly ubiquitous; but difficult for most to define); often categorizing Peltier as a ‘political prisoner,’ whatever that means.

The name Mother Teresa caused me pause – a reportedly saintly person.  How could one doubt her sincerity or authenticity?  What about Desmond Tutu?  What about the European Parliament (Did you know there was such an organization)?  Yes, they weighed-in too.

Well, it gets a little sketchy – to say the least.  It appears that Mother Teresa may have opined at one point that Mr. Peltier wasn’t getting proper medical attention.  Others, mostly what we would normally consider ‘leftists,’ or perhaps ‘far leftists,' have contended the evidence against Peltier was not only flawed, but was actually fabricated by the FBI; and, as a result, Peltier did not get a fair trial.  But, there is nothing tangible; mostly smoke and vague generalities.

Understand that Peltier had five notable, highly qualified and experienced defense attorneys at his trial and has had subsequent various courts review that trial process – including the U.S. Supreme Court.  And, guess what?  They haven’t found a problem.

One aspect that keeps being repeated is that “prosecutors” have allegedly said that they are not certain that Peltier actually killed the Agents.  However, it does not seem to be refuted that he (Peltier) was actually there.  Somebody, shot the Agents at close range.  Peltier was there.  I hate to quote one of my least favorite politicians, but it seems appropriate here:  “What difference does it make?”

This is not funny.  It is deadly serious.  But, it kind of reminds me of a possible Three Stooges skit.  ‘You shoot them.’  ‘No, here’s the gun, you shoot them.’  ‘No, I don’t want to, you do it.’  ‘I’m not going to do it, you do it.’  All the while the wounded Agents wait on the ground for these, ah, 'socially challenged activists' to decide who the executioner will be.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Leonard Peltier Murdered FBI Agents John L. Coler and Ronald A Williams / Let’s Just Get it Straight

I really couldn’t let this one slide-by.

“Peltier’s Son Joins Fight for Father’s Freedom” (The Oregonian 5/10/15).  Article by Dana Tims.

Before I criticize, I always research the writer.  I want to make sure that he is not twenty-one and recently graduated from journalism school.  I wouldn’t want to rain on a young person’s parade.  However, Mr. Tims looks old enough to know better.

Leonard Peltier’s son, Chauncey, is apparently renewing the ‘fight’ to free his father, the murderous, unrepentant Leonard Peltier.  OK, sons often overlook the sins of their fathers, and even sometimes put a glossy spin on their fathers’ past escapades.  You know ‘boys will be boys’ or ‘it was just the times’ or ‘his actions were justified due to some murky wrong or cause.’  However, that doesn’t warrant Mr. Tims’ softball approach to writing about the murders of two FBI Agents (John L. Coler and Ronald A. Williams) on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota (1975).

Tims describes the murders as the result of a “shootout,” as if it was something like the ‘shootout at the OK Corral.’  Well, let’s get this straight.  The FBI Agents were outgunned, with their revolvers, and were ambushed by Peltier et al who were armed with rifles, located a considerable distance away.

The ‘shootout:’ Coler and Williams fired a grand total of five rounds.  However, the Agents’ car had a total of 125 bullet holes.  This did not, of course, account for the incoming rounds that missed the car or shattered windows in the car.  Agent Coler was hit in the arm which reportedly nearly severed it.  Williams, also wounded, attempted to stem the blood flow from Coler’s arm by wrapping his own shirt around the wound.

Coler, probably near death, and Williams wounded were approached by Peltier and friends.  The Agents were executed at close range, two bullets to Coler’s head, and one bullet to Williams’ head.  Williams had a defensive wound to his hand which he held in front of his face.  The bullet went through his hand into his head.

9-22-91, Peltier admitted, on the television program “60 Minutes,” that he shot at the Agents.

In an elaborate trial, with five defense attorneys, Peltier was convicted on two counts of ‘First Degree Murder.’  Substantial evidence was presented in court connecting him to the principal murder weapon, the .223 rifle.  Peltier has entered several appeals.  All have been denied by various courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court has on two occasions refused to hear his appeals.

Peltier now holds hope that he will be pardoned by President Obama.  Many experts consider this a realistic possibility.  Peltier, surprisingly in my opinion, has received the backing of several celebrities.  I will talk more about this.

To be continued…

True Nelson

A Mass Murder Simulated at a Public School / Halfway, Oregon

This is a story that would be funny if it wasn’t so incredibly serious.  It occurred in Halfway, Oregon in April of 2013.

Halfway is a small town in eastern Oregon, population approximately 300.  Said sleepy little town, situated halfway between Pine and Cornucopia in Baker County, occasionally breaks into the news.

For example did you know that a prominent Halfway resident is Babette March (born in 1941), now known as Babette Beatty.  If you’re a sports’ fan, an older one, you might recall that Babette was the first Sports Illustrated, swimsuit issue, cover model.  Look her up.  She was a real ‘hotty.’  And, I’m sure a lovely woman to this day.

Or you might recall that in 1999, Halfway, Oregon changed their town name to Half.Com.  The name change was reportedly, semi-official, but only lasted a year.  This was during the ‘dot com’ boom of the late ‘90s.  It did help the town garner a little publicity, and some free computers for the local school.

But, in April of 2013, the school board and a complicit Baker County Sheriff’s Office pulled-off a stunt that was beyond stupid.  And, as a result, Linda Mallery McLean, a former school teacher, is now suing the Pine Eagle School District #61.

What happened?  Well, the ‘authorities’ (and I use that term loosely) decided to simulate a mass murder, school shooting.  They conducted this operation on a day when the children were not in school, but the teachers had a workday.  Apparently, two men, armed with guns loaded with blanks and dressed in the perceived fashion of a typical mass murderer (although I’m not sure what a typical MM looks like in Halfway), burst into the school scaring the holy bejesus out of the unsuspecting teaching staff.

According to McLean, one the ‘terrorists’ stormed into her classroom, pointed a gun at her, pulled the trigger; and then informed the traumatized Ms. McLean, “You’re dead!”

Now, the school authorities didn’t do this half-assed, or maybe they did.  But they did inform the Sheriff’s Office ahead of time, just in case one of the teachers called 911.  Furthermore, the Sheriff’s Office did conduct background checks on the teaching staff to make sure none of them held a Concealed Weapon Permit – which they didn’t.  Too bad, because the resulting shoot-out could have brought a lot of publicity to Halfway; and moreover taught the local school board, and the Sheriff’s Office, the true meaning of the word ‘stupid.’

Some of the teachers were hurt during the ‘attack,’ running and attempting to fight back.  Since then, Ms. McLean, who had taught at the school for more than 30 years, was unable to return to work – Post Traumatic Stress is her claim.

Good luck, Ms. McLean.

True Nelson

Did the US Attorney, the FBI and The Oregonian newspaper play a role in the re-election of now disgraced Governor Kitzhaber?

I found a recent article in the Oregon City News (a local newspaper) very interesting; although, I must say, not particularly surprising:  “Richardson Speaks out About Political Scandal.”

Dennis Richardson, a former Republican State Legislator, ran an uphill and subsequently unsuccessful bid to unseat the incumbent Governor John Kitzhaber.  Most of you are aware that shortly after Kitzhaber’s re-election he was forced to resign; and he is currently under investigation by the US Attorney’s Office and the FBI.

Richardson had, prior to the election, submitted a detailed letter (October 26^th) to the US Attorney in Oregon setting forth very specific allegations against the Governor and his girlfriend, “fiancée,” Cylvia Hayes – citing unethical and possibly criminal conduct on the part of Kitzhaber and Hayes.

Richardson stated in the article:  “I hired a key Washington, DC, lawyer who had experience with federal investigations and prosecutions of elected officials to research and write the letter.”

Richardson said that he had no particular inside information, that the charges outlined were widely circulated in the media and through various public testimony.

Interestingly, the US Attorney Amanda Marshall (appointed by President Barrack Obama) and the FBI sat on the information until after the re-election of Kitzhaber.  Within a couple of weeks, the public clamor forced Kitzhaber to resign.  Immediately, the US Attorney and the FBI (to that point completely silent) jumped into the fray.  Furthermore, the charges ultimately set forth by the US Attorney’s Office closely resembled allegations included in Richardson’s October letter.

Yes, folks, everything is political – as we all know or I suppose should know.  Just as in this case delaying tactics, by the Feds, may very well have changed an election outcome and insured a Democratic hold the State.  Upon Kitzhaber’s resignation, Oregon’s Secretary of State (also a Democrat) ascended to the Governorship.

One other point, The Oregonian (Oregon’s principal daily newspaper), although certainly privy to all of the known information about Kitzhaber, nonetheless had their Editorial Board endorse Kitzhaber for re-election.  With the The Oregonian’s help, Kitzhaber won decisively.  Richardson was just SOL.

Was the fix in on this one?  I don’t know. The Oregonian’s editorial board has since apologized for their misdirected endorsement.  However, their apology sounds to me just a bit disingenuous.  Based on what they almost certainly knew, they could have just as well withheld any endorsement for Governor.  But they didn’t.  Ethics, for bigtime newspapers struggling to survive, has become a rather archaic concept.  No, I take that back.  Ethics is a concept that has rarely held sway in the newspaper business.  Those who believe otherwise – well, what can I say?

You might also be interested in reading this related post:
  http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-fbi-us-attorneys-office-kitzhaber.html

True Nelson