Featured Douche 03.31.09

The Winner: Officer Robert Powell of the Dallas Police Department

The Story:

March 27,2009

DALLAS —
A police officer was placed on administrative leave Thursday over a traffic stop involving an NFL player whom he kept in a hospital parking lot and threatened to arrest while his mother-in-law died inside the building.

Officer Robert Powell also drew his gun during the March 18 incident involving Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats in the Dallas suburb of Plano, police said.

"I can screw you over," he said at one point in the videotaped incident. When another officer came with word that Moats' mother-in-law was indeed dying, Powell's response was: "All right. I'm almost done."

Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle apologized to the family and announced that Powell would be on paid leave pending an internal investigation.

"When we at the command staff reviewed the tape, we were embarrassed, disappointed," Kunkle said. "It's hard to find the right word and still be professional in my role as the police chief. But the behavior was not appropriate."

Powell, 25, a three-year member of the force, stopped Moats' SUV outside Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano after Moats rolled through a red light.

Police officials said Powell told his commanders he believed he was doing his job, and that he drew his gun but did not point it. Kunkle said Powell was not necessarily acting improperly when he pulled his weapon out, but that once he realized what was happening should have put the gun back, apologized and offered to help the family in any way.

"His behavior, in my opinion, did not exhibit the common sense, the discretion, the compassion that we expect our officers to exhibit," Kunkle said.

Moats' wife, who was in the car along with other relatives, said Powell pointed his weapon at her.

"He was pointing a gun at me as soon as I got out of the car," Tamishia Moats told The Dallas Morning News.

Ryan Moats told KRLD-FM in Dallas in a phone interview Thursday that after the officer pointed the gun at his wife, he pointed it at him. "I just tried to stay as still as possible to not scare him or do anything to make him react," he said.

He earlier told the newspaper he thought Powell should be fired but backed off that in his radio interview.

"All I know is what he did was wrong," Moats said. "He stole a moment away from me that I can never get back. I'm really not the judge on what should happen to him."

The Moats family did not immediately return messages left by The Associated Press. Powell did not respond to requests for comment through the Dallas police union.

Video from a dashboard camera inside the officer's vehicle, obtained by Dallas-Fort Worth station WFAA-TV, revealed an intense exchange in which the officer threatened to jail Moats.

He ordered Tamishia Moats, 27, to get back in the SUV, but after pausing for a few seconds, she and another woman rushed into the hospital. She was by the side of her mother, 45-year-old Jonetta Collinsworth, when she died a short time later from breast cancer.

"Get in there," said Powell, yelling at Tamishia Moats as she exited the vehicle. "Let me see your hands!"

"Excuse me, my mom is dying," Tamishia Moats said. "Do you understand?"

Ryan Moats explained that he waited until there was no traffic before proceeding through the red light. When Powell asked for proof of insurance, Moats grew more agitated and told the officer to go find it.

"My mother-in-law is dying! Right now! You're wasting my time!" Moats yelled. "I don't understand why you can't understand that."

As they argued, the officer got irritated.

"Shut your mouth," the officer said. "You can either settle down and cooperate or I can just take you to jail for running a red light."

By the time the 26-year-old NFL player received a ticket and a lecture from Powell, about 13 minutes had passed. When he and Collinsworth's father entered the hospital, they learned Collinsworth was dead.

Earl Jackson, Collinsworth's father, said he knew what Powell was doing was wrong. "This guy, he wouldn't listen to nobody," Jackson said in an interview with Dallas-Fort Worth station KDFW-TV.

Moats said he wouldn't have had a problem with the officer giving him a ticket after letting him go into the hospital.

"I don't know what he was thinking," he told KRLD-FM. "Basically, I was just shocked. I was very shocked that he wasn't budging on it. I even said I can't believe that this was happening."

Kunkle said the video showed that Moats and his wife "exercised extraordinary patience, restraint in dealing with the behavior of our officer."

"At no time did Mr. Moats identify himself as an NFL football player or expect any kind of special consideration," Kunkle said. "He handled himself very, very well."

The Moats family, who are black, said they can't help but think that race might have played a part in the white officer's behavior.

"I think he should lose his job," Ryan Moats said.

When the exchange was at its most contentious, Powell said he could tow Moats' SUV if he didn't have insurance and that he could arrest him for fleeing because he didn't immediately stop when Powell turned on his sirens. The pursuit lasted a little more than a minute.

"I can screw you over," Powell said. "I'd rather not do that. Your attitude will dictate everything that happens."

The ticket issued to Moats was dismissed, Dallas police spokesman Lt. Andy Harvey said.

Texans spokesman Kevin Cooper said the team had no comment.

Moats, a third-round draft choice of the Philadelphia Eagles in 2005 out of Louisiana Tech, was cut by the Eagles in August and later signed with the Texans. In three seasons as a backup, he's rushed for 441 yards and scored four touchdowns.

He was a standout at Bishop Lynch High School, a private school in Dallas, rushing for more than 2,600 yards and 33 touchdowns as a senior.

Robocop's Comment:

I do not really care that the victim was an NFL player. To be honest,if this happened to one of us normal people, this story would have never come out. The main thing that fires me up about this police officer is that he shows NO REMORSE over the situation. As an ex-police officer, I can tell you a number of things a fourth week academy rat would have done to make this situation go another way. What I see here is what they refer to on the street as a "power trip". This cop should lose his job,and should not even get a job as a mall security guard. Hell, I would not even trust him to secure a pile of horse manure. He might draw his weapon on a horse. I salute the men and women of law enforcement. Robert Powell gets my "other" salute.

BSG-Total War

For your entertainment.

Featured Douche 03.26.09

The Winners: Angelo Monderoy and Matthew Cooper of New York

The Story:

Two teenagers could spend 25 years in prison for allegedly torturing and killing a cat they set on fire when they broke into an apartment in New York City.

Angelo Monderoy, 18, and Matthew Cooper, 17, allegedly broke into a vacant apartment in Brooklyn, N.Y., on or around Oct. 7, 2008. Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes said the pair held the cat down as they poured charcoal lighter fluid on it.

Hynes said they then set the animal on fire, causing deep wounds and fourth-degree burns. The blaze also damaged the building, which has other units that are occupied.

The cat was found outside, unable to move and crying but still alive, the district attorney said.

It was euthanized at a local animal hospital.

The ASPCA launched an extensive investigation leading to the capture of Monderoy and Cooper, who were indicted this week in Brooklyn, according to the district attorney.

They face charges of second-degree arson, second-degree burglary and aggravated animal cruelty and could spend up to 25 years in prison if convicted.

Cooper also was recently charged with burglary and assault in an unrelated incident in the same building in which he and another defendant are charged with breaking into an apartment and beating the sleeping tenant with a cane while they demanded money.

Robocop's Comment:

Those two young men should be lit on fire.

Concealed Carry in National Parks Suspended -- NRA Files Motion To Appeal

NRA-ILA

On Thursday, March 19, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges.

In Thursday's ruling, Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the preliminary injunction against the Department of the Interior rule that took effect on January 9, 2009. The revised rule allowed individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense in national parks and national wildlife refuges located in states that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Today, NRA filed a notice of appeal in Federal District Court to oppose the preliminary injunction.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox, said, "NRA is moving aggressively to protect this common sense rule and that's why we filed this notice of appeal today. Just as we did not give up the fight to change the old, outdated rule, we will not give up our fight in the courts to defend the rule change. We will pursue every legal avenue to defend the American people's right of self-defense."
Until further notice, individuals cannot legally carry loaded, concealed firearms for personal protection in national parks and wildlife refuges.

From Enemy Combatant to American Immigrant

The Weekly Standard

Yesterday, Attorney General Holder said that some of the current Guantanamo detainees may be released in the United States. Press reports indicate that Holder and the Obama administration are considering releasing some or all of the Uighur detainees at Guantanamo onto U.S. soil. That would be a mistake.

There are currently 17 Uighurs held at Guantanamo. Five others were previously sent to Albania. All 22 of the Uighurs are openly opposed to the Chinese government, but claim that they have no animosity for America. Before the Obama administration dropped the “enemy combatant” label altogether, the government decided that the Uighurs did not satisfy the definition of an “enemy combatant.”

It is not entirely clear why. The Uighur detainees were initially classified as enemy combatants during hearings at Guantanamo and then, only later, the classification was dropped. It may be that the politics of Guantanamo (including pressure from various anti-Gitmo groups, and pro-Chinese opposition sentiment) played a role in that decision. It is also likely that the government thought it was not worth fighting in the courts after judges decided the Uighurs did not meet the enemy combatant standard. (In my view, the opinions that have been issued thus far ignore a wealth of publicly-available information.)

Let’s be clear on the Uighur detainees: None of them are first-order threats. None of them should be counted among the “worst of the worst” detained by American forces, either at Guantanamo or abroad. We are not talking about terrorists of the same caliber as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It is also clear that some detainees who posed a more serious threat to national security have already been released or transferred. The only reason the Uighurs are still at Guantanamo is because the Bush administration could not safely transfer them back to China. There were and are human rights concerns. The Uighur detainees probably would have received rough treatment, or possibly even been executed.

Given all that, however, it is mistake to say the Uighur detainees pose no threat whatsoever. In brief, here are four reasons why. (You can also read my previous reporting on this topic here and here.)

First, the Uighur detainees are alleged, for good reasons, to be members or associates of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). The ETIM is a designated terrorist organization affiliated with al Qaeda.

There is sound evidence that the Uighur detainees are affiliated with the ETIM. For example, most of the detainees have made admissions during their tribunals and hearings at Guantanamo that tie them to the group. The ETIM is a jihadist organization and not part of some noble anti-China resistance. So, even if you have sympathy for the Chinese government’s opposition (as I do), including other Uighur organizations, the Uighur detainees at Guantanamo are not part of any legitimate, anti-Chinese government organization that deserves our support. The ETIM is an ideological cousin of al Qaeda that seeks to establish a radical Islamist state throughout South and Central Asia.

Second, many of the Uighur detainees have freely admitted during their tribunals and hearings at Guantanamo that they were trained by two known terrorists: Hasan Mahsum and Abdul Haq.

Mahsum was killed in Waziristan in 2003. Haq is still active. Neither Mahsum nor Haq can be considered legitimate freedom fighters. Open source accounts, as well as the testimony of knowledgeable experts, indicate that both Haq and Mahsum had ties to senior al Qaeda terrorists, including Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah. Mahsum operated in the Mullah Omar’s Kabul for years and received the Taliban’s support repeatedly.

Third, the Uighur detainees’ training took place at a camp in Tora Bora, Afghanistan -– a known stronghold for al Qaeda and the Taliban.

There is no dispute over the fact that the Uighur detainees were at Tora Bora both before and after 9/11. You will recall that Tora Bora became the fallback zone for retreating jihadist forces after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Most, if not all, of the Uighur detainees fled Tora Bora for Pakistan, where they were picked up. Some have tried to argue that there is no proof that the Taliban and/or al Qaeda sponsored the Tora Bora camp. But this is sheer nonsense. It is difficult to believe that the ETIM could have operated inside the heart of Taliban country without at least the acquiescence of senior Taliban and al Qaeda members. And there is evidence that the Tora Bora camp was sponsored by them.

Fourth, the Uighur detainees’ training makes them a potential threat not just to the Chinese government/military forces.

The ETIM has openly targeted and threatened civilians, as it did last year during the Chinese Olympics. In a publicly-released video, an ETIM member stood in front of al Qaeda’s black flag as he threatened anyone who attended the Olympics. The ETIM has also executed terrorist bombings against civilian targets inside China. ETIM trainees have fought alongside Taliban forces in Afghanistan on a number of occasions. They have also been used to buttress other al Qaeda-allied jihadist forces throughout Central Asia, including in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

There have been some attempts to dismiss the training the Uighur detainees received as harmless. But, as pointed out above, it was conducted by known terrorists. Moreover, it is likely that the training included not only rudimentary military training, but also ideological indoctrination as well. By and large, the Uighur detainees appear to have been fresh recruits who arrived in Afghanistan during the spring and summer of 2001. Many of them were at the camp for at least a few months as of 9/11. There is no telling where they would have ended up.

It is understandable that the Obama administration would want to resolve the Uighur detainees’ cases. It is also understandable that people do not want to just lock them up and throw away the key.

But releasing them onto U.S. soil is not the answer.

Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns

Washington Times

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.

Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.

Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.

Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.

Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.'s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.

Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.

Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can't find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?

Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?

Global gun control

Washington Times

There may good reasons for deploying the National Guard along the U.S.-Mexican border, but illegal firearms isn't one of them.

The administration recently launched a study to examine whether soldiers should patrol the Southern border to staunch the flow of firearms headed for drug dealers in Latin America. The silence you hear is the concern about armed drug gangs headed here. In short, the administration seems more concerned about the guns going south than the non-citizens streaming north.

"We're going to examine whether and if National Guard deployment would make sense," the president said. We look forward to seeing the study.

Stopping vicious Mexican drug gangs is surely a noble goal, as those gangs killed an estimated 6,000 people in Mexico last year. We also have a serious gang problem. The U.S. Department of Justice now estimates that 80 percent of U.S. crime is linked to gangs and drugs.

Yet, at least part of the president's plan is doomed to fail: Stopping Mexican gangs from getting guns will prove as difficult as stopping them from getting the drugs that they sell.

We are losing the drug war. Despite Mexico's strenuous efforts, our neighbor hasn't been able to stop the transnational flow of drugs through Mexico from other Latin American countries. Our own government hasn't done much better stopping contraband.

We won't do any better with guns. The drugs are extremely valuable and drug lords have many enemies, ranging from governments to rival gangs. So gangs have powerful incentives to own guns-to defend their lives and property-and access to vast smuggling networks.

Even digging a moat between the U.S. and Mexico wouldn't stop the flow of guns. Consider the experience of island nations -Ireland, Jamaica, and the United Kingdom- all of which saw murder rates climb after guns were banned. In the land of the disarmed, the one-gun man is king.

Certainly the Mexicans deserve our help when they investigate and prosecute gun murders in their country, just as we deserve their aid when we prosecute drug kingpins here. If we are going to talk about deploying armies on the border, shouldn't the administration ask the Mexicans to deploy their army to stem the tide of migrants headed here?

Fortifying The Right To Self-Defense

NRA-ILA

"Law is order, and good law is good order," Aristotle said. Without doubt, Florida's recently enacted "Castle Doctrine" law is good law, casting a common-sense light onto the debate over the right of self-defense. It reverses the pendulum that for too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of their victims. Despite predictable howling from the anti-gun media elite that Florida was taking an unprecedented and dangerous action, in truth it joined 24 other states that reject "duty-to-retreat" laws.

Passed overwhelmingly in the state legislature--unanimously in the Senate and 94-20 in the House--;the new law removes the "duty to retreat" when citizens are outside of their homes and where they have legal right to be. It says that if a criminal breaks into your home or occupied vehicle or a place where you are camping overnight, for example, you may presume that he is there to do bodily harm and use any force, including deadly force, to protect yourself from a violent attack. Floridians who defend themselves from criminal attack are shielded by the new law from criminal prosecution and from civil suits brought by their attackers.

In testifying for the bill, Marion P. Hammer, executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, said: "No one knows what is in the twisted mind of a violent criminal. You can't expect a victim to wait before taking action to protect herself and say: 'Excuse me, Mr. Criminal, did you drag me into this alley to rape and kill me or do you just want to beat me up and steal my purse?'"

Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.

Obama as Hitler

by Kevin McCullough

This week in a bold move the President broke a barrier that his supporters should be quite concerned about. For in doing so he has broken a barrier that should always be seen as sacred. However, this will likely be marginalized by the leftist media that offers it’s blind support regardless of any mastery of facts.

Case and point... Rachel Maddow.

She is MSNBC's less funny and perhaps more butch version of Keith Olbermann. And on this past Friday night she did an entire "bit" on anyone who would compare Obama's policies to socialism as "not very serious people." Of course people seeing the “bit” were a good deal uncertain of Maddow as she herself kept interchanging the terms socialist and communist. But liberals often are confused by facts and frequently either do not understand what they are discussing, or discuss it purposefully with deception. Whatever the case Maddow thought herself witty.

We're supposed to believe her because... ...well... ...she said it. It does not matter to Maddow if President Obama’s policies are in substance moving us towards centralized control where the Government becomes the caretaker/nanny and the individual is lulled into mind-numbing moronic infancy suckling off the government's “all-sufficient” teet.

But if she got that worked up over a few people calling Obama’s socialist policies by name, imagine what she will say about the title of this column?

And yet simply because Maddow, and others who defend their loyalty to Obama in irrational ways, still contend that he produces nothing but rainbows, ponies, and butterflies, doesn't mean we shouldn't compare what Obama is doing with others in history who have already tried those policies.

Which brings us to this point: This week President Obama exercised for the first time a policy decision that shares a trait held in common with Adolf Hitler.

The headline was leaked late in the Friday afternoon news cycle so that as few people as possible would pay attention, but here's the crux of a very real problem: President Obama is moving policy on public health into the direction of doctors being forced to act against their conscience. (For liberals educated in public schools, a conscience is that little voice inside you that used to inform you as to what was right or wrong.)

President Obama wants them performing abortions, whether they believe it to be an immoral thing or not. And while the comparisons to Hitler are made either on eugenist or racist grounds--but you cannot escape the impact.

In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.

The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.

As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly.

Friday, Ms. Maddow, President Obama took a demonstrable step in the shoes, actions, and example of Adolf Hitler.

What have you to say about that?

Wish List 2009 v 2.0

I know,I already made one, but things change. Call it freedom of choice. Like I said earlier this year, the black rifles are out of my reach, so it is pistols only.

1) Glock 35 (.40 S&W)

2) Glock 21 (.45 ACP)

3) Springfield XD 45 Tactical (.45 ACP)

4) Beretta 90-Two (.40 S&W)

5) Smith and Wesson MP45 (.45 ACP)

6) Glock 27 (.40 S&W)


Subject to change at my leisure.

BSG Recap

How Can This Happen? They Have Strict Gun Control.

Fox News

WINNENDEN, Germany —
A gunman opened fire randomly at a high school in southern Germany on Wednesday, killing at least 10 people and injuring others before fleeing the scene, police said.

Germany's n-tv reported that police said the suspect was dressed in a black combat uniform.

Regional police spokesman Klaus Hinderer said students were among the 10 killed, but he had no further details.

The shooter entered Albertville high school in Winnenden at 9:30 a.m. and opened fire, shooting at random, before fleeing, police said.

Police warned area residents not to pick up anyone in their cars as they searched for the suspect, described by Germany's N24 television as a 17-year-old former student who was known to police.

Hinderer could not confirm media reports that the shooter was a former student at the school.

Hinderer said the suspect fled toward the center of Winnenden, a town of 28,000, Hinderer said. The school was evacuated.

About 1,000 children attend the school, located in a suburb some 12 miles northeast of Stuttgart.

Robocop's Comment:

I guess he failed to mention a future rampage on his strict permit application. Did he even have a permit? Did he use atype of weapon that is banned?

Great Feminazis Of The Past 3.0

Dorothea Binz

Dorothea Binz (March 16, 1920 - May 2, 1947) was an SS supervisor at the Ravensbrück concentration camp during the Second World War. Dorothea was one of the more depraved and cruel creatures to serve in the camps.

Born to a middle class German family in Dusterlake, Germany (near Fürstenberg and Ravensbrück itself), Binz went to school until the age of fifteen. Afterwards she spent some time as a maid but soon dreaded her job and applied with a local SS office and was sent to Ravensbrück on September 1, 1939 to undergo guard training.

Binz served as an Aufseherin under Oberaufseherin Johanna Langefeld, Maria Mandel, a woman named Small, and Erna Rose. She worked in various parts of the camp; in the kitchen, laundry, etc. Her one single duty after 1942 was overseeing the camp's bunker where women prisoners were tortured and killed.

In January 1943, Dorothea Binz was promoted to Stellvertretende Oberaufseherin (Deputy Chief Wardress) because of her unyielding abuse. As a member of the command staff, she oversaw the training and assigned duties to over 1,000 female guards between 1943 and 1945. "Thea" trained some of the most cruel female guards including Ruth Closius. Most of the SS Aufseherin went on to dedicate themselves to over 200 other women camps across Poland, Germany, Austria and far eastern France. Eventually the well seasoned female matron reigned over a concentration camp kingdom of over 100,000 women and child prisoners. Her only superiors were Lagerleiterin Erna Rose, Oberaufseherin Johanna Langefeld and the commandant, Max Kögel . In 1944, Ravensbrück received horrendous amounts of women and children from Auschwitz Birkenau, Majdanek, Plaszow, Stutthof and various slave labor camps in Poland. Binz commanded the women throughout the mass shootings and mass killings in the gas chambers as well as through starvation, neglect, severe abuse and cold.

Binz's behavior in the Ravensbrück camp was atrocious. The young woman beat, slapped, kicked, shot, whipped, stomped and abused the women continuously. Whenever she appeared at roll call, "silence fell." She always carried a whip in her hand as well as a big German Shepherd on a leash. At a moment's notice she would kick a woman to death, or select her to be killed. French prisoners nicknamed her "La Binz" (The Binz).

The young SS woman also had a boyfriend in the camp, an SS officer named Edmund Bräuning . The two would go on romantic walks around the camp and watch a woman get flogged. Then they would stroll away laughing. The two lived in a house right outside the camp walls together until Edmund was transferred to Buchenwald in late-1944. There is even one report that Binz used an axe to chop a Polish prisoner to death on a wood chopping kommando.

Dorothea fled Ravensbrück during the death march and was captured on 3 May, 1945 by British officers. She spent some time in the Recklinghausen camp (which used to be a Buchenwald subcamp). Finally she was tried by a British court with other SS men and women at the Ravensbrück Trial. She was hanged at Hameln, Germany on 2 May, 1947 for war crimes.

Great Feminazis Of The Past 2.0

Elizabeth Volkenrath

Elizabeth (or Elisabeth) Volkenrath was an SS supervisor at several concentration camps during World War II. She trained under SS supervisor Dorothea Binz at Ravensbruck, and in 1943 went to Auschwitz Birkenau as an Aufseherin. There she took part in selections and abuse. In November 1944, she was promoted to SS Oberaufseherin and oversaw three hangings. She later went to Bergen Belsen as supervising wardress and did nothing for the conditions there.

In April 1945 she was arrested by the British Army and sent to prison. She eventually stood trial with Irma Grese and many other Nazi guards at the Belsen Trial. She was handed down a death sentence and was hanged on December 13, 1945, at Hameln by Albert Pierrepoint.

Robocop's Comment:

Again,for proving what a feminnazi with power can do. I hope her stay in Hell is not enjoyable.

Featured Douche 03.04.09

The Winner: Professor Paula Anderson of CCSU.

The Reason: Calling the police on a student who merely made a pro-gun rights presentation.

The Story:

Professor Called Police After Student Presentation

For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.

They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.

“I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,” Wahlberg said, “but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”

Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.

“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she wrote in a statement submitted to The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

Wahlberg believes that her complaint was filed without good reason.

“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly nonthreatening matter. Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat,” Wahlberg said in response. “The actions of Professor Anderson made me so uncomfortable, that I didn’t attend several classes. The only appropriate action taken by the Professor was to excuse my absences.”

The university police were unavailable for comment.

“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.”

Funny Gun Control Video