A loudmouth female police cadet, Trayvon Martin, and the “Knockout Game”

21Nov13

knockout game

In one of the police academies I attended we watched a video of a police shooting. Two officers in two patrol cars were on a traffic stop and tried to arrest a passenger who had given them a fake name. The passenger started swinging, punched both officers and knocked them to the ground, then ran toward the second patrol car. One of the officers shot him.

Several cadets expressed outrage at the shooting. I had already been a cop for a few years, and had a different view. I argued that the cadets should look at the incident from the officers’ perspective. The officers were making a lawful arrest, they had both been assaulted and beaten badly, and may have thought the suspect was running toward the second patrol car to retrieve a weapon. At that point, a few years into my career, I had already been knocked silly a couple of times, and I knew those officers probably had their bells rung and could have honestly believed they were in life-threatening danger. I didn’t argue that the officers were definitely right, just that the situation may have been more complex than the inexperienced cadets thought.

One female cadet blurted, “Just because you were already a cop, you think that whatever cops do is right!”

I groaned quietly. “No. I’m saying the officers got the crap beat out of them and may have thought the suspect was about to get one of their shotguns and shoot them.” Then I asked, “Have you ever been in a fight?”

“I’ve been in lots of fights!” she exclaimed. “I’ve been in fights at school and at clubs, I know what it’s like to get in a fight. Those cops had no reason to shoot that guy. All he did was hit them.”

The instructor shut our conversation down. I didn’t bring it up again. Until several months later, after the female cadet learned a hard lesson.

Toward the end of the academy we went through a very difficult training exercise. We had to run around the academy building, run up and down stairs several times, drag a dummy and a few other things, then get into a ring and fight an instructor for several minutes. The instructor was all padded up, and all we had was a soft foam baton and fake pistol. Most of the cadets got into the ring totally worn out, then got worked over by the instructor.

I was standing outside the ring when the female cadet went through. The instructor she faced was a very strong, female workout fanatic. The cadet ran into the ring panting and sweating, faced the instructor and yelled, “You’re under arrest! Turn around and put your hands behind your back!”

Without a word, the instructor threw a blindingly fast punch and nailed the cadet right between the eyes.

The cadet slammed onto her back. Her eyes were wide open and staring straight up, her mouth hanging slack. She was totally dazed from the blow. You could almost see the birds and stars swirling around her head.

Everyone screamed at her to get up. She eventually did, and did her best to put up a defense. But the fight was pretty much over after the first hit.

After the exercise, I casually said to the cadet, “So, I thought you had been in a lot of fights.”

She answered, “Yeah, but not like that! I was in girl fights. All we did was scratch each other and pull hair. That instructor hit me like a man.”

As I said, she learned an important lesson that day. If that instructor hadn’t knocked the crap out of her, she might have hit the street not knowing that one punch can completely disable someone. The cadet went on to become a very good officer.

During the uproar over the Trayvon Martin court case, I heard a lot of intelligent, educated people comment that “All Trayvon did was hit Zimmerman. That’s no reason to shoot someone.” And I saw in them the same ignorance of reality that the instructor had beaten out of the female cadet.

The people who made those comments have probably never been in a real fight. But, like the cadet, they think they have. They maybe had a few schoolyard scuffles, where neither side was trying to kill the other. They threw a few punches and kicks, without intending to really hurt their opponent, and their opponent landed a few blows without really hurting them. Worst case, someone got a bloody nose, or split lip. Maybe these people only watched others fight, and were never in one themselves.

But no matter. Even though their mental concept of a fight is two five year olds slapping each other under the monkey bars, they still believe their narrow experience with “fighting” makes them qualified to dictate when we’re allowed to use a gun to defend ourselves from someone who’s “only” throwing punches. They don’t seem to notice that no UFC or MMA fighters, people with real, actual fighting experience, are proclaiming “Your life can’t be in danger from being punched.”

Well, here’s some reality for those who think it’s always wrong to shoot an unarmed person, or who can’t fathom how George Zimmerman could have possibly been justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.

Last year an El Paso, Texas police officer was beaten to death by an unarmed 17 year old. The teenager punched the officer, knocked him backward onto the concrete, then straddled him and beat him severely. The officer never regained consciousness and died nine days later. He was a 29 year old Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21708260/el-paso-police-officer-dies-from-sept-25

A few days ago an off-duty NYPD officer was knocked out with one punch. His attacker then repeatedly punched and kicked him while he was unconscious and helpless, and also slammed the back of his head into the concrete. The officer is currently in a medically-induced coma.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/off-duty-savagely-beaten-ozone-park-article-1.1519988

Here’s the video of the attack on the NYPD officer. Please watch the whole thing.

Unarmed teenagers playing the “Knockout Game”, which has suddenly become a subject of nationwide outrage, have killed at least three people.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/16/potentially-fatal-knockout-game-targeting-strangers-may-be-spreading-to-d-c/

Watch the video on the link. Tell me that none of those victims were in danger of dying from those attacks. If you can watch that innocent, unsuspecting woman get knocked unconscious at the 2:00 mark and say, “But the person who hit her was unarmed and therefore no danger to her,” you’re worse than “ignorant”. You’re willfully blind to an obvious truth.

"Knockout Game" victim Matt Quain

“Knockout Game” victim Matt Quain

Incidents like the ones listed above should push good, decent people to not only arm themselves but to also be constantly vigilant and situationally aware. In the two incidents involving police officers, I don’t know if they were armed. As strange as it is to me, some cops don’t carry off duty. If these two officers were armed, they didn’t maintain distance and escalate their use of force (draw their weapon) when it was reasonable and prudent to do so.

Carrying a gun doesn’t make anyone invincible, and should never be anyone’s sole means of defense. But possession of a concealed pistol, coupled with good situational awareness and will to act, can be what protects you from being beaten to death by an unarmed thug. I carry a weapon so I’m capable of responding to several different types of threats: street criminals with guns or knives, terrorist mall attacks, active shooters. And unarmed thugs capable of killing innocent people with their bare hands.

No, shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you shouldn’t be your default response. But very often it is the right thing to do.

If you watched those videos and still feel that it’s always wrong to shoot an unarmed person, or that George Zimmerman, moron though he may be, could not possibly have been justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, I have a request for you. Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.

Guys like me, on the other hand, will continue to carry our guns. And if we’re someday confronted by an unarmed scumbag who looks like he could beat us to death, or if we spot the signs that we’re about to become a playtoy for the “Knockout Game”, we’re going to draw, aim, and engage as necessary. Because we’re not clueless idealists who know nothing about real life and real danger.

Available in print and as an ebook from Amazon.com and Tactical16.com. Available electronically from iTunes/iBooks and Barnesandnoble.com.



260 Responses to “A loudmouth female police cadet, Trayvon Martin, and the “Knockout Game””

  1. Your comments show again, why George Zimmerman’s story of what happened during the confrontation with TM was indeed a “story” which hardly coincided with reality.

    First, George Zimmerman was not a police officer, wasn’t trained as a police officer, had none of the obligations or benefits of being a police officer. If he had been a police officer, in a police cruiser instead of a civilian truck, when he first saw Trayvon Martin, TM would no have wondered who he was or what is intent was, which is very important.

    The behavior that Zimmerman thought was “suspicious” may well not have been considered to be so by a police officer or even given that officer “probable cause” to investigate. Had the police officer chosen to investigate, he could have simply rolled down his window and asked Trayvon Martin what he was doing or going. Would Trayvon Martin had run from him or her? Well we will never know, but there would have been no reason for him to. He was not doing anything illegal and could have simply told the officer I am heading “home.” He had every reasons to “run from” George Zimmerman since he had no idea why Zimmerman was staring at him or following him!

    That’s one of the reasons why NW rules dictate that volunteers call the police, not carry firearms and not follow “suspects.” Of course George Zimmerman simply ignored these regulations which led directly to a confrontation which would not have taken place but for his actions!

    You state:

    “During the uproar over the Trayvon Martin court case, I heard a lot of intelligent, educated people comment that “All Trayvon did was hit Zimmerman. That’s no reason to shoot someone.

    Last year an El Paso, Texas police officer was beaten to death by an unarmed 17 year old. The teenager punched the officer, knocked him backward onto the concrete, then straddled him and beat him severely. The officer never regained consciousness and died nine days later.”

    Now, that is quite similar to what Zimmerman claims Martin did to him, yet he didn’t die, far from it. He had 2 scratches on the back of his head and a bloody nose. No coma, no concussion, no loss of consciousness, no hospitalization, no skull fracture, not even any necessary secondary medical care. Common sense, not to mention forensic evidence, shows that Martin did not pound Zimmerman’s head into the pavement 12+ times, and probably didn’t even do it once. Does anyone really Zimmerman is telling the truth about that?

    Well, Trayvon may have hit Zimmerman, but outside of Zimmerman’s self-serving story, there is no evidence that Trayvon hit him first or at all. http://mysteryquest1.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/267/ Consider Zimmerman’s own videotaped interviews, he followed TM first in his truck and then on foot and when TM asked him what he wanted, he did not identify himself or his intent and reached quickly into his pocket? Zimmerman’s actions were aggressive and provocative and if TM hit him at that point, it would have been in self-defense.

    “Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.”

    Well anyone risks getting beaten or shot by anyone (not just a young thug) they “start a fight with.” So you are suggesting that you carry a gun so that if you “start a fight”, and in anticipation or the possibility of losing that fight and being severely beaten, you shoot the person you “attacked”? … in self defense, before anything can happen to you? Basically what the evidence shows Zimmerman did!

    So, that’s “self-defense”? Initiating a fight, then killing the person you attacked before they can hurt you? Well that’s exactly what Zimmerman did! Let’s look at the law:

    776.041  Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    Well in the scenario provided by you, it would not be self defense, since you advocate shooting the person before trying to escape any danger!

    • Mysteryquest,

      Thank you for commenting. I’m going to break your comment into sections and respond to each.

      1) “Your comments show again, why George Zimmerman’s story of what happened during the confrontation with TM was indeed a “story” which hardly coincided with reality.”

      First, I have no vested interest in GZ’s defense. My post was about the threat unarmed people can pose.

      2) “First, George Zimmerman was not a police officer, wasn’t trained as a police officer, had none of the obligations or benefits of being a police officer. If he had been a police officer, in a police cruiser instead of a civilian truck, when he first saw Trayvon Martin, TM would no have wondered who he was or what is intent was, which is very important.”

      Again, I’m not claiming GZ did everything right. Nor did I, at any point,claim GZ was or was acting as a police officer.

      3) “The behavior that Zimmerman thought was “suspicious” may well not have been considered to be so by a police officer or even given that officer “probable cause” to investigate. Had the police officer chosen to investigate, he could have simply rolled down his window and asked Trayvon Martin what he was doing or going. Would Trayvon Martin had run from him or her? Well we will never know, but there would have been no reason for him to. He was not doing anything illegal and could have simply told the officer I am heading “home.” He had every reasons to “run from” George Zimmerman since he had no idea why Zimmerman was staring at him or following him!”

      I’ve been a cop almost 20 years, I have a good idea of how a police officer would have handled it. They may have done what you said, maybe not, depending on the particular officer and what he or she observed. However, one does not have to be a police officer to investigate suspicious activity. I agree that GZ should never have gotten out of the truck; however, he didn’t break any laws by doing so.

      4) “That’s one of the reasons why NW rules dictate that volunteers call the police, not carry firearms and not follow “suspects.” Of course George Zimmerman simply ignored these regulations which led directly to a confrontation which would not have taken place but for his actions!”

      NW rules aren’t law. Most convenience store clerks are also prohibited by store rules from confronting robbers; if they choose to fight back, the “house” rules they broke are immaterial. I agree with you that GZ exercised bad judgment. In my opinion, he should have observed and reported, and nothing more. But his decision to get out and talk to TM, if that’s all he tried to do, does not make him criminal.

      5) “Now, that is quite similar to what Zimmerman claims Martin did to him, yet he didn’t die, far from it. He had 2 scratches on the back of his head and a bloody nose. No coma, no concussion, no loss of consciousness, no hospitalization, no skull fracture, not even any necessary secondary medical care. Common sense, not to mention forensic evidence, shows that Martin did not pound Zimmerman’s head into the pavement 12+ times, and probably didn’t even do it once. Does anyone really Zimmerman is telling the truth about that?

      Well, Trayvon may have hit Zimmerman, but outside of Zimmerman’s self-serving story, there is no evidence that Trayvon hit him first or at all. http://mysteryquest1.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/267/ Consider Zimmerman’s own videotaped interviews, he followed TM first in his truck and then on foot and when TM asked him what he wanted, he did not identify himself or his intent and reached quickly into his pocket? Zimmerman’s actions were aggressive and provocative and if TM hit him at that point, it would have been in self-defense.”

      I never claimed GZ was badly beaten, and that doesn’t really matter to my argument. By your logic, someone must wait until they’ve suffered significant injury before using deadly force to protect themselves. Based on facts and experience, I know that if someone waits until they’re grievously injured before taking decisive action in self-defense, they may be so badly injured they can’t effectively resist. The point of self-defense is to prevent harm to yourself; it’s not to allow however much harm the uninformed believe are sufficient. Officer Molina in El Paso had not even a minor scratch before he was stunned and disabled with one punch. An unarmed attacker beat him to death before he could respond. You, and several others, assume that this post is a full-throated defense of GZ. It is not. It’s an illustration of the very real threat an unarmed person can pose.

      And just as an aside, citing your own blog post as evidence doesn’t do much for your argument.

      6) “So you are suggesting that you carry a gun so that if you “start a fight”, and in anticipation or the possibility of losing that fight and being severely beaten, you shoot the person you “attacked”? … in self defense, before anything can happen to you? Basically what the evidence shows Zimmerman did!

      So, that’s “self-defense”? Initiating a fight, then killing the person you attacked before they can hurt you? Well that’s exactly what Zimmerman did!”

      Asked and answered in comments above. I’ll quote myself, with an answer I gave to someone else who managed to twist that interpretation out of my post:

      “My suggestion for certain people to put down their lattes, leave their academic/theoretical worlds and start a fight just so they’d get their asses kicked wasn’t meant literally. No, I really don’t expect latte-sippers to walk away from their computers to start a fight and get beaten down. My statement was kind of like, “If you think alligator wrestling isn’t dangerous, go to a Florida swamp and hug the first alligator you see.” No, I really wouldn’t expect anyone to really do it.”

      I appreciate all the time and energy you expended researching law in a futile attempt to refute a point I never made. Please re-read what I wrote. Quote me. Show where I suggested anyone start a fight and then shoot the person for hitting them. Re-read it again, very carefully. You’ll notice I suggested the latte-sipper start a fight, then “after he awakens from his severe beating”, re-evaluate his belief that unarmed people are no threat. There is no suggestion anywhere in my writing for people to start fights as a justification for shooting people.

      You’re obviously intelligent and articulate, so the stupidity in this part of your comment surprised me.

      • Thanks for responding to my comment and your concern regarding time and energy, I may have expended on research. Fortunately, I didn’t have to expend any, as I’m already quite familiar with the law.

        It was not at all clear to me that you did not literally mean what you said regarding “latte-sippers starting a fight”, however, if you say you were employing some kind of rhetorical device regardless of how inartfully I feel it was done, that’s fine with me.

        As concerns Zimmerman’s injuries, or lack of them. The issue here is credibility which is very important when you have killed the only other witness to a deadly confrontation which has led to criminal charges. I realize that a person might have a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury without or before actually suffering the same and of course, they would need to act before such an occurrence.

        However, Zimmerman claims to have been hit in the face hard enough to have his head slammed into the concrete over a dozen times. His lack of commensurate injuries simply defies common sense and there was no forensic evidence or independent evidence that supports his position. The fact is the forensic evidence contradicted it.

        He didn’t say I shot Martin before he had a chance to slam my head on the concrete. He didn’t say he might have been hallucinating, delusional or was in anyway unsure of what had occurred. He was examined by a medical professional (though it was only because his employer demanded it) and was found not have suffered any form of head trauma.

        I drew the comparison between what happened to the officer you mentioned and to Zimmerman because what happened to the officer and what Zimmerman claimed happened to him are quite similar. This served to point out the absurdity of Zimmerman’s claim and the fact that his account and therefore he, is not even close to credible, under the best of lights.

        I was not implying that you thought Zimmerman or his accounts of what Martin did to him in his “testimony” are credible.

        Yes, I referenced my a post on my blog as a basis for a position I took in my comment. In that post I simply laid out what evidence was presented at the trial. Of course, the potential for bias is clear. I can cite to other analysis or to the actual testimony to support my position if you’d like.

        • Mystery,

          Here’s what I actually wrote:

          “If you watched those videos and still feel that it’s always wrong to shoot an unarmed person, or that George Zimmerman, moron though he may be, could not possibly have been justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, I have a request for you. Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.”

          In this second comment you’ve changed your accusation. Earlier you claimed I wanted people to start fights and then shoot the people they’re fighting with.

          “So, that’s “self-defense”? Initiating a fight, then killing the person you attacked before they can hurt you?”

          But now you’ve toned it down to “It was not at all clear to me that you did not literally mean what you said regarding ‘latte-sippers starting a fight’, however, if you say you were employing some kind of rhetorical device regardless of how inartfully I feel it was done, that’s fine with me.”

          My rhetorical suggestion was not meant to be “artful”. I’m a very blunt, literal writer. While I would in fact like to see proverbial latte-sippers start a fight just so they’ll get some ignorant idealism beaten out of them, sadly enough I don’t expect them to actually do it. And you’ll notice that in my rhetorical suggestion, all I talked about was starting the fight, waking up after a severe beating and then reevaluating their belief that unarmed people aren’t dangerous. Nowhere, not once, not in any way, did I suggest they start a fight and then shoot people for engaging in the fight. You pulled that interpretation out of your head, not out of my writing.

          Again, I’ll point out that you’re wasting your time rehashing the GZ case. I never claimed GZ’s testimony was honest. I stated an unarmed person can in fact be a lethal threat. I didn’t even claim GZ was definitely justified, I simply argued against those who believe there was no way he could have been. I get your point that his claimed attacks didn’t match up with the physical injuries. However, he was in fact on his back, TM was in fact at least trying to beat his head against concrete, and TM did in fact punch him. My point is that even unarmed, TM could have posed a lethal threat to GZ.

          As for your claim that GZ’s testimony was false because the injuries he had didn’t match up with his claims, I’d ask if you’ve ever been in a real fight. In most of the fights I’ve been in, I couldn’t tell you how many times I swung or how many times I got hit. There were times I found injuries afterward, even a day afterward, and had no idea how I got them.

          People in life-and-death stress situations often experience “survival stress reactions”. They’ll have tunnel vision, auditory exclusion (loss of hearing), loss of fine motor skills, and critical incident amnesia. I’ve experienced all of these myself and have seen them in others. In “live fire” training exercises with Simunition rounds, I’ve seen officers expend a full magazine in a gunfight with one suspect, subsequently engage a second suspect, then totally forget about the first suspect when we debriefed them afterward. One of the reasons attorneys advise people not to give a statement to police without a lawyer after a justified shooting is that people often forget critical details in the immediate aftermath.

          Is it possible GZ actually believed he had been hit more times than he actually was, and made honest statements about his perception of the fight? Yes. Is it possible he was intentionally inflating the number of strikes, in order to make him appear justified in using deadly force when he knew he wasn’t? Yes.

          As you stated, the only other witness is dead. Neither of us were there, and the physical evidence isn’t definitive.

          I also get your point that the entire incident was GZ’s fault. Actually, I agree. He was mistaken about TM’s intentions, he exercised horrible judgment in getting out of his truck, and when he wound up engaged in the fight he was unable to handle it without resorting to deadly force. I don’t hold GZ up as an example of what to do. But I do understand how he could possibly have been justified, which was one of the points of my post.

          • 5 jrcvaldez

            “Damn dude, why you gotta hit so hard?” Heard that one before too. I think mysteryquest1 pulled their theory out of their ass, not their head as you stated Chris. You realize this is considered a verbal fight in the world of academia, you won this round.  SS J.R.Valdez *

            “Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”

            *THANK YOU! For deleting my email address and any other email addresses from this message if you plan to forward it . PLEASE use “Bcc:” for lists and group mailings, INSTEAD of “Cc:” or “To:”. If you help keep our addresses private, we will be able to cut down on computer identity theft and annoying, unwanted emails.

          • 6 PeterW.

            I get the strong impression that positions taken by people like “Mystery” are driven more by the Who, than the What. Tribalism is trumping evidence.

            One of the essential pillars of our shared legal system is that for GZ to be convicted of murder, the Jury would have to be convinced “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT” that he had not been in fear of his life.

            In regard to this, we have to remember that the criteria is NOT the extent of GZ’s wound, but the state of GZ’s MIND.

            One thing that even Australians like myself know is that you cannot claim self-defence against a person who is disengaging and retreating, unless there is an over-riding circumstance (such as still being under the effects of a physical assault). The available evidence is that – GZ was disengaging at the time that physical contact was initiated, and that physical contact was initiated by TM.
            No matter what we might personally think about people and behaviour that merit an “ass-whupping”, there is no justification under law for assaulting a person who is moving away from you having committed no other crime than making you nervous by observing you.

            That is the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Some may choose to personally doubt GZ’s testimony, but we should fear a legal system that would discard it without strong evidence to the contrary. There is reasonable doubt that GZ initiated physical contact. There is reasonable doubt GZ’s actions leading up to the event were motivated by a desire to kill TM, or even a callous disregard to TM’s safety…. and there is reasonable doubt that GZ was NOT in fear of his life or serious injury at the time that he fired that fatal shot.

            We may speculate, but we are not entitled to convict a man of murder on nothing more solid than our speculations. This appears to be a hard lesson for some people to learn…..

            The determination to declare GZ guilty smells more like pay-back than a dispassionate desire for justice.

            Peter.

  2. This is what GZ says about the whole thing on ebay: “The system is broken, an innocent man should not spend one second without his God given liberty, solely because a small sect of uneducated loud mouths.” If he had shot TM in Germany, he would be spending the holidays in a jail cell. http://www.ebay.com/itm/George-Zimmerman-original-painting-/111239922810?pt=Art_Paintings&hash=item19e66a847a#shpCntId

    • Nathalie,

      He said that on ebay? That’s an odd place to speak out.

      GZ is not a hero in my eyes, and I’m becoming more and more convinced that he’s an idiot. However, I’m not convinced he’s a murderer.

      I know he’d be in jail in Germany, but heck, if you cross the street without a “walk” signal in Germany you go to jail.🙂

  3. 10 Kenneth cannon

    Dang so absolutely no empathy for a kid minding his own business defending himself ….shame shame

    • Gosh, I’m so ashamed.

      We can restart this argument if you want to. Zimmerman had lost Martin and was heading back to his truck. Martin circled back and attacked him. Yes, Zimmerman is an idiot, and he proves that with his stupid antics more and more lately. Yes, he made a mistake trying to stop Martin. My essay wasn’t defending him for being an idiot, it was to point out that an unarmed person can in fact be a lethal threat. I have a feeling you didn’t even read the essay, because my point is pretty clear.

  4. 12 rohn

    glad i found your site, was mil, a cop and now contracting…i am randomly reading through your essays, enjoying them all, for the little its worth i agree with you here..excellent job on all your writings..i look forward to them all besafe out there


  1. 1 Links | Gucci Little Piggy
  2. 2 A loudmouth female police cadet, Trayvon Martin, and the “Knockout Game” | Bydio
  3. 3 A Police Officer Points Out the Absurdity of Zimmerman’s Head Slammed on Concrete Story | Mysterious Observations
  4. 4 Lightning Round – 2013/12/18 | Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,888 other followers

%d bloggers like this: