Bits of homeland stupidity

July 10, 2005 @ Michael Hampton → 3 Comments

On 7 July, a freight train crew went home, leaving their train parked next to I-5 in San Diego. On discovering the train, authorities suspected terrorism, but it turns out the crew had simply worked all the hours they are allowed to work, so stopped the train and went home.
The Department of Homeland Security released gas into Grand Central Terminal in New York City during the 26-30 of June to study how a chemical or biological attack might play out. Er, don’t these “tracer gases” act just a little differently than the poisonous ones? How much information can be gathered this way?
On New Year’s Eve Boston police arrested a man in a private residence for being drunk, took him to jail and sat him there for nine hours. He is now suing the city, claiming he has a Constitutional right to get drunk in a private residence. Authorities say anybody can be taken from a private residence into “protective custody” if they are a danger to themselves or others.
Capt. Leslie J. McCoy, the base commander at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was relieved of duty Saturday after being accused of inappropriate management practices unrelated to the interrogation of detainees.
West Palm Beach, Fla., held a gun buyback program on Saturday and collected about 450 guns in trade for retail gift certificates. “The gun is the tool of trade for criminals. They’re not going to turn them in,” said Jonathan Bender, a protester from Boynton Beach. Bender held a sign that read, “A gun in the hand is faster than a cop on the phone.”

Share this story:

3 Comments → “Bits of homeland stupidity”

the english guy

Jul 11, 2005

The guy that was drunk and got arrested – was it HIS private residence?
Michael Hampton

Jul 11, 2005

No, the residence belonged to the victim’s friend, who had invited him.
KAM

Jul 21, 2005

On the gun buyback program: no it will not convince criminals who use them to turn them in. However it is a good incentive for everybody else who got the weapon for whatever reason and will not or cannot use it and maintain it properly. An individual who has a gun and cannot confidently or responsibly use it represents a fairly dangerous situation IMO. A child could find it and accidently set it off, it may not even be stored properly, the owner decides to turn to it in a lapse of judgement in order to resolve a dispute that doesn’t require a violent reaction … or worse, an individual attempts to use it and it ends up being used against them because they don’t know how to use it to defend themselves.

I’m all for gun ownership, I’m also all for ensuring that gun owners are properly trained both mechanically and mentally to use it in a proper manner.

Latest News

Internet Pioneers Berners-Lee, Cerf, Strickling ask: “What Kind of Net Do You Want?”

May 20, 2011

The world-wide adoption of a decentralized network that connects everything creates continuous technical, social and policy challenges that no one could have foreseen in 1969. Even as we take the Net for granted, the way we do the air that we breathe, decisions are being made by policy-makers, technologists and end-users that shape its future.

The Nanny State Can’t Last

April 11, 2011

Instead of the left agreeing to cut social spending and the right agreeing to cut military spending, the right agrees to more welfare and the left agrees to more warfare. How long will it be before foreigners stop buying our debt, and hyperinflation arrives?

› Albany’s Historic Student Ghetto: Kegs N Eggs Mark the Spot

› Gaming the Game: Baba, Elvis, and the NBA Betting Scandal

› No-Fly Won’t Fly Constitutionally

› Buying Friends Creates More Enemies