Sunday, May 20, 2012

The Screaming Viking

Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate

Ban Pools

Posted by Grand Poobah On June - 20 - 2011

People instantly want to ban firearms as soon as they hear someone was shot.  While I’m certainly not condoning shooting people, we need to actually put into perspective the likely hood of dying from a firearm compared to other potential means of death.  Overall, child deaths by firearms are significantly lower than other forms of unintentional death.

From 2006 per 100k population 0-19 years (the chart doesn’t paste in well) we see that the greatest killer of children is the motor vehicle (7006) followed by drowning (1077).  Firearms fall at the bottom of the posted list as (154).  Do I mean to say that playing with a firearm is safer than swimming?  Of course not…what I intend to convey is that parents take certain activities for granted and do not appreciate the inherent dangers involved.  When a child is young a parent (I hope) automatically straps them into a seat belt in the car or straps a life jacket on them and guides them into the pool.  As they get older, you give them swimming lessons and driver’s ed.  You watch them as they learn to drive and hopefully you are teaching them to be responsible and safe.  The same should hold true for swimming, train them to swim, keep them safe while letting them have fun.  I can’t understand why the mentality wouldn’t be the same towards firearms.

I don’t get why someone would not talk about the dangers of firearms to their child.  Even if you don’t have them in your home, why wouldn’t you assume they might come across them at some point in their life?  We teach our children about sex (or you should be), and we hope they will be safe but have fun…the same is certainly true for firearms.  If you don’t have one in the home…why not buy a toy and teach them that it’s not a toy.  I remember being a very young child and the old man pounding it into my head that a gun, no matter what kid, is not a toy.  Even the guns with the suction cup darts would yield a smack on the ass if used inappropriately.  While some might view that as extreme, it did successfully drive home the point that no gun is ever a toy.

It seems over and over again that the kids of parents that tech something is evil but never fully explore the dangers and teach them to be responsible are the kids that have problems.  I believe this to be true in all things, not just firearms.  Yes there are fringe cases where the kids went nuts…I would still argue that’s a parenting issue, just extreme to the other side.  Building an alter to Sam Colt isn’t exactly stable either.

What prompted this latest PSA?  1 child dies every 5 summer days in a portable pool.  People continually underestimate the dangers of every day things but never fail to key off on things that, when put in perspective, pose less of a risk to their children.  I am constantly amazed at how little attention some parents will pay to their small children.  It has gotten to the point where I don’t like to even be around certain people and their kids because of how they “parent” if it can be called that.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A child dies every five days in portable pools during warm-weather months, according to a new study.

“Parents need to be aware that these pools can present the same risks for drowning, especially for young children, as in-ground pools,” which are typically thought of as a greater safety hazard, the study’s senior author Dr. Gary Smith said.

The research published Monday in the journal Pediatrics shows 209 deaths and 35 near-drownings of children under 12 from 2001 through 2009. Most of the children, 94 percent, were under 5, and 81 percent of the incidents happened during summer months.

“That’s a child every five days that is drowning in a backyard portable pool during the summer months,” Smith said.

The study focused on portable pools, from small wading pools less than 18 inches deep to inflatable pools and other soft-sided pools that can reach depths of 4 feet. It was conducted by researchers at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus and Independent Safety Consulting in Rockville, Md.

“The anecdotal evidence was suggesting that because portable pools are readily available in many convenience stores and malls, and they’re relatively cheap, parents would pick them up, take them home, quickly assemble them, and all this would be done without a lot of forethought about the safety aspects,” said Smith, director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide.

The authors found cases of drowning when kids opened the doors of their houses and climbed into the pool using a ladder or another nearby object, as well as examples of kids playing in the pool when parents were nearby but were distracted by chores or a phone call.

Many safety methods used for permanent pools, such as fencing, pool alarms, safety covers and removable or lockable ladders, are too expensive or not available for families who purchase portable pools, said Smith, who also is a pediatrics professor at the Ohio State University College of Medicine.

‘Adult supervision’
The Association of Pool & Spa Professionals supports “layers of protection,” and the study underscores the importance of active, undistracted adult supervision, said Carvin DiGiovanni a senior director at the Alexandria, Va.-based association.

“The primary layer of protection is constant adult supervision supplemented by barriers, alarms and other related devices,” he said. “We encourage homeowners to purchase the additional layer of protection that works for them knowing that they would be more likely to use it.”

The study shows that children were supervised by adults in fewer than half, 43 percent, of the drownings and near-drownings, and that most, 73 percent, were at home.

Among other data, the report shows CPR was administered before emergency crews arrived in 15 percent of the fatalities and 17 percent of near-drownings, numbers that help show “it’s time for us to begin requiring that people learn how to do CPR,” perhaps by adding it to high school curricula, said Susan Baker, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research & Policy in Baltimore.

“That to me is a reminder that every one of us ought to be knowledgeable about how to do CPR and willing to jump in and do it immediately,” said Baker, who was not involved in the study.

Smith said drownings overall represent the second-leading cause of injury deaths among young children and are different from other childhood accidents because there’s no second chance.

“I tell parents that drowning is quick, it’s silent and it’s final,” he said.

Parents “can’t say they’re supervising having a couple drinks at a pool and chatting with their friends or talking on a cell phone,” said Dr. Linda Quan, a drowning expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Supervision has to be constant … and for a very young child, even within arm’s reach,” Quan, who was not involved in the research, told Reuters Health.

Life jackets
Parents can add a layer of safety by making sure kids have a life jacket on whenever they’re by the pool, Quan added.

And when they’re not outside watching their kids, parents have to make sure they have no access to the pool, researchers said.

One of the simplest ways to do that is to empty the pool, especially for smaller pools, Quan explained.

Parents can also put an isolation fence around the pool and make sure there’s no way kids can reach the ladder in bigger inflatable pools, Smith said.  ”Two-thirds of the children who drowned gained access to the portable pool through the ladder,” he said. “Blocking access is the first step.”

The authors note in Pediatrics that local jurisdictions are responsible for setting pool codes and enforcing them, and that only some require fencing around portable pools.

A cover for inflatable pools won’t necessary help, the researchers said — and in at least one case, a pair of kids included in the study drowned together when they got tangled in a pool cover.

Getting parents to follow all of these prevention measures “is a challenge,” Dr. Ruth Brenner, who has studied drowning at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told Reuters Health.

“But it does represent a significant risk for children. Children can drown in very small amounts of water,” said Brenner, who was not involved in the new paper.

Smith said the most important message is that parents need to take the risks of these pools very seriously — even if the pool is small and only has a couple feet of water.

“If you are on the playground equipment and you fall, you generally get another chance,” Smith said.

“The problem with submersion underwater is it’s very quick … and once (a kid’s) heart and breathing stops it’s very difficult to revive them,” he said. “You don’t get a second chance.”

 

 

 

 

food program

Posted by Grand Poobah On June - 17 - 2011

Gotta applaude moorhead for doing this…I hope the people that need it are getting it.

link

MOORHEAD – Moorhead Schools will provide free summer meals for students through the Summer Food Service Program. Free meals will be provided to all children in the Moorhead area.

Meals will be provided at these sites and times:

     

     

  • June 15 to July 28 

    Robert Asp Elementary: 7:30 to 9 a.m., breakfast, Monday-Thursday; 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., lunch, Monday-Thursday; 3:15 to 3:45 p.m., snack, Monday-Thursday.

    Horizon Middle School: 7:30 to 9 a.m., breakfast, Monday-Thursday.

    Moorhead High School: 7:30 to 9 a.m., breakfast, Monday-Thursday; 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., lunch, Monday-Thursday.

    Red River ALC: 3:15 to 3:45 p.m. Monday-Thursday; 5:45 to 6:45 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Thursday; 8:30 to 9 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.

    Centro Cultural: 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday-Thursday.

     

  • July 25 to Aug. 12 

    Ellen Hopkins Elementary: 7:30 to 9 a.m., breakfast, Monday-Friday.

    Robert Asp Elementary: 7:30 to 9 a.m., breakfast, Monday-Friday.

    S.G. Reinertsen Elementary: 7:30 to 9 a.m., breakfast, Monday-Friday.

    Horizon Middle School: 7:30 to 9 a.m., breakfast, Monday-Friday.

    Red River ALC: 5:45 to 6:45 p.m. Monday; 8:30 to 9 p.m. Monday through Aug. 22.

    Centro Cultural: 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday-Thursday through Aug. 12.

     

 

who polices the police

Posted by Grand Poobah On June - 14 - 2011

Things like this happen when “I am de law!” people decide they “know what’s best” for people…we can argue the law to death.  Should citizens have concealed weapons permits…etc, but the bottom line is it shouldn’t be up to the police to decide who has a “valid reason”.  Such ambiguous phrases are prone to abuse.  If cwp’s are going to be issued, the path for whom qualifies and whom does not should be black and white.  As citizens we are virtually powerless in cases like this.  An ordinary person does not have the means to battle something like this legally, so even when the law says you can have something it can still be denied by “the man”.

The older I get, the less I like law enforcement and the less likely I am to cooperate with them.  I wouldn’t actively work against their efforts, but I would not speak to the law or offer information that might make their job easier unless it directly benefited me.

I AM DE LAW!

On Thursday, June 9, 2011, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Green granted a motion in the NRA and CRPA Foundation financed case against the City of Los Angeles regarding the LAPD’s concealed weapons permit (CCW) processing and issuance policies. The motion was brought to force LAPD to comply with a 16-year-old Consent Judgment from the 1995 Assenza v. City of Los Angeles case. For years, LAPD has repeatedly sought to avoid its obligations under the judgment and to keep people in the dark about what it takes to get a CCW in the City of L.A.

The City unsuccessfully opposed the motion.

Under Penal Code § 12050, the LAPD has an obligation to process applications for CCWs, and to issue CCWs if the applicant has “good cause.”  For many years, the City and the LAPD had a policy of not making CCW applications available, never finding good cause to exist, and effectively prohibiting the issuance of any CCWs. The City’s unlawful refusal to properly process CCW applications and issue CCWs was challenged in two lawsuits in 1992 and 1994.  To settle the suits the LAPD agreed to be bound by a Judgment requiring that all citizens who request a CCW permit application could get one at any LAPD station house, that the application would be accompanied by a written copy of the LAPD’s procedure for handling the application, including the factors used to determine whether an applicant has ”good cause” for the CCW, and that applicants would be informed of the procedures for appealing the denial of a CCW application. The settlement also established a Citizens Advisory Review Panel, made up of appointed citizens who would review CCW applications denied by the LAPD and make recommendations regarding whether the LAPD should reverse its denial of the CCW application.

The LAPD has repeatedly failed to honor its legal obligations under the Judgment. The LAPD stopped making CCW applications and a written copy of the CCW policy and appeal process available at all station houses. And the LAPD is ignoring the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel and has instead enacted a de facto policy of again issuing no CCWs, despite whatever showing of good cause the applicants might make.

The motion heard on Thursday sought, among other things, to force the LAPD to make CCW applications and copies of its written policy available at each station house as the judgment requires. To support the motion, NRA grassroots activists were recruited to investigate the LAPD’s CCW practices. They were frustrated by uncooperative officers at individual LAPD station houses.  The officers had no understanding of the LAPD’s application process and, in almost all instances, could not provide a CCW application to the requesting citizen, much less a copy of the LAPD’s written court ordered policy. LAPD officers bluntly told citizens that unless they were celebrities, they shouldn’t even bother filling out the CCW application because they would be denied a CCW as a matter of LAPD policy. These NRA activist witnesses signed declarations about their frustrated attempts to get CCW applications, which were submitted with the motion to force LAPD to comply with the 16-year-old Judgment.

In granting the motion and ruling against the city, the Court ordered the City to provide contact information for CCW applicants to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, to get sworn declarations signed under penalty of perjury from every Commanding Officer at each of the LAPD’s 21 station houses and precincts confirming their compliance with the terms of the Assenza judgment and indicating what affirmative steps were taken to ensure compliance, and to prominently post a CCW link on the LAPD website so the public can easily access both the CCW application and the LAPD CCW policy. LAPD must comply with this Order by Wednesday, September 7, 2011.

A memorandum discussing the suits and their history is posted here.

So in a city with almost 4 million citizens, with some 300 CCW applications being made per year, LAPD has only granted 24 active CCWs. Citizens who have had credible and ongoing threats made against them and their families, and those who carry large sums of cash as part of job and are high-profile robbery targets, have been repeatedly denied CCWs despite meeting the “good cause” criteria for receiving CCWs that the LAPD was forced to agree to years ago.

To rectify this situation, two new legal actions are being pursued. The first is the motion to enforce Judgment in the Assenza v. City of Los Angeles case discussed above.

The second action is a new lawsuit, Davis v. City of Los Angeles. The nine plaintiffs in this new action, some of whom have had CCW applications pending and unresolved with the LAPD for years, have submitted sworn declarations attesting to a litany of missteps and abuses by LAPD in its handling of their CCW applications.  These abuses include not only the failures to provide applications and copies of the written policies at stationhouses, but refusals to timely consider their applications, failures to respond to inquiries regarding the status of applications, failures to acknowledge the availability of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel as a method of appealing denial, and the failure to give any weight to recommendations by the Citizens Advisory Review Panel.

Second Amendment challenges may be incorporated into these lawsuits as the case law develops in the Ninth Circuit, where another NRA/CRPAF LAP case, Peruta v. San Diego, is currently being heard.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

 

 

No right…

Posted by Grand Poobah On June - 1 - 2011

I mean to post about this when I first heard about it (last week?).

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that you have no right to resist entry in to your house by law enforcement officers even if the entry is unlawful.  I understand the spirit of this law, people should not put themselves into situations that might be confrontational with police.  The people also have no way to know if the entry is really unlawful or not.  I don’t expect that it is common place for the police to enter homes illegally in this area.  It’s kind of unsettling to know the courts have ruled that you are to let them in, then have to spend money later on lawyers to reject the search.  Isn’t there something in the constitution about illegal search and seizure?  Did the supreme court of Indiana just rule against that?  I don’t get it.

  • Email Login

      Techno Inc. - Login
      Webmail Login
      Name:
      Password:
      Remember my Name & Password
      Password Change
      Remember to use your FULL email address
  • Tag Cloud