Armed Government Worker Wants Head

18
509
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here’s video of an audio recording made by a woman pressured to service an armed government worker.

The armed government worker – Bill Miller – is “under investigation” for his actions but bet you a six-pack of Krispy Kremes the most that happens is he’s fired and set free to become an armed government worker in some other county or state.

Armed government workers are shuffled around this way like pedophile priests… with the fresh crop of soon-to-be-victims unaware of what’s in their midst.

Only these molesters are armed and will kill you.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here – and don’t like Goo-guhl or FacePlantBook – please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more. My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If you find it useful, consider contributing a couple of bucks!  

 

Share Button

18 COMMENTS

    • Hi Scott,

      This is good news – but will the armed government worker be precluded from ever “serving” as an armed government worker again, somewhere else?

      • Funny how there will never be a national registry of criminal heroes, or their fellow government brethren the criminal educators. You get a pass on criminality just because you’re a “public servant”.

        Public schools and police departments should be raked over the coals as much as the catholic church is for covering up their employees crimes.

  1. This reporter is officially my second-favorite Randy Travis.

    In so many words, he gave him the old, “You’re gonna look stupid on the internet!”

    • Hi Moose,

      I don’t understand why the “hero” was not charged with felony sexual assault. He was armed – and the woman was under the additional duress of her abuser being (of all things) an officer of the court.

      If he’d been an ordinary perv,the woman could have told him to fuck off – and kicked him in the balls. But we are not allowed to physically resist armed government workers. Had she done so, she’d have been killed and the “hero” would have squealed “resisting” and “officer safety” …

      • I guess it all depends on what her lawyer recommends they press charges for. Judging by the video she must have a rep for being something of a hustler, especially for her to maintain composure like that, probably helped some knowing she was recording it. Reckon she figured she could play it cool and keep things under control, escape unharmed, sounds like it’s not the first time she’s found herself in a troubling situation.

        Definitely not a lot of other womens would’ve had the nerve to tell a pig no in that scenario. Not a lot of dudes either, for that matter…cuz the asshole picked up your criminal ass and took you down a dirt road and he’s got a gun and wants you to fellate him, more than the local community already has… She’s lucky the encounter didn’t end with her dead.

          • The special “how would you like us to handle this” courtesy call does say a lot.

            My brother only blew like a .02 in NJ after being stopped because, in their joker opinion, he took half a second too long to flick off his highbeams, and they STILL impounded his fuckin car.

            And yet they collectively decide that they deserve to be held to a lower standard than the people that they’re sodomizing to balance their municipal budgets.

            • Hi Moose,

              I’ve rained objections upon arbitrary BAC levels as being synonymous with “drunk” (that is, impaired) driving for years. If a person’s driving cannot be faulted then – as I see it – we have presumptive evidence that he is not impaired, by booze or any other thing. It ought to be legally necessary to point to swerving/erratic driving or some other evidence of not being in control of the vehicle to establish impairment – and the cause of that impairment ought to be irrelevant.

              Does it matter to anyone whose car is struck by an impaired driver whether the impaired driver was impaired by poor vision, feebleness, a sail fawn or alcohol?

              How so?

              And if a person with a BAC of .08 is operating his car in a manner that gives no reason to suggest he’s not in full control of it, why is it right to arrest and cage him as a “drunk” driver?

              • Wasn’t the ACLU or NMA or someone recently advocating for an alcoholic whose tolerance would have been much higher than someone who drinks occasionally? They got shot down but they made a valid point

                • Hi Moose,

                  It is a valid point. People vary in terms of almost everything, including their skill. A marginally competent driver with poor vision and slow reflexes who hasn’t had a drink is more likely to be in an accident than a very competent driver with great vision and excellent reflexes who has had a drink – or even several.

                  Who would you rather have to deal with on a thunderstormy night – Danica Patrick with a beer in her? Or Kirk Douglas behind the wheel of a minivan?

                  In any event, the critical/deciding factor ought to be objective – an accident or loss of control of the vehicle; at the very least, something like weaving/erratic driving. Merely having “x” BAC ought not by itself to be sufficient to convict someone of being a “drunk” driver. And randomly stopping people whose driving hasn’t given any reason to suspect them of being impaired s among the most tyrannical things imaginable to me.

              • I’ve been making the argument for many years that what impairment caused someone to hit my car is irrelevant just as their speed over a certain threshold is pretty irrelevant. It simply makes no different. I am not made whole or brought back to life because the person happened to be sober.

                Anyway I’ve found this argument makes people very angry. It is one of the ways they short out and that manifests with anger. Plain logic which forces them to face that DUI penalties are due to their subjective feelings or a racket or both.

                • Hi Brent,

                  Same! I think it is because Americans (many, maybe a majority) are afflicted with the Puritan Defect – or “Yankee-ism,” if you like. It’s the busybody/moralizing instinct that gets its panties bunched over alcohol and “drugs” because you see, these are sinful. Being addled by a sail fawn or glaucoma is a different species of thing to these people, not because the results aren’t similar but because they are not considered immoral.

            • Moose, In some/many or even most states road side sobriety tests (which includes portable breathalyzers) are not mandatory with no penalty for refusing other than angering the cops. Most DUI lawyers recommend refusal of any test that carries no penalties to refuse.

              IME (not with DUI stops) cops will push people for whatever they can get away with. Why? Their performance reviews have a huge numbers component.

                • VA has always been “special”. I remember reading C&D in the ’80s and VA was constantly the place where some new evil had been proposed or put into effect.

                  • Commonwealth! I remember when I first moved there someone told me that you could be waiting in jail and they’d pass a new law to ensure that they incriminate you before you get your day in court.

                  • Hi Brent,

                    Yup – I have a rant in progress about the governor crowing about mandatory in-car Breathalyzers… for everyone, in all new cars.

                    For saaaaaaaaaaafety, you see.

LEAVE A REPLY