A Stockton, CA armed government worker (AGW) is n trouble over revelations that he was engaged in serial sexual harassment of sex workers, often while “on duty.”
“Sergeant” Nicholas Bloed – the “sergeant” in air fingers quotes to reflect the fact that there are no NCO AGWs as AGWs are civilians, though many love to pretend they are in the military – had been in a “relationship” (a financial one, apparently) with an escort, whom he paid for sex with money paid to him by taxpayers, who were forced to pay for it. The “veteran” – another “military” appellation – reportedly cajoled a second escort, whom the first escort had asked to be in the room to try to ward off the “sergeant” to also have sex with him.
The sordid business was apparently uncovered in the course of a separate investigation, when one of the escorts was testifying and the contents of he sail fawn were revealed – including sexting between the herself and the “sergeant.”
No word yet on whether the “sarge” asked for “dates” from women he menaced with the threat of murderous violence – i.e., “pulled over” – for such non-crimes as “speeding” and failing to “buckle up for safety.”
Near me today in far eastern NC, an AGW engaged in a high speed chase with a “speeder” and hit a parked car with 5 members of a family in it whilst going about 120. Multiple bad injuries with 1 fighting for life in hospital. At the time, although unaware of the situation, I personally witnessed 1 then 3 undercover cop cars with lights flashing passing me at very high speeds… on a 2 lane bridge. The gravely injured don’t want the AGW to be “criticized” because he was “just doing his job.”
Cop uses authority to force people to do things against their will to his benefit.
Doesn’t sound possible.
I don’t believe for a second that prostitution should be illegal. With some care taken, such a practice can quickly earn a woman some decent wealth, and stop a lot of young men from losing their minds.
That said, wait ’til you’re off duty, for fuck’s sake! Also, something tells me that this man, with his neck thicker than his head, would quickly beat-down and arrest someone ELSE trying to buy some cheap satisfaction like he was.
OT, but just wanted to post a quick “heads up.” In just the last two days I’ve noticed several pro-liberty sites I visit are suddenly getting hit with sanctions out of the blue. Anti-Empire just had its Paypal account suspended for seemingly no reason, while some anti-scamdemic/pro-liberty YouTubers are suddenly getting channel strikes for no apparent reason (after a long “grace” period of no strikes). And of course, there’s the Alex Jones show trial to signal that dissent will no longer be treated with kid gloves. All told, it looks like the PTBs are gearing up for another round of you-know-what.
Superb usage of sibilance!
In re: speed limits — I generally believe in the “no harm, no foul” principle; that punishment should be for harm or damage one *actually* does, not what they *could’ve* done. For example, driving 80 mph on a freeway with no other cars around — what harm have you done? Where I struggle with this issue is on city streets and residential areas — doing 80 on a neighborhood street is much different from 80 on a freeway in terms of potential accidents and harm. I still wouldn’t want to be hit by a car going 25 mph — the main issue is the ability to stop in time. But what “limit” assures this, since we don’t know if a child, pet, or another car might suddenly move into our path, and exactly how much time we’d need to hit the brakes? What’s your viewpoint on speed limits in city/residential areas vs. highways, and if limits are appropriate, how should they be set?
I agree, Chris. My libertarian self doesn’t like the idea of punishing people for things that might happen. But at the same time, it seems like there should be a line somewhere in the sand. We can’t have someone driving in a school zone at 100 mph. Same with drinking and driving. I don’t believe in arbitrary numbers like .08, but we can’t hand the keys to someone who is stumbling, falling down, blackout drunk and say, hey, he hasn’t caused any harm – yet. And I know those examples are hyperbole, but there has to be a line, a point where civil society can say that you are endangering other people, and no, you can’t do that.
I understand where you’re coming from. But – at the same time – do such laws actually prevent such truly egregious conduct? I mean, if someone is going to drive 100 MPH through a school zone would a law that says it’s not lawful prevent that? It seems to me that it’s essentially the same problem as the “gun” problem. Make it illegal to shoot up a school; declare schools to be “gun free” zones. Does this prevent school shootings?
On the other hand, do such laws establish a precedent that tends to be expanded, often to the point of tyrannical absurdity? No 100 MPH though the school zone because it might result in someone getting hurt. Well, why not bring that down to 45? Then 25? How about 10? Even when school’s out?
I’d rather accept the risk that – sometimes – some people will behave irresponsibly and even criminally – irrespective of the law – than accept the certainty of the state characterizing more and more attenuated actions as “unsafe” and punishing people when they’ve done nothing to deserve it.
I think a far better deterrent – and a far more just one – would be to hold the irresponsible and criminal severely responsible for the harms they cause. But leave those who haven’t caused them alone. The latter aren’t going to drive 100 MPH through a school zone drunk out of their minds anyhow – even if it were entirely legal.
Speed limits when introduced at least had some basis in reality with respect to what was a prudent speed to control the cars of that era. For most situations my car, outside of a negligible change in required reaction time, is no less safe at 100 than 70. We continue to mandate changes to the vehicles but the rules of the road never really get adjusted. As a young man, unless you were in a German car, driving over 100 was truly driving them at their structural and mechanical limits.
The existence of DUI is creating more special circumstance charges for existing crimes. What was insufficient with reckless driving and/or involuntary manslaughter?
Hi Eric: re School Zones
Here’s one area that common sense is zero tolerance as well.
When I grew up, you might find kids walking home, dribbling balls, being distracted with face-to-face discussion, thus slowing down when school is starting/ending made sense. While I still see some urban schools that still have pedestrians, mostly suburban and rural parents are driving their kids to school. I don’t see pedestrians, at all, at most schools, but there’s still the “school zone”, even if it is adjacent to the highway that doesn’t intersect a school’s intersections, to arbitrarily reduce speeds when there are no dangers of pedestrian collisions.
RE: “I don’t see pedestrians, at all, at most schools”
Pretty much, the same, here.
Years ago, I put some effort into making the case that if it was, “So Dangerous” in these school zones, why didn’t they put 4′ tall barricades between the street & the sidewalk, or, put pedestrian overpasses in place of crosswalks?
…Obviously, like most things to do with, ‘safety’ it’s more about the money & control (and, incrementally increasing the intake of both) than it is about real safety.
The only pedestrian overpass I know of in the whole state is at the downtown area of the University of Iowa, far as I know, not a single person has ever been hit by a car while crossing it.
It’s the same in my area. The “school zone” is really a car-queue zone. One vehicle after another queued up to pick up or drop off the kids. never see kids walking to or from the school. Something else has changed, too. Instead of the bus picking up a bunch of kids at one place, such as the entrance to a neighborhood – which the kids walk to (and from) – the bus stops at every single driveway, to drop off kids individually. Even in cases where the driveways are 20 yards apart.
Chris and FM:
The heart of the problem as I see it is that for my entire lifetime and longer, drivers have been trained not to pay attention and control their vehicles but to constantly look for a sign that will tell them what to do. In my state, when you renew your driver’s license you don’t have to prove that you can drive; only that you can see and interpret their do-this-don’t-do-that signs.
If there never had been any regulatory signs at all – only informational ones – then drivers would have a different mindset altogether: one that tells them it’s their responsibility to keep their vehicles on the road and avoid hitting stuff. Who would fly through an intersection at 70 mph if he knew that someone might be doing the same thing perpendicular to his line of travel?
I would rather that drivers go 50 past a school while keeping an eye out for kids than for them to be scanning the roadside – oblivious to what’s going on around them – for a sign to tell them how slow they need to go to avoid a ticket.
Very well-said, Roland.
Speed limit signs have almost no informational value as everyone knows they bear no relation to reasonable rates of travel. Almost all are posted at least 10 MPH below the usual rate of travel – and we all know this to be so – and so we ignore the sign, unless there is an AGW around.
I think it was Henry Kissinger who said “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac”. He and the AGWs have a thing in common. They can kill people, and get away with it, scot free. Apparently, a women submitting with a gun to her head, as in rape, turns them on.
[…] post Another Horned Up “Hero” appeared first on EPautos – Libertarian Car […]