Out My Window

Kadeem Cook, surrendered to police after robbing a woman at gunpoint last week, taking her purse and cell phone.
Police said the robber then used the woman's cell phone to take photos of himself holding the gun used in the robbery.
But the victim had set up her phone to automatically transmit images to her home computer. She contacted police, who distributed copies of the photo, which shows Cook with the gun, pointing it to his head.
After seeing his photo widely disseminated, Cook thought it best to surrender.
At least he was smart enough to do that.

My son's live-in girl friend was arguing with him one night and sent him away so she could "settle down" and put up the Christmas tree with her two kids. When he returned home, she had taken $1,000 worth of presents that he had just bought and left. Some were intended to be given to her kids but there was also presents for his little girl that would soon be there for Christmas.
She claimed she did not take his stuff and he could not prove it. It was there when she left. She plans on returning to pick up her belongings with a constable.
A security camera from a neighbor's house happened to record her carrying Best Buy bags to the car.
There is a warrant for her in that county for grand larceny. I would like to be there to see that.

I recently bought a small netbook to carry around with me. It uses facial recognition to automatically log you on to your account. If it doesn't recognize the face it takes a couple of pictures and a short video of who is trying to log on to your machine. These can be set to be sent to a certain email account the next time it connects to the internet.

A lot of cell phones today have a GPS in them. They can be set up to send it's location Google Maps. If it is stolen, all you have to do is log on to Google Maps and you can see exactly where your phone is. There are applications for iPhone, Android, and others that send locations to a specified account.

At the rate the government is installing "traffic" cameras, we will be observed continually from the time we leave the house to the time we get to work.

OnStar has revolutionized the auto theft alarm. They can communicate, track and shut down the operation of any car subscribed to it.

Our government makes a copy of all transmissions through AT&T (and more than likely other carriers) and scans EVERY conversation and web page visit at speeds close to real time.

A device mounted on the back of a police cruiser can signal infrared cameras to take digital photos of just about every car on the road. The device "runs" the plate numbers and signals the officer if there is a warning related to that automobile and even check to see that it is insured.

New technology for face recognition uses several 2D pictures to create 3D images that are 95-100% accurate in recognizing faces compared to images in a database. Several states are already contributing drivers license pictures to this database.
If you want a glimpse of facial recognition at work, download the newest Picasa from Google and let it scan the pictures on you hard drive. I was amazed.

With all this technology, why do we still have crimes?

Remember my blog about the teacher that received a 12 year prison sentence for having sex with her "almost 18" student?
Today we have the story of a 39 year old married religious education teacher that seduced a 15 year old via the internet and has received only 32 months for 10 counts of sex with a minor under 16.

Madeleine Martin seduced the boy via Facebook after being appointed to mentor him at school.
They exchanged a series of emails and had sex three times in the back of her car at a country park, a shopping center and at her home during their brief relationship.

Get this:
Martin, a mother-of-two, even persuaded the teenager to have her name tattooed in a heart on his arm to remind him of her when they were apart.
She, in return, had a tattoo for him of some Hebrew script on her lower back.

But after just nine days the pair decided to end their relationship.
Source:

So here is my point, 32 months for aggressively pursuing and seducing a minor? That is rape. At 10 counts, that could and should have been 60 years.
Where is the justice?
Rape a child and roll the dice. You might get away with a slap on the wrist... You might get the maximum. Depends on how the judge's day is going.

After seeing this, I have lost respect for Fox News.
Of course it is to be expected from big drug companies and our government.
Canada stood up to Monsanto and would not approve the drug because they found that the company misrepresented the danger of cancer to humans from the milk of cows treated with it.
Monsanto didn't have enough money to buy off Canada but unfortunately they could afford to pay off government testers and threaten the news media into killing the story.

Since Monsanto has the money, our kids get to drink carcinogenics at school.
Isn't it great to be rich?

Monsanto Pressures Fox News

It's about ten minutes long but well worth the time to watch.

I had already seen this posted on the web and figured it was an officer that just loaned his weapon to a girl for a photo shoot. Sure enough...
The Dallas Morning news reported today.


In this photo provided by the Midland County, (Texas) Sheriff, an unidentified waitress at Twin Peaks Restaurant and Bar posses for a photo in Round Rock, Texas, Aug. 10, 2009.
Midland County Sheriff, Gary Painter, fired one deputy and suspended three others without pay for the photos of a waitress holding a rifle sitting on a Midland County patrol car.
Round Rock officers were dispatched to the restaurant after someone reported the waitress with the weapon, which had been given to her by one of the deputies who had been attending a training session near Austin.

Seems the networks are looking for ratings again.
Some of you may remember when NBC's Dateline reported on General Motors trucks "blowing up" in a wreck. Dateline showed footage of their test. It was later found that they had planted explosives in the trucks. All this to prove the conclusion that the trucks were unsafe.
Now ABC has come up with another test. Taking a hard line against our rights to bear arms, 20/20 claims that an armed citizen would be ineffective against a mass killers armed attack. Not only are they implying that we should not have rights to own firearms, they are claiming that we are too incompetent to protect ourselves.

Here is the set up:
They take college student and teach them how to fire a gun. They take each student and place them in the front-center chair of a simulated class room with other students and a teacher.
At some point a professional police instructor barges into the room and fires once at the teacher then at the front-center student.
If the student is able to get his gun out from his holster and from under his shirt and make a direct kill shot... the student wins.
If the professional gunman can get in both hits whether they are kills or not... mass murderer wins.
Of course there was no training on HOW to carry the weapon. Ill fitting holsters under baggy clothing does not fare well in a showdown.
Even as one student gets a hit, we are told that the shot to the leg was ineffective and the perpetrator was able to deliver a deadly shot to the chest. Sure! if it is just a damn paint gun. Let me take a whack with my .44 and see if he can still get a shot off after a little leg wound.
They really try to pass this off as a real world experiment. If one of the students were armed in this scenario, the armed student would not always be sitting in the front center of the class and the assailant would not know where his target would be. Although the attacker may be skilled, anyone that had experience in carrying a personal protection firearm would have, at some point, practiced and know the best way to have his weapon accessible.
Even after one girl fought it out and hit the intruder in the shoulder, it was pointed out that she came "within inches of hitting her fellow students." No mention that she had just stopped a crazed killer. All of the commentary seemed biased in every test. But then, they were out to "prove" that a professional gunman was no match for an untrained college student.
In April, a CNN poll showed that only 39% of the people surveyed wanted stricter laws - down from 50% in 2000.
And a poll sponsored by no less than ABC news found that 61% favored strong enforcement of existing laws vs 27% who want stricter laws.