The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2015-10-06 10:04 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 221 references

This is an outrageous story:

The travesty imprisonment of Orville “Lee” Wollard will continue, with the blessing of Gov. Rick Scott. Last week, Scott cast the decisive vote to keep Wollard locked up for firing a warning shot after being attacked in his home by his daughter’s boyfriend. Police said the boyfriend ripped the surgical stitches from Wollard’s abdomen.

The 60-year-old first-time offender has already served about seven years of a mandatory 20-year term. A Polk County jury had convicted him of shooting into a dwelling and aggravated assault with a firearm.

A charge of child abuse was included because the boyfriend of Wollard’s daughter was 17 at the time of the incident, in 2008.

Curiously, the same prosecutor who’d originally offered Wollard a deal of five years’ probation (with no prison time) told the state clemency board on Wednesday that Wollard should stay behind bars after all this time.

So let's look at what we have here.

A man was attacked in his home by his daughter's boyfriend.  That alone is sufficient, assuming he believed the threat was credible (and it appears he did), to shoot him dead.  Indeed, the record shows that the boyfriend did inflict serious bodily harm (the threat thereof being the threshold for the use of deadly force.)

Instead of shooting the boyfriend he discharged the weapon into the wall.  For this he was charged with use of a firearm in the commission of a felony (shooting in/into an occupied building) and child abuse (since the daughter was not 18) and under Florida's mandatory sentencing law for firearms offenses he was incarcerated for 20 years (since he discharged the weapon.)

The stupidity of the way this law was applied is obvious on its face.  Nonetheless, this is what the law allowed at the time (it has since been fixed, incidentally, however that fix was not retroactive.)

Governor Scott just confirmed that he lacks the mental acuity of an ant, as the law was clearly misapplied in this case.  Florida's 10/20/Life law is a good law in the general sense, but that doesn't mean it cannot be misapplied.  All laws can be misapplied; we would hope that when legislators write them they avoid that through careful construction but since laws are made by men and passed by men this sort of error does occur.

Enter two groups of people who are supposed to prevent this.  The Prosecutor is the first one.  Where are the people in this county and why aren't they picketing that bastard's home and office?

Second, however, is the jury.  Despite what you are told when you are called to Jury Duty your job is to judge the totality of the situation before you.  That's why we have juries in the first place; there is no need to weigh evidence when it is incontrovertible, and often it is.  Indeed, in today's world of cameras and audio recorders it is frequently the case that there is no dispute over what happened at all; there is in fact a record of it in a form that, absent tampering, is known with a fair degree of certainty.

The fact is that your job doesn't end there as a juror despite what the Judge will tell you.  Your job includes judging whether the charge leveled against the defendant is appropriate given the circumstances of the alleged offense.

In other words your job is to determine if a breach of the peace has occurred, not simply if a violation of a "law" has occurred.

Laws are made by men.  Men commit errors.  They commit errors both in declaring something illegal that is not because it violates one's unalienable rights (which no man, and no government, may rightfully infringe) but also in applying a law that was written for one purpose to another either through ignorance, stupidity or malice.

This prosecutor disgusts me.  But what's equally disgusting, if not more-so, are the citizens of Polk county who condemned this man to prison for what appears to be a facially-incorrect application of a law intended for violent criminals to a man who was being attacked in his own home.

Do you live in Polk County?  If so then you have a responsibility to right this wrong.  You are responsible for this Sheriff (you elect him), you pay the taxes that support this county government including the prosecutor's office and you imprisoned this man unjustly.

You did that.  He didn't do it, you did it.

It is your responsibility to fix it and that responsibility rests in each and every one of you.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Now about those so-called "scientists" that want those who do not believe the "climate narrative" prosecuted -- can we go after them under 42 USC 1983 and 18 USC 242 for attempting to deprive persons of their rights under color of law?

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

Do you know why science requires (1) the publication of your raw data, (2) the publication of all the manipulations, constants, formulas and other transformations you do to your data, (3) the publication of your methods (that is, your means of collection of data, how you decided what data to collect, etc) and your analytical process?

It's for exactly this reason -- and what's better when the IPCC models are re-run with this clear error repaired the lack of correlation with the prediction and actual results disappears.

And guess what: Global warming now looks to be caused by.... exactly what I have been saying was the cause.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

Yes, which was something that I noted immediately when I started looking at the actual data: global temperatures had a very high correlation with observed solar activity which we have a very good record of going back hundreds of years because it was very easy to observe without modern scientific equipment.  We thus have direct observations of same and records of same.  They correlate, with a fairly deterministic (that is, fixed) lag time, to global temperatures.

CO2 does not which means you need to postulate a model that does not square with what we know about the physical properties of carbon dioxide.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Seriously. Unless you have $500 to blow on a speculative emergency item, you should die.

Note that the purchase is speculative because (1) the drug expires, and (2) you don't know if you'll need it.  But if you do need it, and don't have it, you're ****ed.

Now here's the ball-buster: These pens were $18 a year ago.

Most people (even the very poor) can scrounge up $18 for a speculative purchase such as this, especially when it might save their life if they need it.  Yes, it's low odds you will need it but if you need one of these you need it now, not in a few minutes or hours.

So how did this happen?  The drug in these things is not on patent, but our system of government has made it possible for a handful of manufacturers to form an effective monopoly and then raise the price by 2,500% -- 25 times what it used to cost just a year ago.

Oh by the way, if you are an EMS department you can still buy a vial with 1mg of the drug (3 doses, approximately) for $4.13.  A syringe costs pennies (diabetics use them daily.)  So why can't you simply buy both and keep them around?  Because of the scammers in the medical industry that advocate for, and got passed, laws that make it illegal for you to do so.

Why isn't this the issue in our political system right now?  Why isn't everyone involved in this crap under indictment for violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts?  Why aren't you in the streets insisting that this garbage be stopped across the board and those who refuse or resist be indicted, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned and asset-stripped to their underwear.

Come talk to me about all the other things you want to argue over in the political realm when -- and only when -- this has been addressed.  This (monopoly-related pricing in the medical industry) is the only issue that bears on the budget, the issue that bears on your household disposable income and the issue that will, if we don't address it, destroy this nation economically within the next couple of decades -- after it destroys you economically within the next five to ten years.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Things get more curious by the day...

First, there has been floating around for the last few days a report that the shooter in Oregon was on a Russian Terror Watchlist -- one that that Obama administration refused to consider.  All the sources on this point to a somewhat-sketchy European point of origin, but it definitely bears watching.

Then there is the "curious" whitewash of the shooter's face.  The shooter was clearly a black man and yet it was reported widely in the blogosphere that CNN did severe violence to his complexion, whitening it to look like a white guy who had never seen the outdoors!  In the process, however, the managed to delete the moles on his face, which gave away their deception since the image that they used as a source with the background intact (and thus easily compared) is still around.  Why, would anyone attempt to change the apparent race of the shooter?  (Ed: CNN has denied they ran any image of the shooter, and virtually everything has been scrubbed from the Internet at this point.)

Third, if this man was indeed not crazy but instead an ISIS/ISIL/MuzzieNutjob or both then that destroys the narrative being pressed by Obama (and now Hitlery too) on gun control, doesn't it?  Never mind that Hitlery's "forefront charge", she claims, is facially bankrupt.  She has said she wants "100% background checks at gun shows" and has promised to do so via "executive action" should she be elected.  Well, Oregon already has that via state law.  It did nothing to change outcomes, did it?

I remind everyone that virtually every mass-shooting, with a couple of exceptions over the last two decades, has taken place in a so-called "gun free" zone.

Obviously criminals prefer to shoot at unarmed peasants (and, possibly, other criminals) rather than face the possibility that an armed, peaceful citizen might be present.  If we really wanted to do something about these sorts of situations we'd encourage people to be armed since the clear history shows that criminals prefer places where the absence of defensive armament has been declared.  Remove that and they'll have to face the odds of someone prepared and able to offer effective resistance.

There are also those who claim that "nobody" (as in "civilian") has ever stopped a mass murder incident.  False.  I have a few examples that required no research whatsoever; they are entirely from memory.  The first was the Clackamas mall shooter that a concealed-carrying citizen confronted; the shooter, who was armed with a rifle killed himself upon being confronted -- the concealed carry holder was almost-certainly seen targeting him after he drew as he was forced to seek cover by the gunman; his line of fire was obstructed by innocents who might have otherwise been hit.  The second was very recent; an armed Uber driver this spring shot and stopped a gunman who opened fire into a crowd of people at Logan Square Mall.  The third was the nutjob in the food plant in Oklahoma a year or so ago; he was shot and killed by the COO who grabbed a firearm and ended the assault.

Then there is the case of a civilian that ignored the rules and had a gun anyway, even though he wasn't supposed to.  That would be the doctor in the psychiatric clinic in Pennsylvania, where an enraged man shot and killed a caseworker and then shot the doctor, wounding him.  Despite the office being a posted "murder here all you want" (that is, "Gun Free") zone the doctor had a gun, drew it and shot the perpetrator, ending the assault.

Why is it that Rolling Stone intentionally lies about this, along with the rest of the media and politicians?  It's because they know good and damn well that if you face the facts head-on you cannot prevent someone hellbent on murder from acquiring whatever they wish to use.  You can try, but you will fail, and when (not if) you fail you then have simply turned the populace into targets on a shooting range.  This is unacceptable and that the politicians know this is true is evidenced by the fact that Hillary, as a former Secretary of State and First Lady, and President Obama along with the "important" people in both major political parties have gun-toting guards around and with them 24 hours a day.

The first thing we must do as a society is take down the "Unarmed Citizen Shooting Range" signs from our schools and other venues around the country.  It is utterly outrageous that we advertise to crazed felons-to-be that they have the best odds of completing their crimes unopposed in places where our children are present, among others -- but the worst part of this outrage is when we consign our children to such a place and they are both forced to be there and incapable mentally of consenting on their own.  If you wish to walk into such a place voluntarily (e.g. a shopping mall) that's your call but you have no right to force others, especially young people without the ability to give or decline consent under our legal system, do so.

Second, we must recognize that once any person is willing to commit murder all the other crimes you can concoct for him or her to be convicted of up to and beyond that point are immaterial.  This is basic logic; you cannot execute a man nor imprison him for life more than once.  Since a nutjob needs only one firearm or, for that matter, any other implement of destruction to commit his act you would need to get rid of all of said implements, or substantially all of them, to make them inaccessible.  Unless you intend to start by disarming the police, Secret Service and similar (and we know you're not) you're wasting your time.

Third, we place AEDs in public places and encourage private businesses to have them because if you're having a heart attack the 3 minutes it takes for the ALS folks to get there is 3 more minutes than you have and the presence of that AED might save your life.  The same 3 minutes is required for the cops to get there when a bad guy shows up and starts shooting; the presence of armed civilians might save your life.  There are no guarantees in either circumstance but I will take all the odds-shifting I can get in my favor should something ugly of that nature occur, whether it be a heart attack of a nutjob with a gun.  For this reason I want to encourage people to be armed and, in my opinion, so should you.

Finally, we as citizens have a duty to call out all of the politicians and media who intentionally lie about these matters.  These are not mistakes, they are intentional acts.

Blatant falsehoods are unacceptable and when it comes to media outlets they exist on advertising dollars.  It is your duty as a citizen who has an interest in the truth to boycott every single advertiser associated with or running ads on any media outlet that intentionally runs a false narrative when it comes to matters of life and death.

The reason for this is simple: The life or death involved next time may well yours or that of someone you love.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2015-10-04 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1017 references

There are some very disturbing reports coming in about the Oregon shooting.

First off, it was clear within minutes that the shooter targeted Christians.  How many people in our political system have been outraged that Christians were targeted for execution while others were either shot in the leg or not shot at all?  I have heard exactly nothing from Obama or anyone else in political power in that regard.  Why not?

Second, you've heard my screeds over the years about The Second Amendment.  If you cannot argue facts and logic then get the hell off my lawn -- you're unwelcome around me.  In matters of life and death there is exactly zero room for any sort of "squishy", "touchy-feely" or "feel good emotionalism."

Let me be clear: If you resort to emotion when life or death are on the line you are going to die.

If you wish to entertain the debate here on firearms, gun control or anything of the sort then you are going to argue logic and facts.  Here they are:

  • The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  You call the police when there is an active shooter and they show up with guns.  They don't willy-wally around; they look for a tactical solution and if they get one that works they shoot at the bad guy.  That's exactly what happened here.

  • We cannot have cops everywhere, all the time.  We are not only incapable of paying for it nobody would want to live in such a world.  Even if a cop is just one minute away from anywhere in the United States (an utterly fanciful expectation even in a big city) a person with a bolt action rifle or single-shot pistol can shoot a dozen people (or more!) in that one minute.  As a result the faster any good guy with a gun can engage the bad guy with a gun the lower the risk is of everyone in the vicinity winding up dead -- and the more good guys with guns and the closer they are to the situation the better the odds are for you and everyone else.

  • Virtually all (something like all but three) mass-shootings in the last couple of decades have taken place in "gun-free zones."  To those who want to further restrict firearms -- since there are literally over 100 million peaceful Americans that never have and never will commit a crime with a firearm, and that is an overwhelming majority of the population that owns guns, why don't we ban gun-free zones since virtually every single mass-shooting has taken place in one?  There's an obvious reason that these homicidal maniacs don't shoot up a cop shop -- everyone there is armed and will shoot back!  If our President -- or anyone on the left -- gave a good damn about human life they would both take down the "Nobody here that obeys the law is able to defend themselves, commit mass-murder here" signs.

  • You have an unalienable right to life.  The Constitution does not grant you that right because the government never possessed it in the first place and you cannot grant that which you do not first possess. The Founders understood this and we know that because they declared it to be so in the Declaration of Independence; that's why such a right is not in the Constitution, but the recognition of same, in the gravest extreme, is found in the Second Amendment.

  • You are free to decide at any time to give up.  You are not free to demand that others give up, including giving up their right to protect their own lives.  Any infringement on the Second Amendment is a declaration of your disrespect for someone else's life and an indirect assault upon same.  The only means by which that is legitimate is if and when you are willing to die in the place of those who you demand be disarmed.  If you are not willing to take a bullet intended for me then you have no right to demand that I, in any situation that I find myself, be debarred the ability to effectively fight back against such an assault.

  • right cannot be conditioned upon a permit.  By definition a permit or license gives you the ability to do something otherwise prohibited.  If I have a right to defend my own life I need no permit to do so. 

  • For the above reasons people at large have the right to own, possess and carry upon their person arms suitable for defensive use without any damn permits.  Period.

If you cannot argue these points from a perspective of logic then you have no basis to be here as a member with the privilege of commenting and having your state (e.g. what you've read, etc) between sessions.  In point of fact this is a perfect illustration of the difference between rights and privileges -- you have no right to be on this site on the Internet at all as it is private property, and therefore I may deny you entry as I wish.

Now let me leave you with one more thing to contemplate.

There are reports that the shooter reloaded during his rampage.  If these reports are true and he was in the room with a bunch of people who were about to become deceased then you need to hear this very clearly and must read this next sentence over and over until it sinks in:

Stop watching the damn movies and become educated now about firearms.

The instant that jackass dropped his magazine and thus announced he was out at the close range that exists in a classroom (30-50' or so maximum, right?) there was absolutely no reason on God's Green Earth why the persons there should not have immediately grabbed something (e.g. a chair!) and threw it at him and/or bum-rushed the shooter.

He was empty and thus at that point he was a thug with a club until he could reload.

Everyone reading this needs to spend some time in the deep, dark recesses of their mind and drill this singular fact far, far into your consciousness:

If you find yourself in a situation like this you must assume you are dead.  

Therefore, logic says that anything you do from that instant forward can only change things for the better.  Yes, you may fail.  One ex-military member reportedly did try to rush the shooter and was shot several times.  It is reported he is expected to survive.  His doing so likely prevented some number of other people from being shot as the shooter was occupied with shooting at him.  He is a hero but the point here is not to urge people to be heros -- it is to point out that once your life is under assault in this sort of fashion nothing you can do will make the situation worse; you can only improve your odds.

You won't hear this from the mainslime media nor from the so-called "pundits" and "experts" but it is true.  You do not know how many rounds or what other weapons the person threatening you has.  You only know that that person's very presence and presentation means that from an objective point of view you must assume you are dead and thus if you get any tactical advantage, no matter how small, you must take advantage of it immediately and without a second thought.

On United Flight 93 the passengers did exactly this, collectively.  They saved a tremendous number of lives by doing so.  They correctly surmised that they were all dead at the moment they learned the plane had been hijacked and was intended to be used as a bomb.  There was, for this reason, no downside to any action they might take -- they could only improve their odds and those of others, and decided to do so.

This was the correct decision.  It is the only logical decision and the only logical set of actions in a circumstance such as this.

Folks, firearms do not shoot themselves.  They do run out of ammunition. If they are not aimed, but rather wildly fired, they either miss or if they hit someone it is much less likely to cause serious injury or death than if they are deliberately aimed.  Bullets do not have a GPS embedded in them as you see in the movies and without deliberate, concentration action most of the time they will miss. There is an infamous Youtube video of a bar fight in Toledo a number of years back in which many shots were fired at close range typical of the distance you'd find in a classroom.  Watch the video folks, and then realize this: Not one of those rounds hit anyone.

Therefore anything you can do that detracts from an active shooter's concentration and deliberation who is targeting you increases your odds of survival and that of everyone in the area with you.

If you are scared of firearms then do something about that.  Take a shooting lesson from an instructor or someone you trust that owns firearms.  Learn how they work and how to handle them safely without quivering in fear.  A gun is just a mechanical device and simpler than most that you use every day; it is vastly less-complex than a bicycle, lawn-mower or car.  Safe use and handling of firearms is not difficult to learn at all and every gun works essentially the same way.  Understanding this and having at least a passing level of comfort with it means that if you find yourself in a situation such as what occurred the other day and you are given a tactical break no matter how small you will have a clean opportunity to save not only your own life but that of everyone in the vicinity.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.