Anything Smart: December 2016

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Good Cops and Bad Cops: "Lying on the Ground"

This was originally posted on another blog on August 30, 2015. And now it's here.

Seventeen year old Laquan McDonald had a juvenile record but was trying to turn his life around. He got a job and enrolled at a local high school in Chicago. On the evening of 20 October 2014, though, something went wrong. He took PCP and went out to steal from vehicles at a trucking yard.

The police responded to a call at 9:45 PM. They ordered Laquan to drop the knife he was using to slash tires. He ignored their orders and walked away. The police followed him through a Burger King parking lot and out onto a busy street waiting for a taser to arrive.

According to the official account a second patrol car showed up and Laquan again refused to drop his knife. The police tried using their cars to box him in against a construction fence but he punctured a tire, damaged a windshield, and escaped back out onto the street.

The police now got out of their vehicles, Laquan lunged at them, and one of the officers was forced to shoot him in the chest. He was pronounced dead at 10:42 PM.

This police version of events was simple and believable. NBC called it a "clear-cut case of self-defense. From the beginning though, eyewitness accounts contradicted the police version of events.

Alma Benitez said the police had the situation under control and had no need to shoot Laquan. Another witness said Laquan was "shying away" from police when he was shot, not lunging toward them. One witness described the shooting as an execution.

After the shooting police officers visited the nearby Burger King and examined the security video. When the Independent Police Review Authority tried to view this video the next day they found it erased.

***

[This looks like a book I will enjoy reading. If you beat me to it please send me a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

The medical examiner's report raised more questions. The police said Laquan was shot in the chest. The Medical Examiner said he died of multiple gun shot wounds. When the autopsy report was finally released four months later the public learned that Laquan had been shot 16 times. Nine of these 16 shots struck Laquan from behind and nine had a downward trajectory, suggesting Laquan was on the ground when at least those were fired.

The dash cam video from the fatal night has not been released but it was finally viewed by attorney's for the family in February 2015. Their description of the video differs markedly from the police story.

According to them the officer who shot Laquan opened fire moments after arriving on the scene. Laquan spun and fell into a fetal position with the first shot. After that, the officer just kept shooting. Family attorney Michael Robbins says "You can see in the video as he is lying on the ground, that he is being shot."

The video allegedly shows the shots fired from 12-15 feet away. Contrary to the police story the video does not show Laquan "lunging" toward officers but rather walking away at the time he was shot.

This description seems to be supported by the fact that, after reviewing the video, the City Council unanimously agreed to pay the family $5,000,000 to avoid a Federal lawsuit. One of the conditions of the settlement is that lawyers for the family are not allowed to release the video to the public.

The officer who shot Laquan is Jason Van Dyke. In the past he has been accused of using racial epithets, manhandling suspects, and pointing a gun at a suspect without justification. Van Dyke said he feared for his life that night, but none of the other five officers present fired.

The currently available evidence seems adequate to conclude that Van Dyke is a bad cop who shot too soon and too often.

For more information click on the links below.

203

Monday, December 26, 2016

The North Pole Heats Up

According to this article (https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/north-pole-nov-dec-2016/) the north pole was 23 degrees F warmer than average in November 2016. One of the charts in the article shows that arctic ice is down about 25% since 1978.

I think the critical questions about global warming are these:

Is it really happening or not?
Is it caused by human activities or not?
Can we stop it or not?
If we can stop it, how do we do that?
If we can't stop it, how do we prepare for the new and warmer world which will include massive relocations of populations away from current coastlines, more overcrowding of interior living spaces, more violent weather, more infectious disease, breakdown of agricultural economies near the equator, etc?

Many people are still grappling with (or stuck on) questions 1 and 2, including some of our new government officials here in the United States.

Most people have probably, by now, advanced to questions 3 and 4.

I am very much concerned we might actually be getting close to a point where it's too late to worry about questions 1-4 and we need to get to work on question 5.

***

[This looks like a good book on global warming. If you read it before me please send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.

If you want to support AnythingSmart just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. AnythingSmart will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Saturday, December 24, 2016

How to Deal With Biased Sources

Time is the great enemy of many things, including critical thinking. We just don't have time to think deeply about everything that crosses our path.

When it comes to the news, my opinion is that we should look at sources from the left, the right, and the center. If they all basically agree on a particular story you can be pretty confident of that information.

If they disagree on an issue that is NOT that important to you, then save your time, just accept there is a disagreement, and let it go.

If they disagree on an issue that IS important to you then GET TO WORK:

Analyze the articles line-by-line.
Where you find insults and jokes ignore them. They have no intellectual value unless they imply an argument in which case see below on arguments.
Where you find opinions accept them as examples of freedom of speech and move on. Opinions also have little intellectual value unless they imply an argument in which case see below on arguments.
Where you find factual statements verify them. Is there some authoritative source you can check? Can you check multiple sources and reach a conclusion that way? Facts are things you DO NOT argue about, facts are things you LOOK UP.
Where you find arguments analyze them. What are the premises? Are they true? What is the conclusion? Does the conclusion logically follow from the premises? If yes explain why the argument is sound. If not then then expose the error in the argument. If you think you have a counter-argument construct it and share it to see if anyone can shoot it down.

What you should never, never, never do when you encounter something you disagree with is call it biased and ignore it. That is lazy and ignorant. It ensures you will not learn anything yourself and you will not help anyone else learn anything.

Thinking is important. Let's do it!

***

[Here is an excellent book on critical thinking. I hope you will buy it and hone your skills.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

Friday, December 23, 2016

Good Cops and Bad Cops: "Please be alive...."

This story was originally posted on another blog on 1-August-2015. And now it's here.

It happened in the pre-dawn hours of a southern Saturday morning. Corporal Adam Willis, a 10 year veteran of the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina police department, was out on patrol. He got a call about a car engulfed in flames near Vickery's Bar and Grill on Shrimp Boat Lane and immediately accelerated in that direction to help.

As Willis pulled into the parking lot his dash cam captured the burning car, the whole front end covered in fire. He came to a stop, grabbed his fire extinguisher, and ran toward the burning vehicle. He later said he was thinking "please be alive, don't be dead." In a subsequent interview with Fox and Friends Willis said he didn't really think about the danger, he just focused on the job.

As Willis approached the car the flames were so intense that he couldn't see inside. He used the extinguisher to drive the fire back and then saw an arm gripping the steering wheel. Willis later explained to an interviewer: "When you're in those kind of situations, there's really not much time to have emotion or to think about too much. Like I said, I went in there with a mindset that I was going to make sure there was no one in the vehicle. Once there was somebody, my mindset then went to: I gotta get him out of the vehicle."

[This looks like a great book about good cops catching bad cops. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.

If you want to support AnythingSmart just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. AnythingSmart will receive a commission. Thanks!]

The 27 year old in the driver's seat was unconscious. Fortunately, the door was ajar so Willis pulled it open and grabbed the occupant by the arm yelling "Get out!, Get out!" The man regained consciousness and, with Willis's help, got out of the car and ran for safety.

When firefighters arrived they told Willis that if he had been just one or two minutes later the story might have had a very different – and tragic – end.

The young man was heavily intoxicated and was taken to a hospital as a precaution. He was released an hour later.

Willis summed up what he did in a later interview: "There was nothing else going through my mind. Our training... you have these critical incidents that require just a bunch of adrenaline. It's more of a reactionary thing and that's exactly what I went through," and "That's part of loving the job – is being able to help people."

Corporal Adam Willis did a great job. He saw a dangerous situation and ran straight into it. When he realized someone needed help, he was there to provide that help. Adam Willis is one of our good cops.

For more information – and for video of the fiery rescue - click on the links below.

188

Monday, December 19, 2016

Dealing With Our Irrational Minds – What's Your REAL Reason?

Some people seem to be irrational almost ALL of the time. Even people who are EXTREMELY rational SOME of the time are still irrational MUCH of the time.

I am no exception. I have to admit I often buy groceries based on which packaging appeals to me more. I'll buy something with a picture of a tiger on it, or a tree; before something with a kitten, or a flower. That's not very rational but that's what I do in the absence of other, overriding information.

In a way we have to do this. We don't have time in life to think hard and deep and do detailed research and analysis every time we make a decision.

So on minor decisions, go ahead and revel in your irrationality and go with your instincts or feelings and do what you want and don't worry about it.

Most people would agree, though, that on very serious decisions, with potentially serious consequences, we should be more careful in our decision making; we should be more rational.

A presidential election is very serious and certainly if we ever need to be rational it is when deciding who to vote into the White House. But how do we know if we are being rational? Maybe I don't like Trump because he wears his ties too long, or because his hair is... well... like THAT, or because a teacher criticized me in 2nd grade and Trump's nose reminds me of that teacher. Maybe one of these possibilities is the REAL reason I dislike Trump and maybe all my rational sounding explanations and arguments are just excuses and covers for that REAL reason.

Now first I want to say that I am being very serious here. I am not making up ridiculous examples. I think many important decisions in life are based on subtle, almost subconscious, reasons just like these.

I have noticed many times that if someone says I believe in A because of reason X and then you disprove X the person will say oh wait, the real reason I believe in A is because of Y, and then if you disprove Y the person will say oh wait, the real reason I believe in A is because of Z.... And so on.

The truth is they may not even know WHY they believe in A. They just believe in A for SOME reason but all the stated reasons are not the real reason, they are excuses or covers for the real reason.

A person might say they have three reasons any one of which justifies belief in A. That's fine. But if we disprove all three of those reasons and then they shift to other reasons we are in the same position we described in the preceding paragraph. It seems the person we are talking to is not giving us REAL reasons.

Sometimes these people may actually know the real reason they believe in A and not want to say it. Maybe it is embarrassing or socially unacceptable in some way. But at other times I think these people really DO NOT KNOW why they believe A. They just do.

I do not criticize this second group of people. They are following subconscious urges, as we all do, and trying to provide rational justification for their beliefs and actions, as we all do. They are just failing to get at the REAL reason, or even an ADEQUATE reason.

Now we get to the point of this little essay. I oppose Trump very strongly. It is POSSIBLE that my REAL reasons are buried deep within my subconscious and I don't even know what they are. It is POSSIBLE that something about Trump, maybe some gesture he makes, reminds me of the 4th grade teacher who infuriated me by making me stand in the corner.

If this is true, if my real opposition to Trump is based on one or more long-buried memories in my subconscious then I may NEVER know the REAL reason I oppose Trump. That is a possibility I have to accept.

But we still have to make decisions in life and in serious cases we need to be rational so what can we do?

Even if there are cases where we cannot be sure what the REAL reason is for our beliefs and actions we can still make sure we have an ADEQUATE reason.

An adequate reason is one that is strong enough to explain our belief or action, and that rationally justifies our belief or action, even if the REAL reason is something different that we don't even know or understand.

An adequate reason is also one that we are willing to apply to everyone, no matter who they are or what party they belong to or what our instincts and feelings tell us about them.

Here is an example. Why do I oppose Trump? I will answer in the form of a syllogism:
No one without government experience should be president.
Trump has no government experience.
Therefore, Trump should not be president.

And here is a second argument:
No one who praises dictators should be president.
Trump praises dictators.
Therefore, Trump should not be president.

If I say that these are the reasons I oppose Trump then if someone can disprove them I should stop opposing Trump. If these arguments are disproved and I stop supporting Trump then I can argue that my position is rational even if I don't know the REAL or subconscious motivations behind it.

If someone disproves these reasons and I continue to oppose Trump then either I am not being rational or, at very least, I have so far failed to prove my rationality.

One last point – the first line in each of my arguments is actually a value judgment rather than a statement of fact. Value judgments cannot be proven either true or false so maybe this is just another trick to support my irrational choice and prevent anyone from exposing my irrationality?

In the case of arguments involving value judgments we can demonstrate we are being rational by using the same standard to judge everyone. For example, if the Democrats nominate someone in 2020 and that person has no government experience or praises dictators and if I, nevertheless, support them, then you will know that my stated reasons for opposing Trump were neither REAL nor ADEQUATE.

If, on the other hand, I oppose that nominee in 2020 then that will provide support for the conclusion that my reasons are both rational and ADEQUATE, whether or not they are REAL which, perhaps only years of psychotherapy could determine.

***

Saturday, December 17, 2016

LSS: What is Lean?

Lean is one of the most powerful business improvement methods ever created.

If you use Lean correctly your business is going to improve and you are going to be more successful.

If you don't use Lean correctly, and your opponents do, they are going to beat you and put you out of business.

^^^

So, what is Lean?

The simplest explanation of Lean is this: it is a method for eliminating waste from your business.

A Lean business is one that is continually striving to eliminate waste, continually striving to attain that perfect state where there is no waste at all.

^^^

So, what is waste?

Lean businesses remember the one fundamental rule of success: there is nothing more important than serving your customers. If you serve customers better than your competitors than you will succeed. If your competitors serve customers better than you then THEY will succeed and you will NOT.

If we remember that serving customers is the supreme goal of the business then remembering what waste is will be easy: waste is anything that does not serve the customer!

^^^

So, what is the result of doing Lean correctly?

If you serve customers with single-minded devotion, and you do it better than any of your competitors, than you will end up with more orders from existing customers, your customers will be more satisfied, more delighted, and more loyal, and you will have more new customers.

If you combine these customer advantages with having less waste than your competitors then you will be using less money and less time and fewer other resources than they do, which means you will be more profitable.

Therefore, the ultimate result of doing Lean correctly is higher long-term profits than your competitors.

^^^

So, based on all of the above, this is the definition of Lean I use:

Lean is a method for achieving higher long-term profits than your competitors by radically focusing on your customer's needs and eliminating all waste from your organization.

Many people refer to the proccess of implementing Lean in a business as a "journey" because it takes time. There is work involved and attitudes to change and many things to learn that may seem far from intuitive. But if you think the destination is worth the journey, and if you are willing to make the trip, then at least there is no doubt what the road is: the road is called Lean.

[If you want to start a Lean journey this book will help.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Good Cops and Bad Cops: "Who is supposed to help?"

This was first published on 18-July-2015 on another blog. And now it's here.

On 26 January 2015 Charlena Michelle Cooks – 8 months pregnant – was trying to get her 2^nd grade daughter to school on time in Barstow, California. According to a school employee who honked at her, Crooks was driving too fast in the parking lot. The employee said Cooks responded by screaming and punching the employee's car.

A responding officer told her that, with no damage to her car, no crime had been committed. He said he would talk to the other lady and get her name, though he never asked the employee for her name.

After a short conversation with Cooks the officer asked for her name and she refused to give it. She took out her phone to call her boyfriend to find out if had to give her name or not. The officer told Cooks, "I have every right to ask you for your name."

The officer said he would give Cooks two minutes to finish her phone call. He must have changed his mind because within 30 seconds he grabbed Cooks, pushed her down onto the ground, and, with his partner's help, handcuffed her.

As the police grabbed Cooks she cried out, "Don't touch me!" As they pushed her onto the ground, on her stomach, Cooks screamed, "Please! I'm pregnant. Please stop this."

One officer asks her, "Why are you resisting?" and I can hear Cooks say on the video, "Because you're stupid." Actually that's a pretty good answer. According to an attorney from the ACLU, "Even if an officer is conducting an investigation, in California, unlike some other states, he can't just require a person to provide ID for no reason."

Coincidentally, the Barstow Police Department was just settling a case where they had arrested two brothers for refusing to identify themselves. The Department had to make a cash payment and do retraining which included instructing officers that people are almost never required to provide ID unless they are driving a vehicle.

When Cooks was charged, it was only with resisting arrest. If you get arrested, and the only charge is resisting arrest, something is obviously wrong. Somebody must have realized that Cooks did not have to provide ID and therefore could not be charged with that, after all. When she went before a judge even the resisting arrest charge was thrown out.

So it would seem the arresting officer WAS stupid. Stupid enough to win a place in our bad cops category. He didn't understand the law, he didn't understand (or was not aware) of the retraining his department was forced to conduct, once the arrest was made he couldn't come up with anything illegal Cooks had done before the arrest, and, finally, what he did charge her with, was thrown out by the judge.

Later Cooks said, "I don't think I've ever been that terrified in my life.... I told him I was pregnant so he could proceed with caution. That didn't happen and the first thing I thought was I didn't want to fall to the ground. I felt the pressure on my stomach from falling and I was calling for help. But these guys are supposed to help me. But who is supposed to help me when they are attacking me?"

Cooks gave birth to a daughter on 30 March. The baby seems healthy but will be monitored to ensure she did not suffer any injury during her pre-natal encounter with the Barstow police department.

For more information click on the links below.

137

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Comrade Trump: The Russian Candidate

Is it possible the Russians are finally getting what they have always wanted since the end of World War II, seventy-one years ago? A friendly tool, a "useful idiot," in the White House of the United States of America? Let's look at the evidence.

Russia Interfered in the US Election

According to Factcheck.org 16 U.S. Intelligence agencies and at least three private security firms have all concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election by releasing hacked information.

This conclusion was based on the methods, techniques, and software used by the hackers.

By October 7, 2015 U.S. intelligence agencies were sufficiently confident of their conclusions to release the following statement:

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

See http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

The Russians Wanted Trump to Win

If the Russians were just interfering in a U.S. election to cause confusion and demoralization that would be bad enough. But now we learn the CIA believes the Russians were specifically trying to swing the election for Trump and that is an order of magnitude worse.

Evidence for this conclusion includes the fact that hackers only released information on the Democrats and no information on the Republicans although it now appears they had both.

See http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/donald-trump-really-really-doesnt-want-hear-about-how-russia-got-him-elected

Trump Wants to Do Favors for Russia

These conclusions are not 100% certain. Intelligence assessments almost never are. But if we find corroborating or supporting evidence these intelligence conclusions become much more believable.

Did trump ever say anything during the campaign that would make the Russians want him to be president? In fact he did, several times.

[Unless something very unusual happens with the electoral college Donald Trump is about to become President. We better learn all we can about him so here is his first book.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

He strongly hinted that he would be willing to consider dropping the sanctions against Russia put in place after they invaded the Crimea in 2014.

He suggested the U.S. might not defend some NATO allies.

He suggested we should give the Russians a free hand in Syria.

At one point Trump even asked the Russians to release Hillary's emails if they had them, suggesting he would not be too upset about Russian hacks if they were advantageous to him. He later said he was just being sarcastic when he made this statement.

He praised Putin repeatedly, at least once calling him a better leader than Obama.

All of these points can be quickly verified with an internet search. For a couple of them see:

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/trump-crimea/493280/

Trump Wants to Make Money from Russia

But why would Trump want to help Russia? Is their some reason why Trump would do favors for Russia?

In 2007 Trump said "Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment," and that he planned to "be in Moscow at some point."

In 2008 Donald Trump, Jr. Said "In terms of high-end product influx into the U.S., Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," he said at a conference that year, according to news reports. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

There is documentation of numerous Trump efforts to launch real estate projects in Russia which seems to be a longstanding goal of his.

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/the-trump-russia-money-question-in-24-steps/?utm_term=.f4ecc30c627b

Is it too Late to Stop the Russian Candidate?

None of this constitutes certain proof but we almost never have certain proof in life. We even convict people of capital crimes and execute with less than certain proof. For most things in life we only require a "preponderance of evidence" – a showing that something is more likely true than not.

So now let's put together the pieces of the Trump-Russia puzzle:

Trump has made a lot of money from Russia and he would like to make a lot more.

As president, Trump will be in a position to do favors to Russia to get support for his money-making schemes. As shown above Trump has even told us, and Russia, publicly, what some of those favors are likely to be.

Russia seems to have noticed Trump's offer of a deal. They responded to Trump's statements by supporting him and releasing hacked documents that would help him get elected.

So now, finally, the Russians have what they want. After working against U.S. interests all over the world for a lifetime they have finally found a "useful idiot," a man so obsessed with making money that he will close his eyes to the danger Russia poses and give then a free hand to do what they will.

This is a reason American voters should have rejected Trump at the polls in every state back on election day.

This is a reason the presidential electors should still consider carefully before they vote on December 19.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Trump is the Bull in the China Shop

Trump is not sworn in yet and he has already started disrupting world peace. So far as I know we still promise to protect Taiwan if China should attack but, to keep peace with mainland China we officially recognize them as the government of all of China including Taiwan.

Since 1979 the U.S. and Taiwan have been very careful to maintain ONLY unofficial relations with each other to avoid antagonizing China. As part of that "unofficialness" there has not been any publicized phone call between the Presidents of the US and Taiwan in 37 years.

Trump appears to be reversing that long-standing policy by having a phone conversation with the President of Taiwan. If China interprets this as an insult to its sovereignty that could put Taiwan at risk. It could also put US armed forces at risk if they are called upon to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression.

Certainly we can hope that calm will be restored and nothing terrible will happen but it really would have been better, and smarter, for Trump not to take this call.

I am afraid there will be other incidents like this. I do not see Trump as a careful or subtle person, more like a bull in a china shop.

Found more details on Trump's latest embarrassment in this article:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-lodges-complaint-with-us-over-trumps-taiwan-phone-call/ar-AAl6cid?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[Unless something very unusual happens with the electoral college Donald Trump is about to become President. We better learn all we can about him so here is his first book.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Good Cops and Bad Cops, "Straight Into Danger"

This post was originally published on another blog on 12 July 2015. And now it's here.

On the evening of 3 May 2015 the American Freedom Defense Initiative, or AFDI – listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Muslim group - held a "Draw Muhammad" contest in the Dallas suburb of Garland, Texas. The event was located at a local school arena called the Curtis Culwell Center.

The contest offered a $10,000 prize for the "best" cartoon depicting Muhammad. These drawings are considered blasphemous by many Muslims. Underlining the AFDI's intent to be offensive, one of the speakers at the event was the anti-Muslim Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Because of the controversial nature of the event the AFDI reportedly spent $10,000 on extra security. There were private security guards, 40 police officers, and representatives of state and federal law enforcement agencies at the scene.

Regrettably, two men from North Phoenix, Arizona did decide to attack the event and drove 1100 miles to do so. Their car was loaded with three assault rifles, three pistols, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. FBI investigators later learned these men had prepared and practiced for this attack for months before it took place.

The attack occurred at 7:00 PM local time. The shooters drove up to a barricade in a dark-colored car, got out wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles, and opened fire on a security guard and a police officer standing next to a police car. The guard, Bruce Joiner, was quickly wounded in the ankle.

[Sadly, not all cops are good. If you read this book before I do please send me a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.]

[If you want to support AnythingSmart just click on book links like the one here to buy your books. AnythingSmart will receive a commission. Thanks!]

The police officer, who was later reported to be a traffic officer, 60 years old, with 30 years of experience on the force, returned fire with his Glock duty pistol and was able to at least wound both of the men shooting at him. According to later analysis of photographs it appears the officer fired about a dozen rounds while steadily advancing on the shooters, starting about 20 yards out and ending up within 10 yards of where the attackers died.

An eyewitness named Cynthia Belisle said dozens of cops sprang into action. The heroic traffic officer was quickly supported by a 4-member SWAT team that fired dozens of additional rounds until it was obvious the attackers were dead next to their car.

Police spokesman Joe Harn spoke about the first officer to respond, "He did what he was trained to do. Under the fire that he was put under, he did a very good job. And probably saved lives.... His reaction, and his shooting with a pistol, he did a good job."

Several days after the attack the police chief praised all the officers involved "who put their own lives at great risk."

The anonymous traffic officer hero of Garland deserves our respect and thanks. Sadly, security concerns in our dangerous world, have prevented his name from being released. Even though we don't know this officer's name we can still recognize his great courage and service. When the security guard next to him went down, and the bullets were flying, and he was alone for those first few deadly seconds - he returned accurate fire, and apparently advanced streadily straight into danger until the attackers were down and the hundreds of people people counting on him were safe.

This traffic officer in Garland, Texas is a good cop.

For more information click on the links below: