The whole explanation about how cops are misrepresented by the press
rings true because there is certainly a degree of truth to it. On the
other hand, there is Fox News and a host of other media organizations
and individuals who love to find documentable examples of a liberal
press run amok and burn the liberals with their own fire of public
exposure.

.....Shrug....

Checks and balances at work, I think.

But it strikes me that in the previous discussion, what I think was
most offensive about the Florida zealot officer, and what is
unforgivably offensive about the rotund woman reportedly brutalized on
film is a complete lack of common sense displayed by the law
enforcement officials. If a person does not know that there are other
options available besides tasering this woman and physically dragging
her out of her vehicle, and so on.... then that person does not need
to be dealing with the general public. That person's duty needs to be
restricted to dealing solely with people who are alway a real
physical risk to him. Because that is, obviously, the only way he
knows how to respond.

It is just not critical that that woman get out of her car at that
particular instant.

Similarly, it is just not critical to Florida's boat registration
statutes that an officer use that as a lever to press himself on any
and every vessel registered elsewhere than Florida.

In the case of the Florida officer, perhaps he can be taught to be
more rational in the pursuit of his duty. Perhaps the letter writing,
or filming suggestions will bear fruit. I hope so. Thankfully, I did
not read any reports of him becoming physically abusive.

In the case of police officers who think their training of how to
subdue violent criminals caught in the act of violent crimes is to be
applied to middle aged rotund women who are reluctant to cooperate
just exactly and as quickly as the officer would have them do, then I
think that person is a grave danger to society. Perhaps he would be
of use in a maximum security facility. More likely, he is
psychologically unsuited to the police profession.

In a word, I don't care if the Florida zealot is right and a boat
should be registered. I don't care if he catches a boater in flagrant
violation of that statute. Smile. Be polite. Explain the
transgression. Write up the citation. And then, he should be on his
way. With a nice wave and an admonition to get the paperwork sorted
out.

Similarly, I don't care if the woman stopped for a traffic violation
said, no I'm not getting out of my car. I don't care if she said that
if the cop tried to drag her out of her car she would hit him. The
cop should have the skill to realize the woman is afraid. She is
likely not herself. Screaming at her is only going to make everything
worse! The cop escalated the encounter! The cop can call a female
officer who may be able to relate to the fearful woman holed up in her
van. The cop can call for more people. If worse comes to worst, two
or three guys can reach in and as gently as possible pry her out of
her car. She can be arrested. She can be punished by the judge.
With fines. With license revocation. With jail time. That's the
judge's job. The judge decides how much she has to pay for the amount
of trouble she causes. When the cops decide they're going to be
physically overbearing and bring her to heel in a physical way, they
have in effect imposed a judgement and a penalty on her. That is not
their job.

These law enforcement officers (either on the water or on the street)
can not be allowed to create their own personal fiefdoms. If the
taser is a tool of the cop, the cop is a tool of the legal system.
Force is his to use as it is necessary, and not one bit farther than
that. It is not for him to decide that for the sake of his time, he
is going to bring a situation to a head. Right now!

It was said that the cops dealing with the woman were following
procedure. I bet the Florida warden says the same thing. He's
following procedure. That can not be a shield for intimidating (or
worse, physically brutalizing) members of the public, be they boaters
or drivers. The mentality that this type of behavior is appropriate
when dealing with anyone other than a person who is a clear and
present danger must not be allowed to prevail!

All the examples about how police are misunderstood and misrepresented
was pretty convincing. Until I thought it through.

On Feb 22, 6:17 pm, Rick Morel wrote:

No, but it's almost as much fun as dragging a little old 80 year old
lady out of a car, throwing her onto the dirty concrete, popping her a
few times with the baton, spray her with OC pepper spray, then
Tasering her, all the while the unit cam is running so we can play it
back at the station over and over.

OF COURSE I'M KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!

Rick

On Feb 26, 8:44 pm, wrote:
The whole explanation about how cops are misrepresented by the press
rings true because there is certainly a degree of truth to it. On the
other hand, there is Fox News and a host of other media organizations
and individuals who love to find documentable examples of a liberal
press run amok and burn the liberals with their own fire of public
exposure.

....Shrug....

Checks and balances at work, I think.

But it strikes me that in the previous discussion, what I think was
most offensive about the Florida zealot officer, and what is
unforgivably offensive about the rotund woman reportedly brutalized on
film is a complete lack of common sense displayed by the law
enforcement officials. If a person does not know that there are other
options available besides tasering this woman and physically dragging
her out of her vehicle, and so on.... then that person does not need
to be dealing with the general public. That person's duty needs to be
restricted to dealing solely with people who are alway a real
physical risk to him. Because that is, obviously, the only way he
knows how to respond.

It is just not critical that that woman get out of her car at that
particular instant.

Similarly, it is just not critical to Florida's boat registration
statutes that an officer use that as a lever to press himself on any
and every vessel registered elsewhere than Florida.

In the case of the Florida officer, perhaps he can be taught to be
more rational in the pursuit of his duty. Perhaps the letter writing,
or filming suggestions will bear fruit. I hope so. Thankfully, I did
not read any reports of him becoming physically abusive.

In the case of police officers who think their training of how to
subdue violent criminals caught in the act of violent crimes is to be
applied to middle aged rotund women who are reluctant to cooperate
just exactly and as quickly as the officer would have them do, then I
think that person is a grave danger to society. Perhaps he would be
of use in a maximum security facility. More likely, he is
psychologically unsuited to the police profession.

In a word, I don't care if the Florida zealot is right and a boat
should be registered. I don't care if he catches a boater in flagrant
violation of that statute. Smile. Be polite. Explain the
transgression. Write up the citation. And then, he should be on his
way. With a nice wave and an admonition to get the paperwork sorted
out.

Similarly, I don't care if the woman stopped for a traffic violation
said, no I'm not getting out of my car. I don't care if she said that
if the cop tried to drag her out of her car she would hit him. The
cop should have the skill to realize the woman is afraid. She is
likely not herself. Screaming at her is only going to make everything
worse! The cop escalated the encounter! The cop can call a female
officer who may be able to relate to the fearful woman holed up in her
van. The cop can call for more people. If worse comes to worst, two
or three guys can reach in and as gently as possible pry her out of
her car. She can be arrested. She can be punished by the judge.
With fines. With license revocation. With jail time. That's the
judge's job. The judge decides how much she has to pay for the amount
of trouble she causes. When the cops decide they're going to be
physically overbearing and bring her to heel in a physical way, they
have in effect imposed a judgement and a penalty on her. That is not
their job.

These law enforcement officers (either on the water or on the street)
can not be allowed to create their own personal fiefdoms. If the
taser is a tool of the cop, the cop is a tool of the legal system.
Force is his to use as it is necessary, and not one bit farther than
that. It is not for him to decide that for the sake of his time, he
is going to bring a situation to a head. Right now!

It was said that the cops dealing with the woman were following
procedure. I bet the Florida warden says the same thing. He's
following procedure. That can not be a shield for intimidating (or
worse, physically brutalizing) members of the public, be they boaters
or drivers. The mentality that this type of behavior is appropriate
when dealing with anyone other than a person who is a clear and
present danger must not be allowed to prevail!

All the examples about how police are misunderstood and misrepresented
was pretty convincing. Until I thought it through.


Very well said.

And no, I didn't not snip this, as I feel it needs to be said again
and again.

I agree with the comments quoted below.

For another insight into alternative ways to train officers I urge you
to listen to Police Captain Cheri Maples who appeared on the NPR program
"Speaking of Faith" where she talked about a retreat on the practice of
mindfulness in a world of violence given by Thich Nhat Hanh in eastern
Wisconsin for more than 50 people who work in the criminal justice
system, about half of them police officers. It changed her approach to
her job, and may well have saved the life of a citizen she encountered
in a domestic violence incident.

You can listen to the entire show, which I highly recommend, or just
read the transcript:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.o...anh/transcript
shtml The pertinent section begins about 1/4 way down the page. You can
also search the page for "Wisconsin" and read from there. But it really
is best to hear the woman officer in her own voice tell the story. The
link to the downloadable podcast is at the top of the page.




Similarly, I don't care if the woman stopped for a traffic violation
said, no I'm not getting out of my car. I don't care if she said
that if the cop tried to drag her out of her car she would hit him.
The cop should have the skill to realize the woman is afraid. She is
likely not herself. Screaming at her is only going to make
everything worse! The cop escalated the encounter! The cop can call
a female officer who may be able to relate to the fearful woman
holed up in her van. The cop can call for more people. If worse
comes to worst, two or three guys can reach in and as gently as
possible pry her out of her car. She can be arrested. She can be
punished by the judge. With fines. With license revocation. With
jail time. That's the judge's job. The judge decides how much she
has to pay for the amount

wrote in message
...
I agree with the comments quoted below.

For another insight into alternative ways to train officers I urge you
to listen to Police Captain Cheri Maples who appeared on the NPR program
"Speaking of Faith" where she talked about a retreat on the practice of
mindfulness in a world of violence given by Thich Nhat Hanh in eastern
Wisconsin for more than 50 people who work in the criminal justice
system, about half of them police officers. It changed her approach to
her job, and may well have saved the life of a citizen she encountered
in a domestic violence incident.

You can listen to the entire show, which I highly recommend, or just
read the transcript:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.o...anh/transcript
shtml The pertinent section begins about 1/4 way down the page. You can
also search the page for "Wisconsin" and read from there. But it really
is best to hear the woman officer in her own voice tell the story. The
link to the downloadable podcast is at the top of the page.





Cops escalate violence. That's their job. If the "perp" has a fist, they
bring a club. If the "perp" has a club, they bring a gun, and so on and so
on. Cops believe that fear of cops is irrational, and that anyone who
behaves irrationally must be brought under control -- for their own
protection, of course. If this means that someone must be tased, or beaten,
or stomped, or shot...well, the person shouldn't have been behaving
irrationally. They brought it all upon themselves. Cops who appear to be
trying to peacefully defuse a situation are usually acting as a diversion
for the SWAT team sneaking in through the back door.

Stereotypical TV drama perspective? Perhaps. But I'm given to believe that
it's more truth than fiction.
Similarly, I don't care if the woman stopped for a traffic violation
said, no I'm not getting out of my car. I don't care if she said
that if the cop tried to drag her out of her car she would hit him.
The cop should have the skill to realize the woman is afraid. She is
likely not herself. Screaming at her is only going to make
everything worse! The cop escalated the encounter! The cop can call
a female officer who may be able to relate to the fearful woman
holed up in her van. The cop can call for more people. If worse
comes to worst, two or three guys can reach in and as gently as
possible pry her out of her car. She can be arrested. She can be
punished by the judge. With fines. With license revocation. With
jail time. That's the judge's job. The judge decides how much she
has to pay for the amount

On 26 Feb 2007 16:44:03 -0800, wrote:

But it strikes me that in the previous discussion, what I think was
most offensive about the Florida zealot officer, and what is
unforgivably offensive about the rotund woman reportedly brutalized on
film is a complete lack of common sense displayed by the law
enforcement officials. If a person does not know that there are other
options available besides tasering this woman and physically dragging
her out of her vehicle, and so on.... then that person does not need
to be dealing with the general public. That person's duty needs to be
restricted to dealing solely with people who are alway a real
physical risk to him. Because that is, obviously, the only way he
knows how to respond.

Other options were applied. This was probably edited out of the
"documentry". The woman escalated the situation so that it required
use of an intermediate weapon. One of the first things pounded into
the to-be cop's head at the academy is that you do not act, you react.
There is a "bible" called the Continuum of Force that must be used. On
one side is the subject's actions, on the other the officer's actions.
The officer is allowed one step above the subject. If the officer goes
two or more steps up he/she could be charged with a criminal offense
as well as disiplined. The woman was Tased (intermediate weapon)after
she got physical (engaged in active agression, assault and battery on
a police officer).

There is no division between criminals and the general public.
Criminals are members of the general public. You hope you're dealing
with a upstanding citizen, but have to watch and be prepared for that
small percentage that aren't.

It is just not critical that that woman get out of her car at that
particular instant.

Yes it is. Very critical to the safety of the woman, the rest of the
general public on that road and to the officers. All she had to do was
floor it, maybe fishtailing and hitting the officer; maybe running
over a teenage couple walking home from a date; resulting in a
high-speed chase; running cars off the road and ending up T-boning a
van load of kids, killing them all along with herself. Or not. But any
and all are possible. Did you think of that? Most importantly do you,
as an officer sworn to protect and serve (and with few exceptions we
take that very seriously) and as a human being, want to be responsible
for one or more deaths of innocent people?


Similarly, it is just not critical to Florida's boat registration
statutes that an officer use that as a lever to press himself on any
and every vessel registered elsewhere than Florida.

In the case of the Florida officer, perhaps he can be taught to be
more rational in the pursuit of his duty. Perhaps the letter writing,
or filming suggestions will bear fruit. I hope so. Thankfully, I did
not read any reports of him becoming physically abusive.

Totally agree. Report the incidents to his department and to FSP,
Florida State Police.


In the case of police officers who think their training of how to
subdue violent criminals caught in the act of violent crimes is to be
applied to middle aged rotund women who are reluctant to cooperate
just exactly and as quickly as the officer would have them do, then I
think that person is a grave danger to society. Perhaps he would be
of use in a maximum security facility. More likely, he is
psychologically unsuited to the police profession.

Huh? The woman was engaged in a violent crime at the moment, battery
on a police officer, and as above was in the state of mind and in
pocession of a weapon (her vehicle) to reasonably believe she could
become a grave danger to society (as well as herself) at any moment.

Does it take a big, burly guy, covered with tatoos, with an AR-15 and
a machete to qualify?

In a word, I don't care if the Florida zealot is right and a boat
should be registered. I don't care if he catches a boater in flagrant
violation of that statute. Smile. Be polite. Explain the
transgression. Write up the citation. And then, he should be on his
way. With a nice wave and an admonition to get the paperwork sorted
out.

The way I would do it.

Similarly, I don't care if the woman stopped for a traffic violation
said, no I'm not getting out of my car. I don't care if she said that
if the cop tried to drag her out of her car she would hit him. The
cop should have the skill to realize the woman is afraid.

No offense meant: Errr... Were you present at the scene? How do you
know she was afraid? If she was afraid, why? Someone coming out of a
house with a bag of stolen goods to face a waiting cop, for example,
is usually afraid. Yes, the cop should have and probably did know.

She is
likely not herself. Screaming at her is only going to make everything
worse! The cop escalated the encounter!

Nope. The woman escalated the encounter. The "screaming at her" is
established technique under those cirumstances.

The cop can call a female
officer who may be able to relate to the fearful woman holed up in her
van. The cop can call for more people.

Well, the cop did call for more people. SOP

If worse comes to worst, two
or three guys can reach in and as gently as possible pry her out of
her car.

What planet are you on? That is a perfect recipe for disaster. It's
obvious you never dealt with irrational, impaired or violent people!
Especially in close quarters! Now I'm not putting you down, but the
nicest way I can put it is to say that statement is very far from
brilliant.

She can be arrested. She can be punished by the judge.
With fines. With license revocation. With jail time. That's the
judge's job. The judge decides how much she has to pay for the amount
of trouble she causes.

She was arrested. I'm sure the judge did his job.

When the cops decide they're going to be
physically overbearing and bring her to heel in a physical way, they
have in effect imposed a judgement and a penalty on her. That is not
their job.

Huh? The cops did not decide that; the woman decided that for them.
They did not impose a judgement and penalty in any way, shape or form.
They followed proper procedure as the situation unfolded. They could
have made different choices, there is no one choice that is correct.
Bottom line is the choices made were proper and effective.


These law enforcement officers (either on the water or on the street)
can not be allowed to create their own personal fiefdoms. If the
taser is a tool of the cop, the cop is a tool of the legal system.
Force is his to use as it is necessary, and not one bit farther than
that.

Agree 100%. As above, use one step further on the force than allowed
and the cop is now a criminal.

It is not for him to decide that for the sake of his time, he
is going to bring a situation to a head. Right now!

Also agree 100%. Except it doesn't happen. As outlined above, "sake of
his time" has nothing to do with it. When you work a call, you work it
until it's done. It's not unusual to stay an extra 2 to 4 hours after
a 12-hour shift working a call and/or doing the paperwork. It happens
at least a third of the time.


It was said that the cops dealing with the woman were following
procedure. I bet the Florida warden says the same thing. He's
following procedure. That can not be a shield for intimidating (or
worse, physically brutalizing) members of the public, be they boaters
or drivers. The mentality that this type of behavior is appropriate
when dealing with anyone other than a person who is a clear and
present danger must not be allowed to prevail!

Of course it can't be a shield. I can tell you the very few who have
the mentality you refer to will be found out and booted out, and
arrested if appropriate. I've been involved in that procedure and I
can tell you on some I've wished I could do some brutalizing on the
guilty cop. But I wouldn't. That would put me in that unfit minority.

Man, I do wish it were easy to recognize "a person who is a clear and
present danger"! Sure, sometimes it's very easy, but a lot of times it
isn't. The bad guys (and gals) don't live by the same rules as the
rest of us. The upstanding citizen sometimes gets very indignant and
shows the trigger signs. Now you get agitated and verballly agressive
and other body language and I'm going to pay real close attention. I'm
going to go with and hope you're okay and just upset, but if you make
a threatening move I'm going to handle it. BTW, part of the training
is being polite. You get an instructer in your face, harrassing you
and you have to keep your cool, say "sir" and all, but still firmly
handle the situation.

Here's some advice for everyone. In any direct encounter with a police
officer you have to keep one thing in mind. That officer is the one in
control. It has to be that way. None of us like it very much when
another has that control over us and the moment. It's a lot like back
when we were in school. If you think about it the teacher and
principal were in control of our lives. Our parents too. Back then we
were used to it. It didn't bother us that much. Kids for the most part
are the easiest to deal with, simply because they are used to having
an adult in control of them.

The officer doesn't know you. He won't and can't take your word when
you loudly inform him you're a fine member of the community. He has to
judge by your actions (remember we REACT, NOT ACT). He isn't going to
believe you when you inform him you were not speeding, his RADAR is
off and he's wrong. He'll probably believe you if you nicely tell him
you really had no idea how fast you were going and may just give you a
warning.

He may tell you to get out of the car, face away and lie face down on
the ground. (Let's just say the lady at dispatch made a typo and the
license plate comes back as owned by someone who jumped bail.) You
cooperate and he then comes up and handcuffs you, helps you up, etc.
He calls in your driver's license and you're not the bad guy. You have
no criminal record. He's going to apologize, tell you what happened,
etc. Okay, this is an extreme case. But say you resist instead. You
give him a hard time, refuse to do anything, maybe even threaten him.
You're still going to wind up face down on the concrete or across your
car hood and handcuffed. Only now it's going to hurt more than your
pride. He's still going to get your driver's license and call it in
and find out you're okay. What happens next is up to the cop. You
could be charged with resisting an officer and possibly assault on an
officer (NOTE: assault is threatening harm, battery is doing or
attempting to do the harm). Chances are he'll give you a stern lecture
and let you go on your way.

The point is cooperate and play nice. The cop will play nice as well.
If you feel you're being wronged, say so and why in a converstational
tone. If the cop disagrees, save it for the judge. If you argue you
lose. If you threaten you lose. If you just drive off or walk off you
lose. Remember you are being detained by someone with the authority to
do so. You are not free to go until the cop tells you or answers yes
if you question. You don't like it. I don't like it. Nobody likes it.
It's a necessary part of society.

Most normal folks' encounters with cops are about traffic violations.
Speeding, running a red light, stop sign, etc. The traffic cop is not
stopping you out of glee or to make money or to have a chance to
hassle someone. He's stopping you for your own protection and the
protection of others. He'd like nothing better then to see everyone
driving reasonably. Then he wouldn't have to go home and try not to
think about what he just left - that young mother and her baby
daughter in bloody pieces scattered all over in the remains of the
car. And that young father's face when he knocked on his door and had
to tell him what happened.


All the examples about how police are misunderstood and misrepresented
was pretty convincing. Until I thought it through.

Think it through some more. Please. To use a cliche, don't let the few
bad apples spoil the barrel.


On Feb 22, 6:17 pm, Rick Morel wrote:

No, but it's almost as much fun as dragging a little old 80 year old
lady out of a car, throwing her onto the dirty concrete, popping her a
few times with the baton, spray her with OC pepper spray, then
Tasering her, all the while the unit cam is running so we can play it
back at the station over and over.

OF COURSE I'M KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!

Boy, wish I hadn't written that. I have to watch out my tendency to
sarcasm.

Rick

Rick,, save us the boo hoo of the poor cop bull****. Most of the cops I
deal with are a bunch of stupid lying thieves. Big city corrupt morons who
only want the "detail" money.

The best thing ever is the video camera. Makes suing the *******s so much
more fun!

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:50:48 GMT, "NE Sailboat"
wrote:

Rick,, save us the boo hoo of the poor cop bull****. Most of the cops I
deal with are a bunch of stupid lying thieves. Big city corrupt morons who
only want the "detail" money.

Ain't no boo hoo of the poor cop bull****. It's an explanation of how
we do our jobs and why there are procedures to do that job, and how
one can't make judgements with very incomplete information.

I'd hate to live where you do if all the cops there are like that. Of
course the "I deal with" you wrote up there could be dealing with them
as prey. In that case I can understand your position.

The best thing ever is the video camera. Makes suing the *******s so much
more fun!

Agree. The police unit cam especially. Timecoded, unedited video in
court if it gets that far.

Rick

Rick Morel wrote in
:

Most importantly do you,
as an officer sworn to protect and serve (and with few exceptions we
take that very seriously) and as a human being, want to be responsible
for one or more deaths of innocent people?


Sworn to protect and serve the Public....or, more accurately, the
District Attorney to help him/her get re-elected by having a huge
conviction rate, at whatever cost?

We are now a government run by the lawyer elite members of an "upper
class", members of certain elite cults, such as Skull and Bones,
Freemasons or Bohemian Grove...the "New World Order" spoken of in the
Freemason's Seal on the back of every Freemason Federal Reserve private
bank note in your pocket. THOSE are who the cops "protect and serve",
their masters who sign their checks and promote them to new levels of
incompetence. Cops are the elites' enforcement arm to force the rest of
us to do what we are told, with new weapons like the Taser and the Army's
new high-powered microwave crowd control weapon:
http://www.mondovista.com/microwave.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2004/09/19/wirq319.xml

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72134-0.html

http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...feedId=online-
news_rss20
from this one:
"Fellow citizensThe secretary of the US Air Force, Michael Wynne, said
recently that new non-lethal weapons like the microwave ADS should be
used on Americans before being deployed to places like Iraq.
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we
should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," he told CNN.
Hammond hopes these comments may stimulate debate on the use of the ADS
and other non-lethal weapons. "I think that you would see a strongly
negative public reaction and quite possibly an increase in violence if US
police were to use the ADS in riot control," he told New Scientist. "I'm
sad to say that such an outpouring of concern would probably be
considerably more muted if the weapon was deployed in Iraq first."

They're designing them to be used on US, the citizens who may try to rise
up and put a stop to this MADNESS..... Wake up, stupids!

Who do you think this weapon is for?
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp00.html


Larry
--
I have a new strategy to protect the Mexican border. From the border
to inside the USA, 1 mile, we turn it into our OPEN PIT nuclear
waste dump, turning it into a no-mans-land for tens of thousands
of years. Anyone attempting to cross will simply be eaten alive
by neutrons! Problem solved!

wrote in news:1172537043.893649.213760@
8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com:

It is just not critical that that woman get out of her car at that
particular instant.

I'll second that motion. She should have never been tased unless they
threatened to harm the officer, not just for his convenience.


Similarly, it is just not critical to Florida's boat registration
statutes that an officer use that as a lever to press himself on any
and every vessel registered elsewhere than Florida.



I've never figured out why the CONSTITUTION guarantees against
unreasonable search and seizures against the citizens of the United
States of America do not apply to those same citizens once they board
even the smallest open boat, the cops' usual victims for an illegal
"traffic stop". A cop cannot stop you in your car just because he wants
to look inside your vehicle on some "fishing expedition" WITHOUT DUE
CAUSE. Why doesn't this same CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE apply to a 14' Jon
boat with 9.9hp Evinrude outboard full of fishing gear? That's just
bull****! Wanting to look at my fire extinguisher is NOT a reason to
force me over for inspection and harrassment.

Larry
--
I have a new strategy to protect the Mexican border. From the border
to inside the USA, 1 mile, we turn it into our OPEN PIT nuclear
waste dump, turning it into a no-mans-land for tens of thousands
of years. Anyone attempting to cross will simply be eaten alive
by neutrons! Problem solved!