Calling All Dog Lovers Owners

  • Thread starter jumpincactus
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,609
438
If this little tid bit doesn't get you riled up nothing will. There seems to be a lot of truth that most peeps dont give 2 shits about the senseless police killings of humans. Well guess what folks they are turning on our beloved friends as well. Read the whole post and then ask your self, Can this shit happen to my family and our dogs? You bet it can. Coming to a neighborhood near you soon. The unwarranted killing of family pets starts around the 10th paragraph

Programmed to Kill: The Growing Epidemic of Cops Shooting Dogs

By John W. Whitehead
July 6, 2016
“In too much of policing today, officer safety has become the highest priority. It trumps the rights and safety of suspects. It trumps the rights and safety of bystanders. It’s so important, in fact, that an officer’s subjective fear of a minor wound from a dog bite is enough to justify using potentially lethal force, in this case at the expense of a 4-year-old girl. And this isn’t the first time. In January, an Iowa cop shot and killed a woman by mistake while trying to kill her dog. Other cops have shot other kids, other bystanders, their partners, their supervisors and even themselves while firing their guns at a dog. That mind-set is then, of course, all the more problematic when it comes to using force against people.”—Journalist Radley Balko

Almost two years after the firestorm that took place in Ferguson, Missouri, when a white police officer shot an unarmed black teenager and militarized police descended in a brutal show of force to quell local protests, not much has really changed for the better.

Unarmed Americans are still getting shot by police with alarming regularity.

SWAT teams are still bursting through doors, terrorizing families and leaving lives and property shattered. In one incident, a Kansas SWAT team erroneously raided the home of two former CIA analysts after police observed family members shopping at a gardening store and found loose-leaf tea (mistaken for marijuana) in the family’s trash can.

And the military industrial complex is still making a killing (literally and figuratively) at taxpayer expense from the transformation of small-town police forces—“kitted out with Marine-issue camouflage and military-grade body armor, toting short-barreled assault rifles, and rolling around in armored vehicles”—into extensions of the military.

What has changed is the extent to which Americans—easily distracted by all of the political mumbo jumbo being bantered around—seem to have stopped paying attention or being outraged about revelations of government corruption, wrongdoing and outright abuse.

Part of this ignorance can be attributed to the failure of the mainstream media to report on what’s really taking place in the American police state. As The Huffington Post reports, “The media has turned its sights to the heated presidential election, burning through the oxygen that had given life to stories about police brutality and reform.”

Another part of this apathy can be chalked up to a widespread desensitization to police violence, thanks to the growing availability and accessibility of surveillance and camera footage. As Salon points out, “the increased visibility of trauma and death at the hands of cops” has resulted in “the deadening of our collective senses.”

And yet another part of this indifference seemingly stems from the fact that we just don’t value human life as much as we should. How many Americans seem unconcerned about the carnage inflicted on civilians worldwide as a result of the nation’s bloody, endless wars abroad? As The Washington Post makes clear, the end result of ignoring these civilian casualties and burying memories of war’s destruction is more wars, more blowback, and more innocent blood on our hands.

If there’s one area where Americans do seem to still get outraged, it’s in relation to their pets, who occupy a sizeable place in their hearts, homes and wallets.

According to newspaper editors, “stories about animal abuse often generate more responses from upset readers than articles about violence directed toward humans.” Reports from police agencies support the claim that “shooting a dog brings more heat down on an agency than an officer-involved shooting of a human.”

Prepare to be outraged.

A dog is shot by a police officer “every 98 minutes.”

The Department of Justice estimates that at least 25 dogs are killed by police every day.

The Puppycide Database Project estimates the number of dogs being killed by police to be closer to 500 dogs a day (which translates to 182,000 dogs a year).

Because not all police departments keep track of canine shootings, these numbers vary widely. However, whatever the final body count, what we’re dealing with is an epidemic of vast proportions.

Incredibly, in 1 out of 5 cases involving police shooting a family pet, a child was either in the police line of fire or in the immediate area of a shooting.

The so-called “dangerous” breeds of dogs aren’t the only ones that are being killed in encounters with police either.

Journalist Radley Balko has documented countless “dog shootings in which a police officer said he felt ‘threatened’ and had no choice but to use lethal force, including the killing of a Dalmatian (more than once), a yellow Lab , a springer spaniel, a chocolate Lab, a boxer, an Australian cattle dog, a Wheaten terrier, an Akita… a Jack Russell terrier… a 12-pound miniature dachshund… [and] a five-pound chihuahua.”

Essentially, police can shoot your dog for any reason or no reason at all.

What’s more, the general consensus from the courts thus far has been to absolve police from charges of wrongdoing. Conversely, while police routinely receive little blowback for shooting family pets, shooting a police dog can land you in just as much trouble as if you shoot a human being: for instance, a teenager who shot and killed a police dog received a 23-year prison sentence.

Outraged yet?

Not to worry. I’m just getting warmed up.

Spike, a 70-pound pit bull, was shot by NYPD police when they encountered him in the hallway of an apartment building in the Bronx. Surveillance footage shows the dog, tail wagging, right before an officer shot him in the head at pointblank range.

Arzy, a 14-month-old Newfoundland, Labrador and golden retriever mix, was shot between the eyes by a Louisiana police officer. The dog had been secured on a four-foot leash at the time he was shot. An independent witness testified that the dog never gave the officer any provocation to shoot him.

Seven, a St. Bernard, was shot repeatedly by Connecticut police in the presence of the dog’s 12-year-old owner. Police, investigating an erroneous tip, had entered the property—without a warrant—where the dog and her owner had been playing in the backyard, causing the dog to give chase.

Dutchess, a 2-year-old rescue dog, was shot three times in the head by Florida police as she ran out her front door. The officer had been approaching the house to inform the residents that their car door was open when the dog bounded out to greet him.

Yanna, a 10-year-old boxer, was shot three times by Georgia police after they mistakenly entered the wrong home and opened fire, killing the dog, shooting the homeowner in the leg and wounding an investigating officer.

Payton, a 7-year-old black Labrador retriever, and 4-year-old Chase, also a black Lab, were shot and killed after a SWAT team mistakenly raided the mayor’s home while searching for drugs. Police shot Payton four times. Chase was shot twice, once from behind as he ran away. “My government blew through my doors and killed my dogs. They thought we were drug dealers, and we were treated as such. I don't think they really ever considered that we weren’t,” recalls Mayor Cheye Calvo, who described being handcuffed and interrogated for hours—wearing only underwear and socks—surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of the dogs’ blood.

In another instance, a Missouri SWAT team raided a family home, killing a 4-year-old pit bull Kiya. Believe it or not, this time the SWAT raid wasn’t in pursuit of drugs, mistaken or otherwise, but was intended “to check if [the] home had electricity and natural gas service.”

Mind you, these are not isolated instances.

There are websites, community action organizations and Facebook groups that do nothing but publicize dog shootings by police, and there are a lot of them. One filmmaker, Andrea B. Scott, has even put together a documentary to raise awareness about the epidemic.

Clearly, our four-legged friends are suffering at the hands of a police state in which the police have all the rights and the citizenry (and their “civilian” dogs) have little to none.

As always, we have to dig down deep to understand why is this happening.

Are family dogs really such a menace to police? Are law enforcement agents really so fearful for their safety—and so badly trained—that they have no recourse when they encounter a dog than to shoot? Finally, are police shootings of dogs really any different than police shootings of unarmed citizens?

First off, dogs are no greater menace to police than they are to anyone else. After all, as the Washington Post points out, while “postal workers regularly encounter both vicious and gregarious dogs on their daily rounds… letter carriers don’t kill dogs, even though they are bitten by the thousands every year. Instead, the Postal Service offers its employees training on how to avoid bites.”

Second, these dog shootings epitomize a larger, societal problem with law enforcement agencies prioritizing an “officer safety” mindset that encourages police to shoot first and ask questions later. We’d have a lot fewer police shootings (of dogs and unarmed citizens) if police weren’t quite so preoccupied with “officer safety” at the expense of all else.

As commentator William Norman Grigg pointed out, “A peace officer is paid to assume certain risks, including those necessary to de-escalate a confrontation... A ‘veteran’ deputy with the mindset of a peace officer would have taken more than a shaved fraction of a split-second to open fire on a small male individual readily identifiable as a junior high school student, who was carrying an object that is easily recognizable as a toy—at least to people who don’t see themselves as an army of occupation, and view the public as an undifferentiated mass of menace.”

Third, these dog killings are, as Balko recognizes, “a side effect of the new SWAT, paramilitary focus in many police departments, which has supplanted the idea of being an ‘officer of the peace.’” Thus, whether you’re talking about police shooting dogs or citizens, the mindset is the same: a rush to violence, abuse of power, fear for officer safety, poor training in how to de-escalate a situation, and general carelessness.

That paramilitary focus has resulted in a government mindset that allows SWAT teams and other government agents to invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog (the dog always gets shot first), wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family.

This is the same mindset that sees nothing wrong with American citizens being subjected to roadside strip searches, forcible blood draws, invasive surveillance, questionable exposure to radiation and secret government experiments, and other morally reprehensible tactics.

Unfortunately, this is a mindset that is flourishing within the corporate-controlled, military-driven American police state.

So what’s to be done about all of this?

In terms of our four-legged friends, many states are adopting laws to make canine training mandatory for police officers. As dog behavior counselor Brian Kilcommons noted, officers’ inclination to “take command and take control” can cause them to antagonize dogs unnecessarily. Officers “need to realize they’re there to neutralize, not control… If they have enough money to militarize the police with Humvees, they have enough money to train them not to kill family members. And pets are considered family.”

Frankly, police should also be made to undergo classes annually on how to peacefully resolve and de-escalate situations with the citizenry. While they’re at it, they should be forced to de-militarize. No one outside the battlefield—and barring a foreign invasion, the U.S. should never be considered a domestic battlefield—should be equipped with the kinds of weapons and gear being worn and used by local police forces today. If the politicians are serious about instituting far-reaching gun control measures, let them start by taking the guns and SWAT teams away from the countless civilian agencies that have nothing to do with military defense that are packing lethal heat.

Finally, there will be no end to the bloodshed—of unarmed Americans or their family pets—until police stop viewing themselves as superior to those whom they are supposed to serve and start acting like the peace officers they’re supposed to be. Ultimately, this comes down to better—and constant—training in nonviolent tactics, serious consequences for those who engage in excessive force, and a seismic shift in how the law enforcement agencies and the courts deal with those who transgress.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, when you’re trained to kill anything that poses the slightest threat (imagined or real), when you’ve been instructed to view yourself as a soldier and those you’re supposed to serve as enemy combatants on a battlefield, when you can kill and there are no legal consequences for your actions, and when you are deemed immune from lawsuits holding you accountable for the use of excessive force, then it won’t matter what gets in your way. Whether it’s a family pet, a child with a toy gun, or an old man with a cane—you’re going to shoot to kill.

WC: 2182

This commentary is also
available at www.rutherford.org.

 
SmokyPockets

SmokyPockets

502
93
I don't need anymore reasons to despise cops... But BINGO there is another one . The thing is , the cops always claim they are scared , when they do something terrible.... I doubt it , that is just their automatic response when they get caught doing something wrong . If a man or woman who is not white scares you, then you are in the wrong business, and if you really think about it, what is their training for then? They are supposed to be trained to de- escalate these situations , but 100% of the time they make it worse and then pull the trigger for the answer. Hopefully body cams will reel in this bullshit
 
LocalGrowGuy

LocalGrowGuy

2,497
263
As a dog lover myself, this makes sense. Dogs and pets are considered property and nothing more, despite the view most animal owners have, which is that their furry pals are part of the family. I understand having an inclusive family unit, but I also understand and acknowledge that these are animals, not people. There is a difference, and I think that's important.

I became tired of hearing about police killing Americans after reading popehat, simplejustice and radley balko, reason, among others.

What we must acknowledge is the law, and under the law, our pets, our furry family members, are nothing more than property, and they are treated as such.

At the end of the day, it is far easier and almost as effective as killing a person, to kill the family dog. It's easy for lazy cops to shoot someone's dog in front of them, it accomplishes the same effect of police showing force far in excess of what is reasonable and prudent, but saves them the paperwork of having to explain why they killed another human being. It is infuriating to me to hear about someone's criminal history when they are reported killed by police. It's absurd. At the end of the day Police have the authorization to use deadly force. That's a huge responsibility that I don't think our nation challenges the decisions being made by the boys in blue, because they just want to go home at night. Sorry those two cops shot the black guy when he was on the ground, they were just trying to go home to their families at the end of the day. Operation gun runner, yeah those guys just wanted to get back home to their families, they didn't mean for the weapons they sold mexican drug cartels to be used against border agents. Sorry about that, the cops just want to go home to their families. Obviously those criminals were up to no good, otherwise the cops wouldn't be there. You know, because cops don't make mistakes. Sorry family of Alton Sterling, those cops were just trying to get home at the end of the day. Sorry Alton was up to no good, but if he would have listened. Just remember, there are two types of cops. The bad ones, and the ones who look the other way.

Don't forget that they are trained to scream 'STOP RESISTING' even when the guy is being tased and/or shot. It used to be humorous but it lost it's funny after so many people died. And, they don't have to explain themselves. Dogs are scary. And easy to kill when tied up.

Why do cities pay out huge settlements when cops kill people? Why do their actions cost tax payers money? Why is Louisiana going to pay for those cops murdering a guy? Why doesn't it come out of the cops retirement? Then they might think twice before pulling the trigger.

edit:
They are being trained and militarized to look at us the taxpayers as enemy combatants. There in lies the problem.
Of course they are being militarized, the 1033 program practically requires it. If cops are getting bearcats and APC's, of course they will be trained like they are in the military. It comes with the territory.

Jumpin, you should really start bowing down to those who make our decisions for us. Don't you realize that we are simply not capable of making our own decisions? It's just a nanny state because we need to be babysat. And we need to keep our super smart politicians in office, just because they are so great at what they do. Here, try the koolaid!
 
SmokyPockets

SmokyPockets

502
93
I'm confused , you sound like you are half defending cops, half impeaching cops. I'm sorry, I'm pretty Zorched , can you clarify? I don't buy the cops just wanna get home to their families , cops are cops because they are jock assholes, who weren't smart or athletic enough for college. They sign up to bully people and live out their sexist racist fantasies without getting in trouble for it . There are some good cops, who do actually want to help and do the right thing, but they are very much outnumbered .
 
LocalGrowGuy

LocalGrowGuy

2,497
263
I'm confused , you sound like you are half defending cops, half impeaching cops. I'm sorry, I'm pretty Zorched , can you clarify? I don't buy the cops just wanna get home to their families , cops are cops because they are jock assholes, who weren't smart or athletic enough for college. They sign up to bully people and live out their sexist racist fantasies without getting in trouble for it . There are some good cops, who do actually want to help and do the right thing, but they are very much outnumbered .
I forgot the sw (sarcasm warning), that was on purpose being over the top cop apologist. The people I know who are cops are generally good people, but they are the exception and not the rule. Obviously I don't think all cops are bad, but there are a lot, and I find fault and partial responsibility within the culture of the department, and the blue wall that doesn't get discussed ever. I think we are on the same page on this one. Sometimes I forget that I'm not funny, just funny-looking.
 
LocalGrowGuy

LocalGrowGuy

2,497
263
What makes this super awesomely sucky is that if a 'criminal' shoots a police k9, that's the same as shooting a badge.

"A convicted burglar has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for the fatal shooting of a police dog. Clinton Hernandez, 21, of Indianapolis"

Balko is pretty great, and the entire cheye calvo episode is depressing in the lack of publicity and accountability.

edit- Last rant- Why the fuck are postal carriers able to deal with dogs but cops have to kill them? I can't even recall the last time I heard anything anywhere about a dog biting a mail carrier or delivery driver. Well, non drug delivery's anyway. So, regular people dogs are not worthy of existence, but police trained dogs have more 'value' monetary or otherwise? Sounds about right.
 
Last edited:
SmokyPockets

SmokyPockets

502
93
Awww dude, I'm on a serious space odyssey and miss sarcasm at times, especially in writing. I should have guessed , and yeah you are funny bro... I'm just a lil slow on occasion
 
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,609
438
I'm confused , you sound like you are half defending cops, half impeaching cops. I'm sorry, I'm pretty Zorched , can you clarify? I don't buy the cops just wanna get home to their families , cops are cops because they are jock assholes, who weren't smart or athletic enough for college. They sign up to bully people and live out their sexist racist fantasies without getting in trouble for it . There are some good cops, who do actually want to help and do the right thing, but they are very much outnumbered .
The cop and ticket phrase


1012275 650345965064007 169990354196581962 n
 
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,609
438
I forgot the sw (sarcasm warning), that was on purpose being over the top cop apologist. The people I know who are cops are generally good people, but they are the exception and not the rule. Obviously I don't think all cops are bad, but there are a lot, and I find fault and partial responsibility within the culture of the department, and the blue wall that doesn't get discussed ever. I think we are on the same page on this one. Sometimes I forget that I'm not funny, just funny-looking.
@LocalGrowGuy I am very pleased that for at least this occasion we are both in the same mind set. I agree with you 100% a lot of LEO's are just another group of swingin dicks tryin to do what they feel will make a difference in the world and support their families. No harm no foul there for sure. :) I have always wondered why there is so much secrecy with in the blue walls and why we as a society have the fox watching the hen house (internal affairs) so to speak. There is a code of silence with the police force that is every bit as unbreakable as the code of silence among smugglers, criminals, cartels, convicts etc etc.
 
LocalGrowGuy

LocalGrowGuy

2,497
263
Now we (I) look like assholes. I'll fall on the grenade. It is important to be compassionate even those whom with we disagree. Those cops were working security, not working as a trained, coordinated unit to engage a threat. These guys were ambushed, it's not like they were overcome, outfought, or anything else. While I might disagree with their policies, I'm never okay with cops being killed.

Why are police and swat officers seemingly unable to handle, address, engage, fight, [insert cop verb here] when there are active shooter situations? If the cops have bearcats, why are the bearcats not used? Why did they have to use a bomb robot, not likely picked up via 1033 [citation needed] detonate some type of device in order to kill the active shooter? This is both a travesty and a tragedy, and it will only force both sides back to their respective corners.

While we may see our LE becoming more militarized, it saddens me that violence seems to beget violence. I seem to see more stories about cops leaving guns in cars that are stolen rather than seeing a swat team engage and stop a threat with a large show of force.

What is depressing for me as a younger person is the fact that neither side seems to realize that this debate will never get resolved, ever. Scott Adams does a good job explaining the gun control debate and dems vs repubs.

--from http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”



*I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.



If you are in favor of common-sense gun control laws, you might like my book. But that would be more coincidence than causation because the book doesn’t mention guns. I don’t even know why I brought it up.
 
LocalGrowGuy

LocalGrowGuy

2,497
263
#AllLivesMatter
A different perspective on 'All Lives Matter'. What do you think?



This week, high-profile police killings of two black men—Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile, who was killed in Falcon Heights, Minnesota—have renewed heated debates about police violence, and brought the Black Lives Matter movement back into the spotlight.

Every time this happens, cries of “Black Lives Matter” tend to be met with the response “All Lives Matter.” Even presidential candidates have made this mistake—last year, Hillary Clinton said “All Lives Matter,” though she has since corrected herself. And lots of white people have expressed confusion about why it’s controversial to broaden the #BlackLivesMatter movement to include people of all races.

The real issue is that, while strictly true, “All Lives Matter” is a tone-deaf slogan that distracts from the real problems black people in America face.


The best explanation we’ve seen so far comes from Reddit, of all places. Last year, in an “Explain Like I’m 5” thread, user GeekAesthete explained, clearly and succinctly, why changing #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter is an act of erasure that makes lots of people cringe.

GeekAesthete explains:

Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.


The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work that way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

Yep, there you go. Bookmark it, print it out, give it to your friends.

edit- Although he's no Jon Stewart, Larry Wilmore does a pretty good job of explaining this as well.
 
Last edited:
LittleDabbie

LittleDabbie

Supporter
11,813
438
I think its a matter of opinion, and i was making light of the situation by saying all lives matter..

Dogs lives matter to me more then a humans life.. Id take a bullet for my dogs over a human :D

Blue lives only matter to each other, Black lives matter since when? Not to be racist but when black on black killing stops maybe black lives matter will garner some traction, Instead take a long deep look at gangsta rap and tell me again how the slogan needs to be black lives matter when black lives don't even give a fuck about black lives.

I'm white im not racist i just don't care :D
 
GT21

GT21

I like soup
Supporter
10,114
438
Now we (I) look like assholes. I'll fall on the grenade. It is important to be compassionate even those whom with we disagree. Those cops were working security, not working as a trained, coordinated unit to engage a threat. These guys were ambushed, it's not like they were overcome, outfought, or anything else. While I might disagree with their policies, I'm never okay with cops being killed.

Why are police and swat officers seemingly unable to handle, address, engage, fight, [insert cop verb here] when there are active shooter situations? If the cops have bearcats, why are the bearcats not used? Why did they have to use a bomb robot, not likely picked up via 1033 [citation needed] detonate some type of device in order to kill the active shooter? This is both a travesty and a tragedy, and it will only force both sides back to their respective corners.

While we may see our LE becoming more militarized, it saddens me that violence seems to beget violence. I seem to see more stories about cops leaving guns in cars that are stolen rather than seeing a swat team engage and stop a threat with a large show of force.

What is depressing for me as a younger person is the fact that neither side seems to realize that this debate will never get resolved, ever. Scott Adams does a good job explaining the gun control debate and dems vs repubs.

--from http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests.

Our situation in the United States is that people with different risk profiles are voting for their self-interests as they see it. There is no compromise to be had in this situation unless you brainwash one side or the other to see their self-interest differently. And I don’t see anyone with persuasion skills trying to do that on either side.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

If we had a real government – the kind that works – we would acknowledge that gun violence is not one big problem with one big solution. It is millions of people with different risk profiles voting their self-interest as they see it.

So stop acting like one side is stupid. Both sides of the gun issue are scared, and both have legitimate reasons to be that way. Neither side is “right.”



*I endorsed Clinton for president for my personal safety. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it is not safe to live in California if people think you support Trump in any way. Also, I’m rich, so I don’t want anything to change in this country. The rest of you might have a different risk profile.



If you are in favor of common-sense gun control laws, you might like my book. But that would be more coincidence than causation because the book doesn’t mention guns. I don’t even know why I brought it up.
Lmao there are no common sense gun laws... criminals dont follow the law. JUST LIKE COPS. Cops are easily the most useless people on earth. Picked on as kids.. no talent.. so they join a team that accepts them for being useless. I have watched several good people lose their trade jobs (due to illegals doing the work for half and dont pay into the system) so they join the police force or prison guards union and become the biggest sociopaths i have ever seen on earth. THEN they look down on everyone else because they are over paid and think their gods. Mind you cop are usually uneducated too... barely made it through high school.

Pay our teachers what these cops make... bring back open carry for all... get rid of all cops. (Problem solved)

I and many others have NEVER felt safe/protected/served when dealing with cops. I DO feel abused/harassed/mistreated when dealing with cops. I know this to be true by the amount of charges brought against me that were DROPPED. Cops dont follow the law... they dont care about your safety... they NEED to keep their income and benefits so theyll do and say anything to keep it. What else are they gonna do? Theyre useless in any other light.
 
LocalGrowGuy

LocalGrowGuy

2,497
263
I think its a matter of opinion, and i was making light of the situation by saying all lives matter..

Dogs lives matter to me more then a humans life.. Id take a bullet for my dogs over a human :D

Blue lives only matter to each other, Black lives matter since when? Not to be racist but when black on black killing stops maybe black lives matter will garner some traction, Instead take a long deep look at gangsta rap and tell me again how the slogan needs to be black lives matter when black lives don't even give a fuck about black lives.

I'm white im not racist i just don't care :D
Do you think the Dallas shooting would have happened regardless of the two black guys killed by cops in the last week?

You're a nice guy but people only say they aren't racist right before they say or post something racist. I understand that you value animals over humans, but our legal system and our courts do not agree with your view with regards to the value of human life over an animal or pet.
 
Top Bottom