Cops are so out of control these days!

[SeaF0ur]

The blind are leading the blind, and as a result our nation is coming apart at the seams all around us.
The following are 19 signs that you live in a country that has gone completely insane…

#1 When those occupying the highest offices in the land tell you that an $18,000,000,000,000 debt is “under control“, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#2 When your president starts acting like an emperor and begins ruling by decree and your elected representatives won’t lift a finger to do anything to stop it, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#3 When the greatest dream in life for millions of your fellow citizens is to win the Powerball jackpot, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#4 When dressing up sex dolls in fashionable clothing and photographing them is considered to be art, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#5 When only 36 percent of the population can name all three branches of government, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#6 When a boy can sue his high school for not letting him use the girls’ restrooms and win $75,000 in “damages”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#7 When people that want to have sex with their own family members start demanding “equal rights”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane…

#8 When pregnancy is considered to be a “disease” and babies are considered to be “liabilities”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#9 When the federal government collects billions of our phone calls and emails and hardly anyone gets upset about it, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#10 When 30 million of your fellow citizens are taking antidepressants, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#11 When an endless stream of gang members, drug dealers, sexual predators, welfare parasites and Middle Eastern terrorists can enter the country illegally and nothing is done, but anyone who criticizes this is in danger of being put on an “enemies list“, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#12 When you can get arrested for “encouraging terrorism on Twitter“, but not for publicly burning the American flag in the middle of the street, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#13 When your military airdrops huge loads of weapons into the hands of the very terrorists that they are supposed to be fighting, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#14 When there are 2.5 million homeless children living in your nation and nobody is calling it a “national emergency”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#15 When a fifth-grade student can get suspended from school for making an imaginary gun with his fingers, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#16 When Congress has to pass a law to keep federal workers from watching porn all day long, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#17 When the number of payday lenders is greater than the number of Starbucks locations, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#18 When an illegal immigrant can get a drivers’ license, but the head of a fire department of a major U.S. city is suspended from his job without pay for promoting sexual morality, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

#19 When the general public knows far more about Kim Kardashian than it does about the Federal Reserve, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

 

[diamond2.0]

:D

Theres alot of good refusal vids. worth a watch. This one just cracks me up. He talks as bad as i do to cops.

 

[jumpincactus]

So telling !

CA Cop is Being Fired for NOT Using Violence to Resolve a Situation
By Matt Agorist

Seaside, CA — A 20 year veteran of the CSU Monterey Bay police force, was given a notice of termination this week for choosing NOT to immediately resort to violent escalation during a confrontation with a suicidal student.

The unidentified officer was the first one on the scene when responding to an incident involving a suicidal college student in his CSUMB dorm room in February of this year. The officer showed a heartening level of restraint when dealing with a student, who was in his room with a knife and hammer, and was also threatening to light himself on fire.

"He was clearly a danger to himself and he was in crisis," Marina Police Chief Edmundo Rodriguez said. "We were trying to keep him from accessing the weapons or leave, to get him medical attention."

Instead of immediately resorting to violence, this officer was talking the student down and de-escalating the situation. The officer was successful in calming the student down and was going to get him a glass of water when the Marina police department showed up, and immediately began tasering the student.

The campus officer refused to taser the student, as he did not perceive a threat. Subsequently Rodriguez's department later issued a "failure to act" complaint against the campus officer, accusing him of not engaging in a "highly agitated situation."

"It defies logic and is extremely disappointing that, at a time when law enforcement is under fire for using more force than necessary, an officer is being terminated for attempting to use civilized methods to resolve a situation," the student's father said.

"Our officer did not believe he was any threat at all," said Jeff Solomon, the union's president.

"The other officers started yelling and screaming to get down, Tased him multiple times, and from what we understand (told the university officer) to Tase him again," Solomon said.

The officer has been on paid leave since April according to his attorney who said she will now file a lawsuit against the university.

"We believe the officer in this case exercised restraint and good judgment in not tasing a student that was suffering from mental health issues," said the officer’s attorney Kathleen Storm.

This incident highlights the sick and twisted state of today’s police force. Darren Wilson shot and killed an unarmed teenager, and was not fired. Officer Daniel Pantaleo of the NYPD, placed Eric Garner in a chokehold, a maneuver which has been prohibited by the department since 1993, eventually killing the man. The entire incident was caught on video and Pantaleo was not fired.

This campus officer chose to use non-violence to try and resolve a situation, instead of killing or maiming a person, and he is being firedfor it.

Precedent set: Killing a person – all is well. Not using violence to resolve a situation – fired. Let that sink in.

“The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.” - Mahatma Gandhi

I am friggn speechless!!!!! However, I am not surprised.......

 

[squiggly]

The blind are leading the blind, and as a result our nation is coming apart at the seams all around us.
The following are 19 signs that you live in a country that has gone completely insane…

#1 When those occupying the highest offices in the land tell you that an $18,000,000,000,000 debt is “under control“, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Care to sure that up with some economic reasoning, or are you just discounting most experts in the field because it "feels" right?

#2 When your president starts acting like an emperor and begins ruling by decree and your elected representatives won’t lift a finger to do anything to stop it, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

I'll pass on this one. Read up on your history and then get back to me. You've clearly missed a few centuries.

#3 When the greatest dream in life for millions of your fellow citizens is to win the Powerball jackpot, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Agreed. Now I ask, why is it you think the American dream has slid so far? Is it because of "imperial democrats" or is it because we're living in a functional oligarchy which has been systematically built by the GOP over the last 40 years?

#4 When dressing up sex dolls in fashionable clothing and photographing them is considered to be art, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Art is what people say it is. You can't have your cake and eat it too on the 1st ammendment. Sorry, but respecting only your own ideology doesn't fit in a pluralistic society. Furthermore morals are not the same thing as ethics, and the government doesn't do morals--at least it's not supposed to.

#5 When only 36 percent of the population can name all three branches of government, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Holy shit, 100% agreement. Go figure.

#6 When a boy can sue his high school for not letting him use the girls’ restrooms and win $75,000 in “damages”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

You know, I'm torn on this one because I think the whole thing is a bit idiotic (while I don't think we're coming at it from the same angle we reach the same result). That said the law is the law, and it did it's job here. It's hard to argue that. A law that can be changed doesn't scream insanity to me, it more screams laziness.

#7 When people that want to have sex with their own family members start demanding “equal rights”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane…

Yeah, that's gross and maladaptive. Gotta agree with you here, that's pretty fucking nuts. Same time, this has gotta be a huge minority of the country, I'm not sure it means we're all insane.

#8 When pregnancy is considered to be a “disease” and babies are considered to be “liabilities”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

It's not a disease, but it is a medical condition--and you can die from it. That's the primary impetus behind the law. You cannot force someone to carry through with a medical condition that can ultimately kill them. It's certainly not a disease, but your body does function differently medically when you are pregnant. Sort of the definition of a medical condition.

#9 When the federal government collects billions of our phone calls and emails and hardly anyone gets upset about it, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

I'll co-sign this.

#10 When 30 million of your fellow citizens are taking antidepressants, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

While I think it's fairly certain that a fair number of those folks don't need those drugs--I can tell you that some folks do. If you have never had to deal with someone who is bipolar and off their meds, you should count your blessings rather than hurl insults.

#11 When an endless stream of gang members, drug dealers, sexual predators, welfare parasites and Middle Eastern terrorists can enter the country illegally and nothing is done, but anyone who criticizes this is in danger of being put on an “enemies list“, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

There is literally zero evidence that most of this is happening. You think differently? I'm keen to discover why, and what evidence you have to support that belief.

#12 When you can get arrested for “encouraging terrorism on Twitter“, but not for publicly burning the American flag in the middle of the street, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Yeah, I'll co-sign that too.

#13 When your military airdrops huge loads of weapons into the hands of the very terrorists that they are supposed to be fighting, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Agreed, but with the caveat that we shouldn't be over there fighting in the first place--and we never should have been.

#14 When there are 2.5 million homeless children living in your nation and nobody is calling it a “national emergency”, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Nail on the head.

#15 When a fifth-grade student can get suspended from school for making an imaginary gun with his fingers, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Yeah, but at the same time let's not forget 5th grade students have been known to do crazy shit like bring guns to school and kill people. I think it's more insane that we aren't questioning how that's even possible instead of questioning the useless attempts at preventing it like this.

#16 When Congress has to pass a law to keep federal workers from watching porn all day long, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Well, boys will be boys.

#17 When the number of payday lenders is greater than the number of Starbucks locations, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Yep--however, again I ask you to wonder at what might be causing this situation to develop. Think hard. The REASON for this is far more insane than the effect itself.

#18 When an illegal immigrant can get a drivers’ license, but the head of a fire department of a major U.S. city is suspended from his job without pay for promoting sexual morality, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

We talked about this earlier. The government doesn't do morals (and isn't supposed to), therefore proxies to the government are also not supposed to do this when acting in an official capacity.

#19 When the general public knows far more about Kim Kardashian than it does about the Federal Reserve, you live in a country that has gone completely insane.

Oh man I couldn't agree with you more.


So what did we learn?

Well for myself, I learned that I agree with about 1/4 of your manifesto here--which isn't all that bad considering. I think if you are able to remove yourself from your ideology a bit you might see that it's better we focus on the things which most threaten the nation, rather on the many insipid ideas which stem from attempts to install a functional theocracy here in America.

America exists because theocracy sucks, I hope you can take a look back at this post and realize that there are a few places where you've missed that point.

I don't want your Christianized version of Sharia law anymore than you want actual sharia law here--so let's agree that those issues are ultimately dead issues. They can never make it past the majority here in the US, and if they do--they will not last for very long. Too many of us just don't give that much of a damn about Jesus to let ya'll try to Jesus up our lives via legislation.

Close to everything you said here that can't be drawn back to a moral inception actually makes a huge amount of sense and I totally agree with. What I really wish for our country is that we'll someday come to the conclusion that these theocratic meanderings only serve to distract us from the very important things we're ignoring in favor of the theocratic debate--which we actually mostly agree on.

Bringing your religious or moral ideology to the table is the divisive move to end all divisive moves. No political debate can survive entertainment of such ideals--not in a way which produces shared understanding or unity.

 

[jumpincactus]

Care to sure that up with some economic reasoning, or are you just discounting most experts in the field because it "feels" right?



I'll pass on this one. Read up on your history and then get back to me. You've clearly missed a few centuries.


Agreed. Now I ask, why is it you think the American dream has slid so far? Is it because of "imperial democrats" or is it because we're living in a functional oligarchy which has been systematically built by the GOP over the last 40 years?


Art is what people say it is. You can't have your cake and eat it too on the 1st ammendment. Sorry, but respecting only your own ideology doesn't fit in a pluralistic society. Furthermore morals are not the same thing as ethics, and the government doesn't do morals--at least it's not supposed to.

Holy shit, 100% agreement. Go figure.


You know, I'm torn on this one because I think the whole thing is a bit idiotic (while I don't think we're coming at it from the same angle we reach the same result). That said the law is the law, and it did it's job here. It's hard to argue that. A law that can be changed doesn't scream insanity to me, it more screams laziness.


Yeah, that's gross and maladaptive. Gotta agree with you here, that's pretty fucking nuts. Same time, this has gotta be a huge minority of the country, I'm not sure it means we're all insane.


It's not a disease, but it is a medical condition--and you can die from it. That's the primary impetus behind the law. You cannot force someone to carry through with a medical condition that can ultimately kill them. It's certainly not a disease, but your body does function differently medically when you are pregnant. Sort of the definition of a medical condition.


I'll co-sign this.


While I think it's fairly certain that a fair number of those folks don't need those drugs--I can tell you that some folks do. If you have never had to deal with someone who is bipolar and off their meds, you should count your blessings rather than hurl insults.



There is literally zero evidence that most of this is happening. You think differently? I'm keen to discover why, and what evidence you have to support that belief.



Yeah, I'll co-sign that too.


Agreed, but with the caveat that we shouldn't be over there fighting in the first place--and we never should have been.


Nail on the head.


Yeah, but at the same time let's not forget 5th grade students have been known to do crazy shit like bring guns to school and kill people. I think it's more insane that we aren't questioning how that's even possible instead of questioning the useless attempts at preventing it like this.


Well, boys will be boys.

Yep--however, again I ask you to wonder at what might be causing this situation to develop. Think hard. The REASON for this is far more insane than the effect itself.


We talked about this earlier. The government doesn't do morals (and isn't supposed to), therefore proxies to the government are also not supposed to do this when acting in an official capacity.

Oh man I couldn't agree with you more.


So what did we learn?

Well for myself, I learned that I agree with about 1/4 of your manifesto here--which isn't all that bad considering. I think if you are able to remove yourself from your ideology a bit you might see that it's better we focus on the things which most threaten the nation, rather on the many insipid ideas which stem from attempts to install a functional theocracy here in America.

America exists because theocracy sucks, I hope you can take a look back at this post and realize that there are a few places where you've missed that point.

I don't want your Christianized version of Sharia law anymore than you want actual sharia law here--so let's agree that those issues are ultimately dead issues. They can never make it past the majority here in the US, and if they do--they will not last for very long. Too many of us just don't give that much of a damn about Jesus to let ya'll try to Jesus up our lives via legislation.

Close to everything you said here that can't be drawn back to a moral inception actually makes a huge amount of sense and I totally agree with. What I really wish for our country is that we'll someday come to the conclusion that these theocratic meanderings only serve to distract us from the very important things we're ignoring in favor of the theocratic debate--which we actually mostly agree on.

Bringing your religious or moral ideology to the table is the divisive move to end all divisive moves. No political debate can survive entertainment of such ideals--not in a way which produces shared understanding or unity.

@squiggly I love a good debate. This is the type of discussion where we can speak our minds and no one is hurling insults because our beliefs differ. Well done Squiggly.......... I would pose this question to you based on your response to @Seafour line item # 1. Are you referencing the same "Experts" in economics that claim they didn't see the financial banking meltdown coming?, including the Federal Reserve experts. How many economic bubbles do we need to endure before the Experts can see storm clouds on the horizon??? My definition of Insanity= Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[squiggly]

@squiggly I love a good debate. This is the type of discussion where we can speak our minds and no one is hurling insults because our beoliefs differ. Well said Squiggly. I would pose this question to you based on your response to @Seafour line item # 1. Are you referencing the same Experts in economics that claim they didn't see the financial banking meltdown coming?, including the Federal Reserve experts. How many economic bubbles do we need to endure before the Experts can see storm clouds on the horizon???

It's not 100% true that they didn't see it coming. The primary reason the crash happened is that the mortgages were allowed to be over-leveraged.

Essentially they were protected against a 25% loss (nowhere near enough for something so effecting the wider economy) and when they ticked over to 26% all of the big players almost immediately divested.

That's the sad thing. It wasn't a bunch of old fogeys running and taking their pensions off the market, it was Goldman Sachs et al pulling the carpet out so they could protect themselves against more loss. Even worse is a great deal of the divestment was automated via computer algorithms, it happened automatically as soon as the loss became too great.

Had that not happened we wouldn't have had a crash, we would've had a slightly less profitable Goldman Sachs et al for that quarter.

Now with the stage set here's my rebuttal. There were, previously, laws on the books which would've prevented leveraging things the way it was done--when those laws were exnayed economists the world around SCREAMED AND HOOED AND HAWED. No one listened.

They listened to their elected officials with little to no training in or understanding of economics. Lawyers + math = please stop.

The biggest travesty where it concerns economics and politics isn't that economists are unable to predict every last issue and problem--it's when all of the worlds experts freely admit that they cannot and 5 or 6 hundred douchebags, primarly with law degrees, come in and claim that THEY CAN. That THEY have the answers and understand an economy with a quadrillion trillion data points (probably an underestimate) implicitly--because they are just awesome.

The issue isn't the failure of economics. Economists can learn from mistakes and oversights.

The issue is the arrogance of politicians who REFUSE to learn. That goes for BOTH sides with zero reservation.

You could clone every politician from the last 100 years and give them 100 years to work on nothing but a "theory of everything" for economics, and they'd still fail miserably. It's just too complex, it's a horible misunderstanding of the scale of the economy to think a body of 400 can understand it with anything approaching the "all at onceness" they claim, very proudly, to have.

It's basically like if a 5 year old came up to me and started trying to tell me how I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about with palladium catalyzed cross-coupling reactions, even though he isn't quite sure what palladium or reactions are.

Actually it's like if that happened in front of all of you and then you took the 5 year olds side.

 

[jumpincactus]

It's not 100% true that they didn't see it coming. The primary reason the crash happened is that the mortgages were allowed to be over-leveraged.

Essentially they were protected against a 25% loss (nowhere near enough for something so effecting the wider economy) and when they ticked over to 26% all of the big players almost immediately divested.

That's the sad thing. It wasn't a bunch of old fogeys running and taking their pensions off the market, it was Goldman Sachs et al pulling the carpet out so they could protect themselves against more loss. Even worse is a great deal of the divestment was automated via computer algorithms, it happened automatically as soon as the loss became too great.

Had that not happened we wouldn't have had a crash, we would've had a slightly less profitable Goldman Sachs et al for that quarter.

Now with the stage set here's my rebuttal. There were, previously, laws on the books which would've prevented leveraging things the way it was done--when those laws were exnayed economists the world around SCREAMED AND HOOED AND HAWED. No one listened.

They listened to their elected officials with little to no training in or understanding of economics. Lawyers + math = please stop.

The biggest travesty where it concerns economics and politics isn't that economists are unable to predict every last issue and problem--it's when all of the worlds experts freely admit that they cannot and 5 or 6 hundred douchebags, primarly with law degrees, come in and claim that THEY CAN. That THEY have the answers and understand an economy with a quadrillion trillion data points (probably an underestimate) implicitly--because they are just awesome.

The issue isn't the failure of economics. Economists can learn from mistakes and oversights.

The issue is the arrogance of politicians who REFUSE to learn. That goes for BOTH sides with zero reservation.

You could clone every politician from the last 100 years and give them 100 years to work on nothing but a "theory of everything" for economics, and they'd still fail miserably. It's just too complex, it's a horible misunderstanding of the scale of the economy to think a body of 400 can understand it with anything approaching the "all at onceness" they claim, very proudly, to have.

It's basically like if a 5 year old came up to me and started trying to tell me how I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about with palladium catalyzed cross-coupling reactions, even though he isn't quite sure what palladium or reactions are.

Actually it's like if that happened in front of all of you and then you took the 5 year olds side.

@squiggly ........ Nice rebuttal. Makes perfect sense put in that context. You my friend are the kind of person I could comfortably medicate with and have a intelligent discussion. I respect and honor your beliefs as well as everyone else's off and on this forum. That is the beauty of what makes this country great. Allowing others to voice and have their opinions even tho we may not agree with them. In closing, I still believe there is hope for our great nation. I am just not sure how to get there........ Peace

 

[diamond2.0]

Guilty conchess maybe ?

Who are the real drug pushers ?

Drug-War Tyranny in Its Purest Form
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Stephanie George, who is now 42 years old, has spent the last 15 years of her life in jail. That might turn out to be a short period of time, given that her sentence is life without parole. She has no hope of ever being released from jail. Her crime? Living in a house in which her boyfriend maintained a lockbox hidden in the attic that had a half-kilogram of cocaine in it. The judge said that the lockbox was evidence that George was helping her boyfriend sell drugs.

Forty-seven year old Kenneth Harvey received the same sentence -- life without parole. His crime? He got caught with a vial of cocaine worth $300. Because he had two previous drug convictions, both of which he had received probation for, this subjected him to a mandatory life sentence.

Forty-one year old Scott Walker is also serving a life sentence. His crime? He was a drug addict who financed his addiction by selling drugs to friends. That earned him a mandatory life sentence.

Thirty-eight year old Reynolds Wintersmith is also serving a life sentence. His crime? When he was 17 years old, he got involved in selling crack. He has now spent half his life behind bars.

Robert Riley, 60, has been behind bars for 19 years. His crime? Conspiring to distribute hits of LSD dissolved on pieces of blotter paper. In order to pass the threshold that would give Riley a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole, the feds added the weight of the blotter paper to the miniscule weight of the LSD.

No, none of these people killed anyone. They didn't rob anyone. They didn't steal from anyone. Their actions were entirely peaceful, voluntary, and consensual.

Now, consider HSBC, the world's third-largest bank. The feds accused it of illegally laundering billions of dollars of drug money.

HSBC's sentence? Oh, it received no sentence at all. In fact, the feds didn't even secure a criminal indictment against the bank. Instead, they let the bank off the hook by settling for a fine of $1.2 billion, which equals about two months' worth of bank profits.

What's the difference between Stephanie George, Kenneth Harvey, Scott Walker, Reynolds Wintersmith, and, Robert Riley on the one hand, and HSBC, on the other?

Money and power. The people who received the life sentences were poor and lacked political influence. The fact that three of them are black certainly didn't help. HSBC, on the other hand, is composed of rich and powerful people, most of whom are undoubtedly white.

Federal officials said that they were concerned that a criminal indictment of HSBC could destabilize the global financial system. But given the slap on the wrist to HSBC, where's the justice in keeping those five people in jail? Indeed, where's the justice in keeping any non-violent drug offender in jail, especially when they're letting the rich and powerful off the hook for non-violent drug offenses?

No reasonable person can read about the plight of those five people without feeling a deep sense of indignation and outrage. Every American owes it to himself to read what the government, federal or state, has done to those five people. Here are two articles by John Tierney from the New York Times that detail their real-life drug-war horror story:

For Lesser Crimes, Rethinking Life Behind Bars

Life Without Parole: Four Inmates' Stories

Here's an NYT article detailing the special treatment accorded HSBC:

HSBC to Pay $1.92 Billion to Settle Charges of Money Laundering

Those five drug-war inmates are just the tip of the iceberg. The United States now incarcerates more people than even communist China, and their beloved, decades-long drug war provides government officials with the ability to do so.

But the horrible length of those jail sentences doesn't really go to the core of the problem. The real question is: Under what moral authority does the government punish people for doing something that is really none of the government's business?

Consider Stephanie George's case. Suppose she did know what was in that lockbox. Suppose she was helping her boyfriend sell drugs. So what? Why is that the business of federal busybodies? It's not. It's none of their business. People have the natural and God-given right to own anything they want, ingest whatever they want, and buy and sell whatever they want. It's called freedom.

Our American ancestors understood that. That's why they never permitted drug laws to be enacted in the America in which they lived.

The fact that so many Americans fail to see that fundamental point is as much an outrage as those long, manifestly unjust jail sentences. Never mind that Americans refuse to see that the drug war has proven to be a manifest failure and that it's resulted in countless deaths and ruined lives. How come Americans refuse to see the horrific violation of the principles of liberty when the government claims the authority to punish someone for doing something that involves no initiation of force against another human being?

Ruining the lives of five good human beings -- the one life each of them were given -- for engaging in action that is none of the government's business, even while according the rich and powerful with a permanent get out of jail card -- well, that's drug-tyranny in its most hypocritical and brutal form.

Do the right thing, President Obama: In light of the special drug-war treatment you have accorded the rich and powerful at HSBC, issue a pardon to all non-violent drug offenders who are rotting away in federal penitentiaries. Then, to ensure that these horrors and this hypocrisy never repeat themselves, follow those pardons with a bill to Congress that finally ends the drug war and legalizes all drugs.
_
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.


Somec cops think thier part of some special club. Yet thier riddled with disease and corruption and labeled "convict " too . Whos going to save the cops from themselves ? :p Yep , we see who ya cover for .

 

[diamond2.0]

this si so off topic .lol

Wall Street Bets a Quadrillion of Everybody Else’s Money

“Even if the whole planet were offered as collateral, it could not cover Wall Street’s bets.”

By Glen FordOctober 11, 2013 "Information Clearing House - The clock is ticking, we are told, on the “good faith and credit” of the United States government, which might technically be unable to pay its bills after October 17 if the two corporate parties don’t make a deal on the debt limit. Congressional Republicans and the White House are “playing Russian roulette with the global economy,” says an editorial in the Dallas Morning News, warning of impending “economic Armageddon” as financial markets “crater,” the economy stalls and interest on future federal borrowing skyrockets.

Given that capitalism has entered a terminal stage of acute and escalating crises, the Dallas editorialists may be right; anything could set off another spasm of financial mayhem in a system that is ever more unstable. However, it is the “markets” – a euphemism for the financial capitalist class – that are the ultimate source of instability, the folks who play Russian roulette 24-7 and have dragged humanity to a place where an actual Armageddon is only a twirl of the chamber away. In this game, everybody’s head is in play.

It is proper that the corporate press speak of the impending fiscal threat – a minor one, in the maelstrom of crises that beset the system – in gambling terms. An increase of interest rates by a few basis points (fractions of a percent) on trillions of borrowed dollars amounts to quite a chunk of public money, to be paid directly into the accounts of these very same private “markets” that are supposedly biting their nails with anxiety over the budget. The Dallas Morning News and its fellow corporate propaganda spores spread the myth that the “markets” (bankers, hedge funds, etc.) crave stability, when the vital statistics of the real world of finance capitalism scream the opposite.

The Lords of Capital (the “markets”) are pure gamblers who have transformed the global financial marketplace into a machinery of perpetual uncertainty, in which all the wealth of the world is bet many times over by people who don’t actually own it, in a casino whose operators scheme against each other as well as their patrons, most of whom are not even aware that they are in the game – much less, that it is Russian roulette.

“Derivatives are valued at six times more than the total accumulated wealth of the world.”

The notional value of derivative financial instruments is now estimated at $1.2 quadrillion – that is, one thousand two hundred trillion dollars. This statistic is fantastic in every sense of the word, amounting to 16.7 times the Gross World Product, which is the value of all the goods and services produced per year by every man, woman and child on the planet: $71.83 trillion. Derivatives are valued at six times more than the total accumulated wealth of the world, including all global stock markets, insurance funds, and family wealth: $200 trillion.

The great bulk of known derivative deals are held by banks that are considered too big to be allowed to fail, with the top four banks accounting for more than 90 percent of the exposure: J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs.

We are told that derivatives are simply bets between knowledgeable partners – hedges against loss – and that every time one of these financial institutions loses, another gains, so that there is no net loss or threat of global collapse. But that’s a lie. Never in the history of the world has finance capital so dominated the real economy, and only in the past two decades have derivatives been so central to finance capitalism. The players do not know what they are doing, nor do they care. The meltdown of 2008 was caused primarily by derivatives, requiring a bailout in the tens of trillions of dollars that is still ongoing, with the Federal Reserve buying up securities that no one would purchase – that is, bet on – otherwise. Yet, the universe of derivatives deals has grown much larger than in 2008, effectively untouched by President Obama’s so-called financial reforms.

The casino has swallowed the system. The sums the players are betting are not only far larger than the value of the rest of their portfolios, but six times larger than the combined assets of every human institution and family on Earth, and almost 17 times bigger than the worth of humankind’s yearly output. Even if the whole planet were offered as collateral, it could not cover Wall Street’s bets.

“Detroit has been rendered a failed city by the full range of derivatives and securitization.”

The events of 2008 demonstrated that derivatives collapses, like other speculative financial events, behave as cascades of consequences, rather than orderly “resolutions.” Derivatives deals infest or overhang every nook and cranny of the U.S. and other “mature” economies, poisoning pension systems and municipal finance structures. Detroit has been rendered a failed city by the full range of derivatives and securitization. When the casino is the economy, everyone is forced to play, and the poor go broke first.

Reformers of various stripes tell us that derivatives can either be regulated to a less lethal scale or abolished, altogether, while leaving Wall Street otherwise intact. That’s manifestly untrue. Finance capital creates nothing, reproducing itself through the manipulation of money. The derivatives explosion occurred because Wall Street needed a form of “fictitious” capital to continue posting ever higher profits, and ultimately, fictitious portfolios full of tradable bets. Derivatives deals are the ultimate expression of financial capitalism: they are primarily bets on transactions, rather than investments in production. The rise of derivatives signals that capitalism has run its course, and can only do further harm to humanity. The derivatives economy – all $1.2 quadrillion of it – is the last stage of capitalism.

If the Occupy Wall Street movement had understood this, and articulated the necessity to overthrow and abolish Wall Street, its impact would have been far more profound. As it stands, Americans are directed to quake in fear as the clock ticks down to some technical federal budgetary deadline on October 17 – as if that’s the sword of Damocles hanging over the world.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected]. -http://www.blackagendareport.com


Should have goverment and banks out of control. thread lol. Just jokng.

 

[diamond2.0]

back on topic

 

[SeaF0ur]

Expand for replies.

Care to sure that up with some economic reasoning, or are you just discounting most experts in the field because it "feels" right?

Can you name 1 year the US debt actually decreased from one fiscal year to the next aside from 1957?


I'll pass on this one. Read up on your history and then get back to me. You've clearly missed a few centuries.

Obama commonly uses "Executive Orders" to push agendas, although I concede that FDR was worse.

Agreed. Now I ask, why is it you think the American dream has slid so far? Is it because of "imperial democrats" or is it because we're living in a functional oligarchy which has been systematically built by the GOP over the last 40 years?

I believe the 2 party paradigm is the reason we are in trouble and to blame any one party continues the cycle.

Art is what people say it is. You can't have your cake and eat it too on the 1st ammendment. Sorry, but respecting only your own ideology doesn't fit in a pluralistic society. Furthermore morals are not the same thing as ethics, and the government doesn't do morals--at least it's not supposed to.

It's not supposed to. I completely agree there.

Holy shit, 100% agreement. Go figure.


You know, I'm torn on this one because I think the whole thing is a bit idiotic (while I don't think we're coming at it from the same angle we reach the same result). That said the law is the law, and it did it's job here. It's hard to argue that. A law that can be changed doesn't scream insanity to me, it more screams laziness.

In our ever litigious society, DA's become Judges based off NEW laws they create. Nobody is removing useless laws from the books. I would love an official office for removing old and unnecessary laws from the books in addition to squaring up conflicting laws. If you've ever had a yard sale without checking with underwriters laboratories for recalled items, you have committed a jail-able offense.

Yeah, that's gross and maladaptive. Gotta agree with you here, that's pretty fucking nuts. Same time, this has gotta be a huge minority of the country, I'm not sure it means we're all insane.


It's not a disease, but it is a medical condition--and you can die from it. That's the primary impetus behind the law. You cannot force someone to carry through with a medical condition that can ultimately kill them. It's certainly not a disease, but your body does function differently medically when you are pregnant. Sort of the definition of a medical condition.

"Forced to carry" is much different than my argument of pregnancy being considered a disease. I dont really care one way or the other about abortion. In fact, I think its a necessary portion of medical care in our declining society. Some people should simply not have children. However...

"Treating the Nation's Epidemic of Teen-Age Pregnancy" (headline, The New York Times)
"Teenage mothers are not exclusive to the Lone Star State. They're part of a national epidemic…" (excerpt, Houston Chronicle)
"Teenage Pregnancy: Medical Risks and Realities" (page heading, WebMD.com)
"Teen Pregnancy Epidemic? Memphis Officials Say No, But Do See Problem" (NPR story)
"Love Child Gets to Heart of Teen Pregnancy Epidemic" (Chicago Tribune)
"Teen Pregnancy: An Epidemic in Foster Care" (Time magazine)

I'm surprised our nation has survived this epidemic! With a virulent pathogen, hundreds of thousands of infected individuals would lead to a true pandemic. Millions dead. The streets lined with corpses. Why didn't this happen? How have we been saved?

I'll co-sign this.


While I think it's fairly certain that a fair number of those folks don't need those drugs--I can tell you that some folks do. If you have never had to deal with someone who is bipolar and off their meds, you should count your blessings rather than hurl insults.

Not an insult. its a commentary on our societies accepted go-to solution of medicating nonsensical made up ailments such as "oppositional defiant disorder"

There is literally zero evidence that most of this is happening. You think differently? I'm keen to discover why, and what evidence you have to support that belief.

I'm unclear. Are you denying a presidential ‘Enemies List’? or do you deny that almost all law enforcement agencies practice a degree of selective enforcement?

Yeah, I'll co-sign that too.


Agreed, but with the caveat that we shouldn't be over there fighting in the first place--and we never should have been.

The problem started when the French and British started drawing territories according to rivers, drawing lines on maps and completely discounting historical tribal lands. Because of this one act, war there will never end.

Nail on the head.


Yeah, but at the same time let's not forget 5th grade students have been known to do crazy shit like bring guns to school and kill people. I think it's more insane that we aren't questioning how that's even possible instead of questioning the useless attempts at preventing it like this.

Preventing what exactly? What would he have done with a "finger gun"? And what of the kid who chewed his pop-tart into a gun shape and was suspended? At what point is ridiculous acceptable to point out? oh wait... dont point. It could be taken wrong.

Well, boys will be boys.

And the status quo lives on. Assuming federal employees should do their actual jobs might be considered by some as asking too much I guess. If they are that unessential, perhaps we could pot a plant in their places.

Yep--however, again I ask you to wonder at what might be causing this situation to develop. Think hard. The REASON for this is far more insane than the effect itself.

It doesn't take much thought to see that payday lenders are often able to charge much higher rates than their conventional counterparts due to the loosening of lending restrictions leading to irresponsible people stuck in a cycle of borrowing simply to pay back last weeks interest. It is summed up quite well in the attached video.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Predatory Lending

We talked about this earlier. The government doesn't do morals (and isn't supposed to), therefore proxies to the government are also not supposed to do this when acting in an official capacity.

Isn't supposed to. But they do. You're statement of "not supposed to" is correct while your use of the words "The government doesn't do morals" is completely incorrect. If you were in fact correct, Texas would not have a law banning ONLY homosexual anal penetration.


Oh man I couldn't agree with you more.


So what did we learn?

Well for myself, I learned that I agree with about 1/4 of your manifesto here--which isn't all that bad considering. I think if you are able to remove yourself from your ideology a bit you might see that it's better we focus on the things which most threaten the nation, rather on the many insipid ideas which stem from attempts to install a functional theocracy here in America.

You have referred to me as christian and now, point to my assumed ideology. You are incorrect in both.

America exists because theocracy sucks, I hope you can take a look back at this post and realize that there are a few places where you've missed that point.

I never mentioned theocracy.

I don't want your Christianized version of Sharia law anymore than you want actual sharia law here--so let's agree that those issues are ultimately dead issues. They can never make it past the majority here in the US, and if they do--they will not last for very long. Too many of us just don't give that much of a damn about Jesus to let ya'll try to Jesus up our lives via legislation.

It actually seems that you are vehemently opposed to some christianity angle that was never mentioned. Although I will admit I see a decline in general morality. Does that somehow make me auto-christian by proxy?

Close to everything you said here that can't be drawn back to a moral inception actually makes a huge amount of sense and I totally agree with. What I really wish for our country is that we'll someday come to the conclusion that these theocratic meanderings only serve to distract us from the very important things we're ignoring in favor of the theocratic debate--which we actually mostly agree on.

Bringing your religious or moral ideology to the table is the divisive move to end all divisive moves. No political debate can survive entertainment of such ideals--not in a way which produces shared understanding or unity.

Correct statement, and by your false assumptions about me holding any religious beliefs you've clouded your own argument. We do agree on many salient points. However, I will continue to disavow having any imaginary friends. LOL

 

[diamond2.0]

5 myths about policing
CrimeHomicideGun ControlMedia IndustryNational Rifle Association of AmericaAmnesty International

What the police don't want us to know
Eugene Robinson
According to FBI statistics, 27 police officers were feloniously killed in 2013, the lowest raw number in more than 50 years. (The previous low was 41 in 2008.) If we go by officer homicides as a percentage of active-duty police, it was probably the safest year in a century. The number of cops killed on duty has been falling since the mid-1990s, consistent with the overall drop in violent crime in America. Assaults against police officers have been in decline as well.

We will probably see news stories in the coming weeks about a sharp increase in cops killed this year vs. 2013. Approximating from data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, it is likely that about 50 police officers will be killed this year. That's certainly a sharp increase over the 27 last year, but even if that toll is reached, it would still be one of the lowest since the early 1960s and in line with the general decline since the mid-1990s. The average number of cops feloniously killed per year over the past decade: 51.1.


2. YouTube videos and cellphone footage prove that today's cops are out of control.

Most criminologists believe that today's police departments are more professional than ever before. Cops tend to get more training, and departments are guided by defined rules and procedures more than they were in the past. Most decent-size police agencies have internal affairs departments, and a growing number of cities have installed citizen review boards.

That hardly means there are no problems in policing today, of course, or that these developments suffice to safeguard civil liberties. But it's likely that the ubiquity of cellphone cameras and the diffusive power of social media are simply making us more aware of rule-breaking cops, rather than showing that there are more of them than before.


Yet even if there are fewer rogue cops who abuse their authority and use force outside the bounds of department rules, it's also true that, as a matter of policy, police use more force today than they have in the past. SWAT actions, for example, are increasingly used for credit card fraud and other low-level offenses, administrative warrants or even regulatory enforcement. Use-of-force training today puts less emphasis on conflict resolution and de-escalation, if they are addressed at all. The problem isn't cops breaking the rules — the rules themselves are the problem.

3. With more criminals wielding heavy-duty weapons, police must militarize to catch up.

Multiple studies, including from the Justice Department, have shown that the guns used in homicides, including the killing of police officers, overwhelmingly tend to be small-caliber handguns. Moreover, gun ownership has increased over the past 20 years — the same period in which both the violent crime rate and the killing of police officers have been in decline.
According to FBI statistics, 27 police officers were feloniously killed in 2013, the lowest raw number in more than 50 years. " This is not a true or accurate statistic. That only counts "felonious" murders, ask the FBI for their definition. According to the Officer Down..

One version of this argument advanced recently by Vox and the New Republic is that we can't demilitarize the police without gun control. But even if it were true that criminals were arming themselves with bigger guns, it isn't clear that gun control would demilitarize the police. First, gun control legislation probably would not do much to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, particularly in the short term. Second, the argument assumes that the law enforcement community would accept such a bargain. That seems unlikely. Polls consistently show that large majorities of police officers oppose gun control, although big-city chiefs and the heads of some big police organizations support such policies. The National Rifle Association in particular includes a lot of cops in its membership and recently ran an article in favor of police militarization in its flagship magazine.


When there's video, you are the witness
Clarence Page
New gun control laws may have other merits, but it's unlikely they would slow down the militarization of U.S. police.

4. Aggressive, confrontational policing is the best way to control crime.

Proponents of police militarization sometimes point out that the trend has occurred at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically — therefore, militarization must be working. But criminologists are still debating what has caused the decline in crime since the mid-1990s. In New York, crime fell without mass incarceration. In San Diego it dropped without the "broken windows" policing employed in New York.

Moreover, the most notable manifestation of militaristic policing is the SWAT team. According to Eastern Kentucky University criminologist Peter Kraska, the number of annual SWAT deployments in the United States jumped more than 1,500 percent from the early 1980s to 2000. Yet according to Kraska's data and a study this year from the American Civil Liberties Union, 60 to 80 percent of SWAT raids are to enforce warrants for drug crimes — and drug crimes are the one class of crime that hasn't dropped since the 1990s.

The good news is that in places where it's been tried, "community policing" — which stresses de-escalation, community involvement and solutions that don't always involve more arrests, more raids and more street sweeps — has succeeded.

It happened in the early 1970s in Washington, D.C., where crime fell under the leadership of police Chief Jerry Wilson, a community policing advocate, while it increased just about everywhere else. In California, by the time police Chief Joseph McNamara retired in 1991, he had used community policing to make San Jose the safest big city in America with a police force that per capita was one of the smallest in the country. More recently, as The Washington Post pointed out, the number of stop-and-frisks in New York City has dropped by an incredible 94 percent since 2011 — with no noticeable effect on the crime rate.

5. Tasers and other "less lethal" weapons allow cops to use less force.

New technology and new weapons are only as good as the policies guiding their use. Tasers were initially touted as a substitute for lethal force, a way for cops to subdue violent suspects without killing them. Over time, however, they have become a compliance tool — used to quell dissent, move nonviolent protesters and punish people for talking back. A 2011 National Institute of Justice study found that cops use their Tasers too often and in inappropriate circumstances.


With so many laws, we could all be felons
Stephen Carter
While there are no national data on Taser use, a 2012 Chicago Tribune report found that Taser use by suburban police doubled from 2008 to 2011. A 2011 New York Civil Liberties Union study found that nearly 60 percent of police Taser incidents in that state did not meet expert-recommended criteria for using the weapon. It's also worth noting that Amnesty International has documented more than 500 cases in which a suspect died after being shocked with a Taser.

It would be one thing if all those stun gun barbs were being fired in place of bullets. But according to FBI statistics, the number of justifiable homicides by police has been increasing since about 2000. Those data are also incomplete, but to the extent that they're flawed, they probably undercount such incidents.

Washington Post

Radley Balko, author of "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces," writes The Watch for The Washington Post, focusing on civil liberties and criminal justice system.

 

[squiggly]

Expand for replies.



Correct statement, and by your false assumptions about me holding any religious beliefs you've clouded your own argument. We do agree on many salient points. However, I will continue to disavow having any imaginary friends. LOL

I claim that your moral standpoint is colored by Judeo-Christian values and very well may have been passed to you by family, or picked up socially, and not necessarily with specific religious intent involved.

The point is there's no way you get to some of these "moral" consequences without Jesus, whether you think it has shit to do with him or not--the people who told you about it, or whom you learned it from whenever you learned it, either did or were similarly indoctrinated by someone else who did.

Are you super conservative? Your statements about Obama would seem to suggest that (as they echo the hyper conservative viewpoint on the far right, almost word for word).

If so, that may have something to do with it as well, since Christian inspired theocracy has been perniciously destroying and consuming the GOP from within for going on 40 years now--there's even a great book about it, if interested I'll look it up for you the name escapes me right now. It's very possible that you're just hearing what these guys say and that you agree with it.

What's important to understand is that it's not a legal matter for another American to not agree with some of those things. They are moral in nature, and not ethical. The primary difference between the two being that morals are something which are spawned by some belief system, religious or otherwise (even nationalistic), and ethics are something that we all agree upon (and we do it democratically in the context of the US).

I do apologize for making an assumption about you, I feel like as a talker I have to make this mistake once every 6 months or so--no matter how hard I try not to. I shouldn't do that.

That being said I think you should examine what you said again. You've made discriminatory statements which show a lack of respect for some of your fellow Americans based PURELY on their worldview or belief system (as I've said you have no argument where it concerns their flippant behavior or lack of interest in the country).

I'm fine if you want to disagree with a boy wanting to be a girl, I certainly don't want you to lie to me and tell me that you do agree with it when you don't--but that being said I also feel obliged to tell you that it doesn't matter what the fuck you think about that boy feeling like he's a girl and wanting to be treated with a modicum of respect for HER freedom and HER life choice.

The law found for her, which is what a respectful person would call her--by the way--and do you know why? Because despite all of our failings somehow we still manage to enjoy freedom akin to that which is outlined for us in the constitution.

I don't think it's insane that we respect another citizens personal choice for themselves and, essentially, stay the fuck out of it--I think it's insane that someone would not only give a shit about something that effects them in no discernable way, but would also lump that same complaint in with some of the worst socio-political travesties of our time. Things which most threaten us as a nation.

The things just don't go together. As long as you and others keep talking about shit like that in the political debate, we're going to be stuck here failing at everything as a country worrying about who's fucking who or who cut off who's dick or turned who's clit into a dick.

I'll say it once: WHO GIVES A FUCK

It's a distraction, and what makes it so tragic is that this judging other people for their lifestyle is a fucking fight you can never win in 2014 or beyond. Time of death on that hyperconservative worldview was like 20 years ago. We're basically just waiting for the latest batch of old fucks to die off before shit gets shaken up big time in this country regarding all this social BS.

On what planet must you be living for 64% of people can't name the branches of government to be even REMOTELY in the same ballpark as a genetic boy feels like a girl and wants to piss in a different place. Let alone on the very next line.



My advice, drop that shit--and convince everyone else who feels the same way to also drop it. Because I can promise you one thing:

Nothing is getting fucking done in this country until we drop all the moral hogwash.

I don't care of the president wants a clown to shit on him while he's off the clock, if he's a good president then fuck it.

Quit it with all the judgment, worry about YOUR moral path--not the moral path of other people.

How the fuck would you like it if I came here and told you that you had to act like a girl from now on, or that you had to worship a God?

You wouldn't like it. That's what dumb shit like this leads to, is people telling other people what they can believe and who they can be. If you want to complete the downfall of this country then you go ahead and continue to let this bullshit dictate our political process and debate.

Sorry.

/rant

 

[diamond2.0]

Man , you cops cause alot of shit !

 

[diamond2.0]

we got an actor here. :p What a "ham" , pardon the pun . I feel an emmy or workmans comp case commin on .........................

 

[SeaF0ur]

Here's the footage of the 12 year old they just gunned down in ohio.

The official report says they barked orders three times without reply before opening fire...

 

[phoenixfire]

Here's the footage of the 12 year old they just gunned down in ohio.

The official report says they barked orders three times without reply before opening fire...

Well ummm the guy who called the cops transferred some intense energy huh? Well that kid won't be scaring the shit out of no one anymore. After knowing the whole story with that one, I don't think the kid should have been killed.

 

[SeaF0ur]

They certainly shouldn't have simply hopped out and started shooting immediately. They break up the video in the news footage and make it seem as if some time had passed. That's why I included both.

 

[diamond2.0]

The cops cant even follow thier own protocol in that shooting / lol.

and i lots count long ago of cops shooting dogs. Tll ya what cops. dogs are not your best friend you frightened little butchers.


California Deputy Pepper Sprays Then Executes Pregnant Dog After Going to Wrong House
By Cassandra Rules

La Puente, CA– Rosleen Banner is calling for justice after a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputy ignored her “beware of dogs” sign, entered her yard, pepper sprayed her pregnant dog Tata and executed her with three shots to the head.

The deputy was responding to a call claiming a man and woman were fighting, but had shown up to the wrong address when they barged into Banner’s fenced yard. Banner heard the first two shots and ran outside for the third shot, and found her beloved pet laying in a pool of blood.

The department claims that the dog had attacked the deputy, who was treated for a minor injury.
"In order to stop the attack, they deployed (pepper) spray which didn't stop the dog and when the dog charged again that's when the deputy actually fired to stop the attack," Capt. Timothy Marakami with the LA County Sheriff's Department toldCBS.“One shot wasn’t enough? No they had to keep shooting her while she was down and crying in pain and trying to get to her human mommy for help. Deputies refused to allow Roxan to comfort or hold her while she died.” Banner wrote on the Justice 4 Tata Facebook page.

A petition (graphic photo warning) calling for justice and the termination of the trespassing officer reads:
Given the circumstances of this case -- particularly, the lack of consideration towards the life of a pregnant dog -- we, the undersigned, feel that the deputies involved should be removed from law enforcement as soon as possible. They have to pay for their negligence and they are no longer fit to represent the law.

Please sign the petition and demand justice for Tata and her puppies!The petition was only 400 signatures short of the 5,000 goal by 5am on Monday.

One only has to browse through our “puppycide” section to understand how wide spread this disturbing trend is.

What makes this even more tragic is that not a single officer has been killed by a dog in the past 50 years, yet police in the United States kill a dog on average of every 90 minutes.

Two officers have been killed by bee stings, one by a cow- but not one single officer has been killed by mans best friend.

Had this person not been a police officer, she could have subsequently been arrested for criminal trespass, illegal discharge of a firearm, cruelty to animals, and destruction of private property. However, since she is an agent of the state, she will likely not face any punishment.




its another Fascist day in the u.s.

 

[SeaF0ur]