If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
Greegor wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:28 pm, Observer wrote: On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Moses -DESPAM wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus wrote: In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems like an epidemic. If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have. If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it, they have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate people and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of government. That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the crime rate in those studies by criminologists. I or a family member has been the victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times. The police solved none of them. Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners always get the right perp? While it might be useful to propagandize like this, to convince people how easily law enforcement catch every criminal, isn't this deception a perversion of democracy? Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being psychological operations against US citizens? What amazes me is how many people are doing life in prison when there was no forensic evidence at all that they committed the crime they are doing it for. They just happened to be the only ones the police had who had a motif, and the jury decided that that was enough to satisfy their "reasonable doubt" criteria. "If you stood to gain something, then you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," is their motus operendi. Just the other night, on the TV was the story of some poor Army slob who was tried 4 times in civilian court for a murder, and the judge declared a mistrail all four times, and then the Army tried him and he is today doing life without the possibility of parole in Leaverworth. So much for "double jepardy"....... Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:52:46 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:
Greegor wrote: On Feb 17, 10:28 pm, Observer wrote: On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Moses -DESPAM wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus wrote: In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems like an epidemic. If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have. If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it, they have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate people and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of government. That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the crime rate in those studies by criminologists. I or a family member has been the victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times. The police solved none of them. Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners always get the right perp? While it might be useful to propagandize like this, to convince people how easily law enforcement catch every criminal, isn't this deception a perversion of democracy? Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being psychological operations against US citizens? What amazes me is how many people are doing life in prison when there was no forensic evidence at all that they committed the crime they are doing it for. They just happened to be the only ones the police had who had a motif, and the jury decided that that was enough to satisfy their "reasonable doubt" criteria. "If you stood to gain something, then you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," is their motus operendi. Just the other night, on the TV was the story of some poor Army slob who was tried 4 times in civilian court for a murder, and the judge declared a mistrail all four times, and then the Army tried him and he is today doing life without the possibility of parole in Leaverworth. So much for "double jepardy"....... If each trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy does not apply. Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are mostly socialist. You should fit in well. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
"Mike F." wrote in message news On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:52:46 -0800, Bill Graham wrote: Greegor wrote: On Feb 17, 10:28 pm, Observer wrote: On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Moses -DESPAM wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus wrote: In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems like an epidemic. If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have. If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it, they have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate people and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of government. That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the crime rate in those studies by criminologists. I or a family member has been the victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times. The police solved none of them. Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners always get the right perp? While it might be useful to propagandize like this, to convince people how easily law enforcement catch every criminal, isn't this deception a perversion of democracy? Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being psychological operations against US citizens? What amazes me is how many people are doing life in prison when there was no forensic evidence at all that they committed the crime they are doing it for. They just happened to be the only ones the police had who had a motif, and the jury decided that that was enough to satisfy their "reasonable doubt" criteria. "If you stood to gain something, then you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," is their motus operendi. Just the other night, on the TV was the story of some poor Army slob who was tried 4 times in civilian court for a murder, and the judge declared a mistrail all four times, and then the Army tried him and he is today doing life without the possibility of parole in Leaverworth. So much for "double jepardy"....... If each trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy does not apply. Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are mostly socialist. You should fit in well. Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist? I am about as libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl Marx... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:19:45 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:
Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are mostly socialist. You should fit in well. Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist? Your posts. I am about as libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl Marx... You play the part of a libertarian on usenet. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
Bill Graham wrote:
Greegor wrote: On Feb 17, 10:28 pm, Observer wrote: On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Moses -DESPAM wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus wrote: In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems like an epidemic. If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have. If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it, they have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate people and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of government. That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the crime rate in those studies by criminologists. I or a family member has been the victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times. The police solved none of them. Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners always get the right perp? While it might be useful to propagandize like this, to convince people how easily law enforcement catch every criminal, isn't this deception a perversion of democracy? Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being psychological operations against US citizens? What amazes me is how many people are doing life in prison when there was no forensic evidence at all that they committed the crime they are doing it for. They just happened to be the only ones the police had who had a motif, and the jury decided that that was enough to satisfy their "reasonable doubt" criteria. "If you stood to gain something, then you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," is their motus operendi. Just the other night, on the TV was the story of some poor Army slob who was tried 4 times in civilian court for a murder, and the judge declared a mistrail all four times, and then the Army tried him and he is today doing life without the possibility of parole in Leaverworth. So much for "double jepardy"....... Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Several studies have found that 15% to 25% of those convicted of a crime are innocent. With new methods like DNA testing, it was possible to determine guilt or innocence definitely in many cases. So many innocent people are convicted probably because the police and prosecutors want to make themselves look good by showing they solved the case. Below are quotations from reports of the studies. Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts”, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4, 305-329, 2007. http://www.firstscience.com/home/new...ong_33119.html US juries get verdict wrong in one of six cases: study So much for US justice: juries get the verdict wrong in one out of six criminal cases and judges don't do much better, a new study has found. And when they make those mistakes, both judges and juries are far more likely to send an innocent person to jail than to let a guilty person go free, according to an upcoming study out of Northwestern University. "Those are really shocking numbers," said Jack Heinz, a law professor at Northwestern who reviewed the research of his colleague Bruce Spencer, a professor in the statistics department. Recent high-profile exonerations of scores of death row inmates have undermined faith in the infallibility of the justice system, Heinz said. But these cases were considered relative rarities given how many checks and balances - like rules on the admissibility of evidence, the presumption of innocence and the appeals process - are built into the system. "We assume as lawyers that the system has been created in such a way to minimize the chance we'll convict the innocent," he said in an interview. "The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt - it's supposed to be a high one. But judging by Bruce's data the problem is substantial." The study, which looked at 290 non-capital criminal cases in four major cities from 2000 to 2001, is the first to examine the accuracy of modern juries and judges in the United States. It found that judges were mistaken in their verdicts in 12 percent of the cases while juries were wrong 17 percent of the time. More troubling was that juries sent 25 percent of innocent people to jail while the innocent had a 37 percent chance of being wrongfully convicted by a judge. The good news was that the guilty did not have a great chance of getting off. There was only a 10 percent chance that a jury would let a guilty person free while the judge wrongfully acquitted a defendant in 13 percent of the cases. But that could have been because so many of the cases ended in a conviction: juries convicted 70 percent of the time while the judges said they would have found the defendant guilty in 82 percent of the cases. The study did not look at enough cases to prove that these numbers are true across the country, Spencer cautioned. But it has provided insight into how severe the problem could be, and has also shown that measuring the problem is possible. "People have to have some faith in the court system. We have to know how well our systems are working," Spencer said in his suburban Chicago office. "We know there are errors because someone confesses after the fact or there's DNA evidence," he said. "What's the optimal tradeoff given that juries ultimately will make mistakes? ... Are those balances something society is okay with?" Spencer's study does not examine why the mistakes were made or which cases ought to be overturned. Instead, he determined the probability that a mistake was made by looking at how often judges disagreed with the jury's verdict. "If they disagree they can't both be right," he explained. Spencer found an agreement rate of just 77 percent, which means a lot of mistakes were being made. Spencer hopes to find funding for a much larger study whose results could be representative of the overall system. Finding a solution will be much harder to do than quantifying the problem, Heinz warned. "The sources of the errors are quite resilient to correction," he said. "They have to do with all sorts of biases and the strong presumption of guilt when someone is arrested and brought to trial." The study will be published in the July edition of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Innocence Project http://www.law.washington.edu/ipnw/ Actual Innocence by Dwyer, Scheck, Neufeld, New York: Doubleday, 2000. Dorothy Rabinowitz's book and articles of people falsely convicted: http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003..._interview.htm No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times by Dorothy Rabinowitz, Wall Street Journal book, Free Press, NY, NY, 2003 "Wall Street Journal editorialist Rabinowitz has collected her stories on false accusations of sex crimes into one harrowing account of failed justice. ...The Amiraults, a woman and her two grown children ran a successful preschool in Malden, Mass., and were all sent to jail on charges of child sex abuse. No scientific or physical evidence linked them to the crimes; rather, the courts relied on the testimony of children who appeared on the stand after lengthy coaching sessions in which counselors had used anatomically correct dolls and leading questions to encourage them to accuse their teachers. At times the author's careful documentation begs for interpretation. Why, for instance, did the public buy the increasingly bizarre accusations of teachers tying naked children to trees in the schoolyard, or of anal penetration with knives that left no physical mark? Rabinowitz leaves such speculation to others. But she presents her cases expertly-so well that her stories helped reverse the convictions of five people, which in turn helped her win the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for commentary" http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=QfH4E_WHBzIC Many more cases like this are documented in No Crueler Tyrannies Rabinowitz wrote exposés of the dubious sexual abuse charges filed against the operators of day care centers and other individuals, notably that of a family named Amirault in Malden, Massachusetts[8] and those in Wenatchee, Washington.[9] These exposés earned her a 1996 Pulitzer nomination,[6] formed half of the articles cited for her 2001 Pulitzer win,[5] and was the basis of her book No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times.[10] Rabinowitz told C-SPAN that her work on these cases began with the Wee Care Nursery School case: I was working as a television commentator. I was at WWOR-TV in New Jersey, doing three times a week some sort of media criticism. And .... I saw this woman in her 20s ... accused of something like 2,800 charges of child sex abuse. Oh, I thought, well, that's very odd. .... I thought, How can one woman, one young, lone woman in an absolutely open place like the child care center of the church in New Jersey that she worked for -- how could she have committed these enormous crimes against 20 children, dressed and undressed them and sent -- you know what it is to dress and undress even one child every day without getting their socks lost? -- 20 children in a perfectly public place, torture them for two years, frighten and terrorize them, and they never went home and told their parents anything? ... This did seem strange.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Rabinowitz ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.northwestern.edu/newscent...06/juries.html June 26 | Research MEDIA CONTACT: Pat Vaughan Tremmel at 847-491-4892 or New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong. In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. “Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of jury verdicts.” Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false acquittals, he said. To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict. “Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.” By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases. For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s. The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.) To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict. Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict. With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases. “Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to jail for many years for wrongful convictions?” Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison. The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases, Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies will be carried out in the future. Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated, according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials. While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help assess what proportion of verdicts are correct. “If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how often that happens.” A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publ...006/wp0605.pdf. To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict. “Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.” By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases. For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s. The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50 percent of the time.) To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury's verdict. Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100 percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury, or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
deadrat wrote:
On 2/19/13 8:17 PM, Bill Graham wrote: Mike F. wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:19:45 -0800, Bill Graham wrote: Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are mostly socialist. You should fit in well. Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist? Your posts. I am about as libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl Marx... You play the part of a libertarian on usenet. I don't, "play". Everything I post is my real opinion, and I never lie. Your accusation seems rather bizarre; why would a socialist post pro-libertarian material? I remember that "love it or leave it" BS from the Vietnam days. Aside from its other fallacies, why should people who oppose oppressive government policies be the ones who should leave? I obtained my property by working and paying for it, and I don't try to tell people what to do outside my property. The government obtained its control of the area by seizing it with force and massacring the native population. Look up the "Trail of Tears" for example. Pres. Jackson ignored the Supreme Court decision and forcibly drove the Cherokee from their land. http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNati...s/Default.aspx |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
jigo wrote:
deadrat wrote: On 2/19/13 8:17 PM, Bill Graham wrote: Mike F. wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:19:45 -0800, Bill Graham wrote: Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are mostly socialist. You should fit in well. Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist? Your posts. I am about as libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl Marx... You play the part of a libertarian on usenet. I don't, "play". Everything I post is my real opinion, and I never lie. Your accusation seems rather bizarre; why would a socialist post pro-libertarian material? I remember that "love it or leave it" BS from the Vietnam days. Aside from its other fallacies, why should people who oppose oppressive government policies be the ones who should leave? I obtained my property by working and paying for it, and I don't try to tell people what to do outside my property. The government obtained its control of the area by seizing it with force and massacring the native population. Look up the "Trail of Tears" for example. Pres. Jackson ignored the Supreme Court decision and forcibly drove the Cherokee from their land. http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNati...s/Default.aspx Tha5t's true, and I would love to go back to that time and undo whqat he did. but I wouldn;t fix it by giving them anything. I would fix it by making them citizens and telling them that they were going to have to accept our society and make it their own. And today, there is no way to fixit by any other means either. You can't fix it by making me, whose great grandfather was responiible, give something to their great grandchildren who were never harmed because they hadn't been born yte. but I have to live in this crazy, liberal, screwed up society, that has no logic.... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
On 2/20/13 10:22 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
jigo wrote: deadrat wrote: On 2/19/13 8:17 PM, Bill Graham wrote: Mike F. wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:19:45 -0800, Bill Graham wrote: Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are mostly socialist. You should fit in well. Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist? Your posts. I am about as libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl Marx... You play the part of a libertarian on usenet. I don't, "play". Everything I post is my real opinion, and I never lie. Your accusation seems rather bizarre; why would a socialist post pro-libertarian material? I remember that "love it or leave it" BS from the Vietnam days. Aside from its other fallacies, why should people who oppose oppressive government policies be the ones who should leave? I obtained my property by working and paying for it, and I don't try to tell people what to do outside my property. The government obtained its control of the area by seizing it with force and massacring the native population. Look up the "Trail of Tears" for example. Pres. Jackson ignored the Supreme Court decision and forcibly drove the Cherokee from their land. http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNati...s/Default.aspx Tha5t's true, and I would love to go back to that time and undo whqat he did. but I wouldn;t fix it by giving them anything. I would fix it by making them citizens and telling them that they were going to have to accept our society and make it their own. And today, there is no way to fixit by any other means either. You can't fix it by making me, whose great grandfather was responiible, give something to their great grandchildren who were never harmed because they hadn't been born yte. but I have to live in this crazy, liberal, screwed up society^H^H^H^H^H^H^H world inside my head, that has no logic.... Typo in your post. Fixed it for you. You're welcome. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
That's true, and I would love to go back to that time and undo what he
did. but I wouldn't fix it by giving them anything. I would fix it by making them citizens and telling them that they were going to have to accept our society and make it their own. And today, there is no way to fixit by any other means either. You can't fix it by making me, whose great grandfather was responiible, give something to their great grandchildren who were never harmed because they hadn't been born yte. but I have to live in this crazy, liberal, screwed up society, that has no logic.... Canada felt so guilty they gave back the whole huge Northwest territory to some native tribes. It was supposed to be renamed to Nunavut. How did they work that out for indiginous peoples in the lower provinces, Zeppy? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Do cops have something against dogs?
In article ,
"Mike F." wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:52:46 -0800, Bill Graham wrote: Greegor wrote: On Feb 17, 10:28 pm, Observer wrote: On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Moses -DESPAM wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus wrote: In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems like an epidemic. If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have. If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it, they have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate people and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of government. That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the crime rate in those studies by criminologists. I or a family member has been the victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times. The police solved none of them. Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners always get the right perp? While it might be useful to propagandize like this, to convince people how easily law enforcement catch every criminal, isn't this deception a perversion of democracy? Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being psychological operations against US citizens? What amazes me is how many people are doing life in prison when there was no forensic evidence at all that they committed the crime they are doing it for. They just happened to be the only ones the police had who had a motif, and the jury decided that that was enough to satisfy their "reasonable doubt" criteria. "If you stood to gain something, then you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," is their motus operendi. Just the other night, on the TV was the story of some poor Army slob who was tried 4 times in civilian court for a murder, and the judge declared a mistrail all four times, and then the Army tried him and he is today doing life without the possibility of parole in Leaverworth. So much for "double jepardy"....... If each trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy does not apply. Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country..... Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are mostly socialist. You should fit in well. Too cold. Could you help with airfare to the south of France? -- Welcome to the New America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg or E Pluribus Unum Next time vote Green Party |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do cops have something against dogs? | Bill Graham | Dog health | 0 | February 18th 13 11:20 PM |
Do cops have something against dogs? | Bill Graham | Dog health | 0 | February 18th 13 11:18 PM |
Pit Bulls on Animal Cops | Paula | Dog behavior | 21 | February 3rd 05 12:08 AM |