Other
See other Other Articles
Title: For Police: Postal Worker Accidentally Makes Video on How Not To Shoot Dogs
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01 ... ostal-worker-accidentally.html
Published: Jan 28, 2015
Author: Amanda Warren
Post Date: 2015-02-02 09:45:51 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 23879
Comments: 66
Activist Post
An Australian motovlogger shoots dogs - with a DriftHD 1080P camera. His other armament? Treats.
This postal worker comes across friendly dogs, but also plenty of vicious dogs who will bite him if they get a chance. And sometimes, those dogs get loose. He nonchalantly points to a dog who bit him in the past. He wants people to know that "posties" love dogs. What would he think of our American police state that trains officers to shoot any kind of breed? Without prompting.
But police officers always voice the fear of getting bit. This fear is upheld in the highest honor to them. "They were not bit because of their quick action. Basically, that was the end of the story." They shoot dogs before there would even be a remote possibility. It's the end of every senselessly bloody story where the owner is left to clean the mess; left with the bill and a ticket. "All I have to say is that I feel they're a threat."
Unfortunately, witnesses often report the dog's friendly demeanor, but officers will falsify reports or say "there was a look in his eye." They offer absurd, irrational responses. They intrude on someone's property and then claim the dog was "aggressing" them, when it barks or approaches. They cry "Pitbull!" when it's not, nor is that a cause for execution. Let's not forget that killing animals for no cause is a hallmark of psychopaths.
But regular, rational people cannot fathom this, so they might go along with blaming the owners. They might claim there is a lack of proper training, that officers should be encouraged to use non-lethal methods. They already can but they don't. "If they hesitate it could be their own lives," people have said. To date, no officers have been killed by dogs. But one recently coaxed a friendly dog over to him in order to kill it. People need to know that none of these things account for police killing tiny breeds, chained or tied dogs, cats, kittens, squirrels, baby deer, docile cows, or a parakeet - and of course, innocent people. Nor does it account for using live, injured animals for target practice.
Mind acrobatics must be performed to justify the widespread killing of domestic companions when you consider that there has not been a movement on the part of postal workers and all forms of delivery people to be allowed to shoot animals that they come into personal contact with on a daily basis. Nor would society be too keen on arming them for indiscriminate blasting or cutting - not even for fear's sake.
One guy wants to show you how to get the job done. Please also see The Free Thought Project's report on the topic, where I saw this video first.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 64.
#1. To: Deckard, GrandIsland (#0)
Not just psychopaths. I've read before that dogs are shot at much higher rates by physically inadequate male cops and female cops in general. And that the media does everything it can to keep this fact from the public. Being a cop is a job for a large physically capable man of even emotional disposition. No matter what the feminists and queer studies academics say.
And those are the people at the very bottom of the PC Hiring List.
Actually, we do know what police forces do favor in hiring now. Combat vets. They exclude people with IQs over 100. Also anyone with much education. They exclude people with a strong personal moral code like Christianity that might override commands given by superiors, as in being ordered to beat an irascible old guy in a wheelchair in Texas (an actual case a fine Christian officer was dismissed over). So those will be your core force. Toss in a bunch of affirmative action hires including gays and women who rarely top the physical fitness and aptitude lists. And you have a modern militarized police force that tasers old people and shoots dogs. A lot of it comes from these private police training groups. They have spread a lot of poisonous ideas and attitudes to police across the country.
Excuse me? I really don't think you intended to imply that combat vets are stupid or have low IQ's,but you need to clarify that statement.
No, I'm not kidding. They indicated that many PDs rejected anyone with an IQ as high as 110. Average intelligence or lower only. And no one with a strongly formed moral character that might lead them to act independently. Meaning pretty much devout Christians of any flavor.
No, I'm not kidding. They indicated that many PDs rejected anyone with an IQ as high as 110. Average intelligence or lower only. Let's clarify,ok? You are still making the claim that combat veterans have below normal IQ's?
You have trouble grasping this apparently. No. I never said that at all. I'm saying that many PDs have switched to a policy by which they prefer to hire vets but they do not hire any with an IQ above 100 as a matter of policy. If you're a dumb vet (like a 90 IQ), you're in. If you're an average vet (100 IQ), you're in. If you're a smart vet (IQ 110+), hit the road 'cause they don't want you. Also, serious Christians need not apply. I'm rather surprised you never read those threads over at LP. We had a number of them talking about this policy change and that it was happening all around the country. I'm pretty sure these pieces were written at the end of the Bush years, before Obama came to power. For that matter, they were written before LP started having so many anti-cop articles posted every day.
I did read several of them,but I never once read one where someone stated that combat vets have low IQ's,which is exactly what you wrote. I didn't think you meant to express it that way and stated as much,so I asked you twice what your intent was. And got attitude in return.
Because I did not say that at all. Read it again and show me where I said that.
You still can't see how that reads?
You seem determined to read it in a way that is derogatory. First and foremost they want vets. Period, full stop. But not if they are above average IQ. Or highly educated. Especially not if they are committed serious Christians. I don't know how many times or how many ways I can say it.
If you repeat that lie ten times do you get a prize?
If the prize is no more of your queefing, sign me up.
Does that mean you didn't just pull that lie out of your posterior? Okay, what's the cite?
You are quite a helpless little thing, aren't you? Desperate to get a man to do anything for you, it seems. BTW, this was just the first search result I submitted so it didn't take any real talent to find this. You could have done it yourself in seconds if you weren't fixated on me like some crazy beyotch. DDG: police hiring discriminating against Christians and high IQ applicants Since you probably can't click a link unsupervised: Or are the courts saying that all vets are retarded, which is what I'm being accused of saying when all I did was report a ~5yo story accurately. Not that I am trolling for any apologies and don't want any. Also, for G.I., it seems someone is testing (or obtaining) IQ assessments on applicants. For vets, this might come from service records if the .gov is paying job training expenses and sharing info with the hiring PD.
Posting links that don't say what you falsely claimed. The favorite trick of cowardly liars everywhere. I'll give you another chance. Try not to punk out this time.
Maybe you'd be a less annoying woman if you spent more time with your vibrator. Seriously.
As predicted.
I know the Canaries with you as their Canaryette sidekick think you win every argument with annoying graphics but it isn't true. It just looks weak. I kicked your ass and you refuse to admit it. Fine, a garden-variety troll and contrarian. And a petty forum stalker to boot.
I think the objective for an ideal discussion is to learn and/or to teach. It's kinda like a market exchange insofar as each person does it for mutual gain. You should look upon a discussion as a pathway to intellectual growth and not as a way of "kicking someone's ass."
He wasn't actually looking at it that way. He was caught lying and that's his way of trying to cover his humiliation. He isn't capable of honest discussion.
Not at all. I posted the first four links of the first search I made, to accommodate your bitchy demand for cites to support my statement. Of those four results, 2 were ~15 years old and the remaining 2 were less than three years old. All supported exactly what I had said and affirmed that it was not only the establishing hiring practices of a number of PDs but that the courts supported this (anti-white) discrimination as lawful. In short, I knocked it out of the park on the first swing without trying. And you're trying to pretend it didn't happen. AGAIN. This is not the first time you've made a complete fool of yourself trying to hound me. It's not even the first time this week.
Of those four results, 2 were ~15 years old and the remaining 2 were less than three years old. All supported exactly what I had said You shameless liar. NONE of them said that police departments exclude people with IQs over 100. 1st Link (copied from my earlier post): "The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average." 2nd Link: No IQ score listed at all. 3rd Link: No IQ score listed at all. 4th Link: "The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average." Not only do the links not contain your falsehood, two of them explicitly refute it. Or perhaps you're too dim to understand simple math. You not only lie, you do little else.
You not only stalk me, you do little else. I'm not your search engine. Go screw yourself, you contrarian Harpy.
I wouldn't want a liar as a search engine.
Stone, will you tell this neglected woman to stop stalking me? Thanks.
#65. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#64)
Stone, will you ask this special snowflake not to cry when I reply to his posts to me? Thanks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestofficers will falsify reports or say "there was a look in his eye." They offer absurd, irrational responses. They intrude on someone's property and then claim the dog was "aggressing" them, when it barks or approaches. They cry "Pitbull!" when it's not, nor is that a cause for execution. Let's not forget that killing animals for no cause is a hallmark of psychopaths.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
Being a cop is a job for a large physically capable man of even emotional disposition.
#3. To: sneakypete, GrandIsland (#2)
#13. To: TooConservative (#3)
Combat vets. They exclude people with IQs over 100.
#19. To: sneakypete (#13)
Combat vets. They exclude people with IQs over 100.
#22. To: TooConservative (#19)
Combat vets. They exclude people with IQs over 100.
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
You are still making the claim that combat veterans have below normal IQ's?
#24. To: TooConservative (#23)
I'm rather surprised you never read those threads over at LP. We had a number of them talking about this policy change and that it was happening all around the country. I'm pretty sure these pieces were written at the end of the Bush years, before Obama came to power.
#27. To: sneakypete (#24)
I did read several of them,but I never once read one where someone stated that combat vets have low IQ's,which is exactly what you wrote.
Combat vets. They exclude people with IQs over 100. Also anyone with much education. They exclude people with a strong personal moral code like Christianity that might override commands given by superiors, as in being ordered to beat an irascible old guy in a wheelchair in Texas (an actual case a fine Christian officer was dismissed over).
#28. To: TooConservative (#27)
Combat vets. They exclude people with IQs over 100.
#31. To: sneakypete (#28)
You still can't see how that reads?
#33. To: TooConservative (#31)
(Edited)
But not if they are above average IQ.
#34. To: Palmdale (#33)
If you repeat that lie ten times to you get a prize?
#35. To: TooConservative (#34)
sign me up.
#36. To: Palmdale, also, sneakypete, GrandIsland (#35)
Okay, what's the cite?
Yes, you read those correctly: the courts say it's fine to discriminate against high IQ applicants. Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops - ABC News
Police Officially Refuse To Hire Applicants With High IQ ...
Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
Too smart to be a good cop - Gene Expression
#37. To: TooConservative (#36)
"They exclude people with IQs over 100."
#38. To: Palmdale (#37)
#39. To: TooConservative (#38)
#40. To: Palmdale (#39)
#42. To: TooConservative, Palmdale (#40)
I kicked your ass...
#49. To: Gatlin (#42)
You should look upon a discussion as a pathway to intellectual growth and not as a way of "kicking someone's ass."
#54. To: Palmdale (#49)
He wasn't actually looking at it that way. He was caught lying and that's his way of trying to cover his humiliation.
#58. To: TooConservative (#54)
(Edited)
I posted the first four links of the first search I made, to accommodate your bitchy demand for cites to support my statement.
#62. To: Palmdale (#58)
You not only lie, you do little else.
#63. To: TooConservative (#62)
I'm not your search engine.
#64. To: Palmdale, A K A Stone (#63)
Replies to Comment # 64.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 64.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]