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:26374 Comments:66
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was describing the hiring from some articles we had about changes in police hiring and retention over at LP. They covered the whole country, not one locale or state.
In my opinion, the biggest flaw in hiring (that I'm familiar with) is picking candidates based on highest civil service test scores and not common sense.
Some of the worst officers I've ever trained were college grads.
In my opinion, the biggest flaw in hiring (that I'm familiar with) is picking candidates based on highest civil service test scores and not common sense.
My guess is that NYS actually has fewer problems this way than some of the deep South states.
I'm not sure about the south. I know this, the two highest state training standards belong to the two most libtard states, California and New York State. Training and common sense are essential in the making of a well rounded officer. Many departments lack in training because they cut their budgets in that area.
Southern states are always trying to get already trained NYS officers to move south and work for them.
Southern states are always trying to get already trained NYS officers to move south and work for them.
Of course. And in rural areas, you'll see the counties pay for training sheriffs and deputies who, if they're any good, promptly get stolen away for more money by higher paying municipal PDs. It drives rural commissioners and little town boards crazy as they pay for one deputy after the next to get job training to go work somewhere else. Finally they seem to find some slug that no one else would really want and they actually stick around to work the job. That undoubtedly makes the town board and the sheriff feel real good about the process, eh?
You also see the towns of 10,000-20,000 sharpshoot the best teachers out of the small surrounding rural schools. It's not resented exactly but it doesn't go unnoticed.
I'm just saying this problem of cross-recruiting is hardly unique to NYS or to police.