I am curious about that "crisis". Their solution is probably to reelect Obama, because of "change".Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
Printable View
I am curious about that "crisis". Their solution is probably to reelect Obama, because of "change".Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
That's some funny stuff right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Sent from somewhere...
General Betrayus took all the COINs when he retired. He’s swimming in them like Scrooge McDuck.
I miss the days when EVERYONE could agree that pedos are the worst of the worst and they weren't welcome anywhere. If we can't ALL agree on that simple fact, we're f'kd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
https://youtu.be/Jyb2JhysVr4
This interview is a year old. George Floyd need not apply.
. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...58704db6a8.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
I'm going to disagree with you slightly on that point. The Left has been trying to mainstream pedo incrementally ever since the Clinton administration refused to reject NAMBLA. Just Some Guy's review said some of the outrage is overblown or mischaracterized a couple scenes but then he turned around and said a lot of the scenes WERE exploitative and unnecessary. Further, someone more than just the director had to have seen the scenes that WERE objectionable by any rational human being and okay them. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
To my mind, the producers, film editor, choreographer, cinematographer, etc. all had a chance to say "this is wholly inappropriate" and object -- but they didn't. It's like Hillary's illegal email server -- anyone in the Obama administration that received email from her HAD to see that she wasn't using the official State Department email server, that what she was doing was not only dangerous but illegal and yet no one objected, no one put a stop to it. If they knew, they were complicit.
You might say Netflix didn't know there was a scene of an 11-year-old flashing or others even worse but the picture they chose to grab for the movie poster was a 2 minute scene. Someone went through the film and chose that picture despite everything else in that scene. Hollywood IS filled with pedophiles and deviants. It's also filled with regressive Stalinists/Maoists. It's all part and parcel of the cultural and moral decay coming from the Left.
No disagreement there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I just wish there were more reliable sources, e.g. straight shooters, that you could go to and get "just the facts". But no, every damn source is so politicized that they have to exaggerate everything to extremes and take things out of context. Your post is probably a very accurate assessment. And there are certainly elements that want to normalize it, but I'd also say there has always been those elements (ETA right here, I'd also say it's important to never ignore those attempts and to respond to them). Statistically (nobody will believe this) there are fewer child sex abuse victims today than there were in the 50's. You were far more likely to get f*d in the A, as it's never been a "stranger danger" issue, it was a family/friend/neighbor issue. Those deviants have always been among us, but it used to be Mr. Creepy uncle could safely rely on victims A B and C being wholly ignored if they ever said anything. The level of education now is tremendously better on top of mandatory reporters... but it also leads to an illusion that s. abuse is more prevalent today than it was; that's only because only a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction was widely reported in generations past. And serial abusers really milked that.. *cough, insert catholic joke, cough*.
What is somewhat amusing is in prior generations, it was actually more normalized than it was now. Take the 60's and 70's for instance. If a 15 or 16yo went in and reported consensual sex with a drummer, they'd probably have been laughed at. There was some level of normalization with "slightly" underage shenanigans more so then than now. I can't remember the name of the famous director case back then (brain fart)... certainly don't want to be googling that. Now, you might actually make national news, and at minimum blow up with condemnation on twitter and trial by the public.
I'm not inventing the stats either, I've seen some detailed breakdown, but the per-capita prevalence of s abuse (reported or unreported) is actually significantly down from generations past. I'd also say pedos are far less normalized than they used to - historically while people would have condemned it conversationally, a surprising amount of people turned a blind eye to it and rationalized it when they saw evidence of it occurring.
(another ETA right here: We also can't forget it wasn't that many generations ago that it was wholly normalized to have teenage/adult relationships and marriage. That is often cited by those trying to normalize it; I am NOT. Progress has been made in many things in society, but we shouldn't edit history either).
Roman Polanski maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Yeah that's it. Granted, he was arrested and fled the country, that was from the actions mostly of a single judge. Society largely seemed to not care too much about it even after multiple more accusations from multiple teenagers.Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
He's also been supported by hollywood as well as a few foreign awards groups, to date. I think there was some grumbling during the pound me too movement. But that was swept under the rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Possible Compton shooter has $300K bounty and suspected of being in standoff right now...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angel...eputy-shooting
He was arrested, charged and pled guilty to the charge with some sort of wink-wink "understanding" that he'd get a slap on the wrist.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
When it came time for the actual sentencing, the judge sentenced him to a long prison term. It was after the sentencing that he fled the country.
So there's no question about Polanski's guilt - that was settled by his voluntary guilty plea.
I also wouldn't say that society didn't care about Polanski's drugging, rape, and sodomization of a teenager in the 1970s. Society at large didn't know about it because Hollywood and the MSM were complicit in covering the whole issue up. When it did come to light after his nomination for "The Pianist", the same group of people downplayed it, talked about his "artistic vision", complained about his not being able to return to the US to accept an Academy Award, etc.
The girl who was raped was by then a middle-aged mother and didn't want the spotlight. Prior to his nomination in 2002, the only thing I'd ever heard about him was that he'd directed "Chinatown" -- another film I didn't care for. When society at large did hear about it, I believe the near-universal reaction was a rejection of the storyline that he was a victimized artiste. There were in fact calls for him to be extradited but the Bush administration had a few other irons in the fire at the time and the Obama administration wouldn't even consider it.
I don't agree that society was more accepting of pedophilia 50 years ago although I do believe society was driven more to deny its existence or cover it up due to the shock and horror. There is a distinct difference. Hollywood and the MSM in recent years has been increasing its agitprop to accept all forms of sexual deviancy to include (but not limited to) pedophilia. I don't know why, best theory I can come up with is that they somehow think normalizing the LGTBTQ part of LGBTQIAWXYZ+ means they also have to increase acceptance of the extremes (that "WXYZ+" I make fun of). I don't accept that -- I can rail against "the agenda" from contemporary Hollywood and MSM without accepting or defending the Westboro Baptists. I can defend the 2A as protection against tyranny without supporting some nutjob spraying a concert in Las Vegas.
#fightback released a video describing the Kenosha shooting
https://youtu.be/E4dhPM99i4I
I'm still angry that Kyle Rittenhouse isn't home where he should be. Trump ought to put him in protection of US marshals. And BLM should be designated a "terrorist" group.
Gonna burn some more
Breanna Taylor case: 1 cop got 3x charges of wanton endangerment in the 1st degree. Not because rounds were fired into the apartment, but because rounds entered a neighboring apartment. Max 5yrs and $10k per count.
No other charges
I've been hearing Breonna Taylor isn't the angel some are making her out to be. Doesn't make what happened to her right by any means. But it sounds like she may have been knee deep in the drug dealing going on.
No, and as much as I disagree with no knock warrants even being legal, it does try to dispel the left's argument that the cops were at the wrong house. It also probably helped with only the one ex cop being charged with wanton endangerment instead of a manslaughter charge and the others charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
The press sure was quiet about the other resident shooting first as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Doesn't matter if she was an angel (clearly was not...), if your f' buddy tries to light up the police, there's a significant risk of catching flying metal. It's only recently that society forgot this. [facepalm]
News conference from the DA said it was unclear who fired first.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
And to be honest, (assuming the "knock and announce" wasn't done or heard), if someone kicks in your door, what are you gonna do?
And this is why we have AR-15's...
And that's why people get shot by the police...
And thats why cops can sit at every entrance and wait, or ring the doorbell and serve a warrant in person.
No knock raids are unconstitutional and nothing more than the government breaking and entering.
That's nothing more than an emotional rant against no-knock warrants. You may not like them, I may not like them, but saying they're "unconstitutional" is just your opinion and not the opinion of courts that've upheld them. Yes, they get abused occasionally. But they clearly serve a purpose in some circumstances and can be a valuable LE tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
At any rate, saying "Kick down my door and you are a thug~!" and "And this is why we have AR-15's..." serves no purpose other than chest beating. It's also a near guaranteed way to get yourself killed should the police ever kick down your door. The probability of which, by the way, is probably statistically a 0% chance. Look...I don't want my door to get kicked down by anyone, including the police. But I don't engage in the kind of behavior where that might be a problem. On the other hand, yes, sometimes the police make mistakes and it can be tragic. But why make it worse and wind up dead?
That's all well and good from a distance, but under what circumstances would a person ever be in where their door is getting kicked in and their first thought is, "Oh it must just be the police conducting a no-knock raid at the wrong address?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
We can statistically model (or arm chair quarter back) hypothetical situations until we're blue in the face, but the reality will never match. In order to properly respond to a no-knock at the wrong address, you'd have to retrain yourself to obediently prone out at the first sign of danger. Even though real home invasions are also statistically low, they are probably higher than botched police raids, so it wouldn't make sense to train yourself to properly deal with the lowest possibility scenario.
Gonna have to agree with Irv here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
While this can be chalked up as a tragic accident, and I don't think any sort of murder charges are warranted...
...shooting at someone who just kicked in your door that can't immediately be positively identified as the police, especially if you're the type of person who doesn't expect a late night visit from the police, isn't an unreasonable response from an occupant. That's actually something that should be an expected and common response to a perceived home invasion.
Assuming they TRULY didn't know it was the police, the occupants didn't do anything wrong.
Likewise, the police shooting back at someone whom they believe to be a bad guy trying to kill them isn't unreasonable either and why I agree murder charges are inappropriate.
Should planning and Intel have been better? Probably. Are no-knock raids questionable? Probably. But the police DID think there were bad peeps in there, they were right to shoot back. They shouldn't stand there and take it anymore than the occupants should.
Sucks. But shit happens.
Edit to add:. I do think it's appropriate to fire whoever is ultimately responsible for no-knocks at the wrong house. Everyone involved, no. But whoever was in charge of the op, absolutely. That's a major f'up.
I can recall at least one case in which the homeowner shot at, and hit, police who no-knocked the wrong house. By some sort of miracle, the homeowner wasn't killed.
Charges against the homeowner were considered but never went through IIRC.
Sucks for the officer that got shot (he lived) but charges against that homeowner would have been inappropriate in that case too.
I'll try to dig up the story...
I understand that. But does that training automatically default to "shoot first, ask questions later"? Do you automatically disregard almost all other training? Wouldn't it make sense if you're going to prepare for either scenario to prepare in a way that minimizes danger to you? Prepare your home. Technology is pretty amazing these days. Harden your bedroom. There are things that can be done that may buy you a few extra seconds to determine who it is in your home.
Police defunded themselves to the tune of $12 million. Not chest beating. Short of terrorist building bombs, the "LAW" needs to stop kicking down doors. They got indicted, they paid damages, BECAUSE IT IS WRONG!
Speaking honestly here, if LEO busted into my house with a typical ram my pants would be down even if I thought it was a dozen homeboys rolling in. I'm not ordinarily ready to kill someone within 0.5 seconds when I'm in my home.
Now, ymmv, I'm not speaking ill of anyone who carries in their home. I don't think her boyfriend fits the bill of upstanding citizen, in-home ccw. I'm pretty sure he was paranoid and ready for the wrong reasons.
Nothing that either of them deserved to die over, not justifying the no knock here, that's been discussed to death several times.
https://www.odmp.org/officer/6727-po...franklin-houseQuote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
I don't necessarily disagree that's it's wrong. But, whoever you're talking about didn't get indicted "because it's wrong"...they got indicted (OK...I'm guessing here) because they made a mistake.
Nope. Not that one. That dude being barricaded sounds like maybe he WAS actually a bad guy...Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
Edit: hard to Google old stories right now...everything is coming up about Taylor...
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/uncl...184541912.html
Apparently calling "uncle" is the problem, not the solution. I think we can rest assured that tomorrow will be a peaceful, sunshiney day, as all the progressive/socialist/anarchists have been satisfied with their coopted campaign against racism fixing such troubling issues in the US.
The whole ODMP version is basically a big lie. Guy was asleep, they wanted his son. They ended up with a pipe used for smoking pot. They used a no knock for a pot pipe based on bad information. There was no barricade, drugs, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
This is the one I was thinking of. Two officers were shot, not one as I remembered. Blurs the lines a bit regarding a true no-knock because technically they did knock before forcing entry at the wrong home.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ma...ng-house-raid/
Uh oh. Not good. Reports are that an officer has been shot in the riots tonight.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lor-death.html
No knock raids are a product of the war on drugs, which rationally hasn't had much of an effect. Eliminating no knock raids would be number one on my list of "police reforms". Of course the narrative no longer includes reasonable reforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I'm sure President Biden will bring about some reforms of this nature. I know some dyed in the wool Republicans saying they are not sure of Trump anymore. Maybe we need somebody else at the helm. Somebody promoting peace, not somebody saying he saw riot police beating protesters and it was a beautiful thing.