Ft. Worth paper faints at online outrage over latest "cop kills dog" story.

[Anti Federalist]

You're a bunch of lunatics.



Shooting of dog by police brings strong reader response

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/31/3999876/shooting-of-dog-by-police-brings.html

Posted Thursday, May. 31, 2012 Updated Thursday, May. 31, 2012

FORT WORTH -- Readers upset that a Fort Worth police officer fatally shot a border collie mix Sunday have made their feelings known through e-mails and hundreds of comments on a story at star-telegram.com.

Readers have suggested that the officer -- who has not been identified -- overreacted, was "trigger happy," was inadequately trained and should be fired.

One reader questioned why it was acceptable for an officer to fatally shoot a dog while it was not OK for a fisherman to fatally shoot an 11-foot alligator that he felt threatened by in the Trinity River. In that recent incident, a man was cited for hunting by illegal means and methods and for not having a hunting license and faces $5,300 in restitution.

And while some people defended the officer's actions, others let their emotions run wild, saying they would retaliate against a police officer who shot their dog on their property, a troubling line of comments that blurs the line between free speech and terroristic threats.

This comment was among those deleted from star-telegram.com: "Here is a solution, if you see a cop shoot immediately it might save an innocent life.

Another solution, train dogs to attack anyone with a gun."

One reader's e-mail to the Star-Telegram said that if a police officer shot his dog, "Then we would have a big problem, because I would charge that cop and beat him senseless, if he hadn't already killed me too. Then, where would we be??? Dead dog, dead owner, or cop."

Fort Worth police say they are not responding to the threats.

"This is an emotionally charged issue and we understand that," Maj. Paul Henderson said in an e-mail. "What we would like for everyone to know is that we have been in contact with the family and are investigating the actions of the officer, his account of the incident, and potential tactical and/or policy violations. The incident will also undergo an independent review by our Critical Police Incident Review Board."

In general, the Star-Telegram will provide law enforcement agencies information on those whose posts are perceived as threatening.

'Castle Law!'

The shooting occurred after Mark and Cindy Boling returned to their home in the 4700 block of Norma Street with their two dogs and found an officer walking up the driveway.

The officer, who was assisting an officer investigating a copper theft in the area, was at the wrong address.

The Bolings' dogs started barking and the officer asked the owner to control them, while at the same time the owner asked the officer to stand where he was. Boling said that he told the officer that his dogs do not bite but that the officer continued to approach.

The officer was waiting by the driveway when the two barking dogs charged him aggressively while he repeatedly asked the owner to call the animals back, according to Sgt. Pedro Criado, police spokesman.

Boling said that he gained control of one of the dogs but that the officer raised his gun and fired once, striking the other dog -- Lily, a border collie-English setter mix. The dog dashed into the back yard, where it died within minutes.

One reader said in a online comment that his "property is protected by Castle Law! That means that if you come onto my 'private property' to kill animals, people or to take property you are going to die here. Wearing a costume will not change this! Being a city employee will not change this! Being armed will not change this! Private Property means just what it says."

Joe Larsen, a Houston-based First Amendment attorney, said such comments are protected by the Constitution. The posts are conditional, Larsen said -- what would happen in a certain situation.

"This guy is not advocating going out and killing a cop," Larsen said.

Still, targeting police officers on newspaper websites is not going to win the posters any friends, Larsen said.

"More speech is always better than less," he said. "But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you have more people posting on that site that are holding that person up to ridicule."

'Fringe outlooks'

Social media have completely changed the way we communicate, Larsen said, explaining that people now respond to information sooner after digesting it and that that is not always a good thing.

"I'm astonished when I read a lot of the posts," Larsen said. "People with fringe outlooks are able to find others like them. There was no forum for this type of speech 20 years ago. There's the opportunity for extreme opinions to come forward and make themselves known where they would not have had the opportunity in the past."

In the past, the media acted as a filter, said Tyler Barnett, a social media expert and president of Tyler Barnett Public Relations in Beverly Hills, Calif. Advances in social media have eliminated that filter, allowing lunatics to voice their opinions, he said. People have to be prepared for the good and the bad when a forum opens itself up to the public, Barnett said. However, he said, "I don't think it's ever appropriate to threaten to kill someone."

(Unless you're the President or other government official. Then it's perfectly OK. - AF)

To be relevant in today's market, a 21st-century news organization needs to have a forum where people can share ideas, said Jake Batsell, an assistant professor of digital journalism at Southern Methodist University. Usually, the forum adds a lot to the conversation, Batsell said. And usually, as with this story, most of the comments are civil.

Some news outlets are experimenting with ways to compel posters to identify themselves as a way to raise the level of discourse, Batsell said.

Some outlets have devised ways to tie posters' screen names to Facebook or Twitter profiles. Other communication companies' comment sections are monitored by full-time moderators, which has elevated the dialogue but is time-consuming and expensive, Batsell said.

[Vessol]

I used to be able to come up with something to say or something to comment on..but I just can't anymore.

The blatant disregard for property and life is sickening. The near worship and adoration of anyone in the costume of the State is revolting.

I'm not desensitized, I just don't know what to say anymore...

[Pericles]

This shows that Texas is not yet hopeless. However, we will be hard up to find any friends in the media, and there is not a paper or other news outlet of any size, not controlled by some major corporation.

[Anti Federalist]

Found this in my travels.

Cops Don’t Make Me Feel Safe

Posted on May 29, 2012.

http://www.copblock.org/16190/cops-dont-make-me-feel-safe/

This well written, eloquent wake-up call was submitted to us by a friend over at www.ericpetersautos.com We couldn’t have said it better ourselves!

It has been said – and I agree – that the typical person (i.e., the person just trying to get through the day, do their thing) has more to fear from a cop than a (non-official, non-uniformed) criminal.

Harsh? No, a reality check.

I’m in my mid-40s and – so far – have not been robbed at gunpoint by an ordinary criminal. But I have been robbed at gunpoint literally dozens of times by cops, who have a license to rob me. Cumulatively, the total I’ve had to “stand and deliver” – in the felicitous phrase of the appropriately named highway robber of yore – comes to thousands of dollars, over the past twenty-something years. It’s dressed up, of course – in order to make the cop feel better about himself and what he’s doing (he’s just keeping us safe, etc.) and also to douse the rage of his victim by getting him to accept what’s done to him as something other than it is.

That being, a robbery at gunpoint.

After all, I have committed no crime, properly speaking. I have caused no harm to anyone. Yet I am molested by a guy in a uniform – with a gun on his hip – because he has noticed I am not wearing a seat belt, or because my vehicle does not have the requisite tax stamps upon it, or because my velocity is greater than the velocity posted on a sign. It may not be any of these things. It may be simply that I happen to be on a given road at a given time. I – and all the others who happen to be on that road at that time – are forcibly compelled to interrupt our journey, roll down our windows and submit to a roadside inspection-interrogation, with the implicit threat of lethal violence if we fail in the slightest way to Submit and Obey.

It does not make me feel safe. Does it make you feel safe?

I do not especially fear louty-looking thugs approaching me on the street. I’m not a tough guy, but I am a bigger than average guy – and I usually carry a big gun. If the thugs come at me, I am reassured by my physical capacity to resist and defend myself – and also by the fact that the law is still (for the moment) on my side, should I be forced to defend myself. I know I have a shot, at least. It may not be a fair fight (what fight is?) but at least I can fight.

I cannot fight Officer 82nd Airborne. Which is why he scares me a lot more than a crew of street toughs. Not because he’s bigger or tougher than me. But because it does not matter how big and tough he is – or how big and tough I am. He has the entire weight of the state behind him. Legions of toughs – and the full apparatus of the system – are on his team. The toughest, roughest Navy SEAL or Hell’s Angel stands as much chance against this juggernaut as Pee Wee Herman does of becoming the next UFC heavyweight champ.

Which is why I am just as fearful of a bloated, out-of-shape lout in uniform as I am of Officer 82nd Airborne. Or even a female a third my size… if she’s in uniform. Ordinarily, I’d just walk away from such people. And if they jumped me, I’d stand more than a fair chance of getting them off me. But because I am legally powerless to defend myself against them, no matter what I’ve done (or not done) and no matter what they do to me, no matter how outrageous, I feel anything but safe in their vicinity. To do so much as raise one’s hand to ward off a blow – to try to retreat and get away from an assault by a cop – is the equivalent of the opening bell at a boxing match. Only you’re not allowed to box back – and there’s no retreating to your corner. And there is no ref standing ready to end the fight.

This does not make me feel very safe. To know that I am potentially at the mercy of another person – a random stranger – merely because that person is wearing a uniform and has been anointed a “law enforcement” officer. To know that such a person has the legal authority to screw with me, for any or no reason at all – at any moment. It is just a matter of our paths crossing – and the stranger in uniform deciding it’s my turn.

This is the reality. “Law” no longer binds “enforcement.” Or rather, the law is no longer a restraint on the enforcers. It is their carte blanche – their pretext for doing anything to anyone – and maybe later, there might be some partial accountability if all the Ts were not appropriately crossed.

In court, the cop’s statements will be taken as gospel truth simply by dint of the cop’s having said them. My statements, on the other hand, will be treated as “hearsay” – if the judge allows them to be heard at all – and dismissed out of hand absent your $lawyer$ managing to get incontrovertible video evidence into play. If there’s video evidence. If the evidence is admitted. If you had the money to hire a $lawyer$ to operate the levers of the system – levers you and I and other Mundanes are not allowed to touch.

I have come to understand – a little bit, at least, what it must have felt like to be a “citizen” of the Soviet Union. And I can remember when much of what the government did was based on the idea that we didn’t want to end up like citizens of the Soviet Union: “compelling state interest” or “security” (and “safety” – that is, the safety of the enforcers and the system ) trumping all; nonexistent personal liberties; having to Submit and Obey at every turn to petty (and not-so-petty) authority figures in funny costumes.

It is important to be safe and secure.

But when the state may do almost anything to anyone, at anytime, for any reason or no reason at all, then no one is safe.

I hope enough of us figure this out in time.

[Anti Federalist]

I used to be able to come up with something to say or something to comment on..but I just can't anymore.

The blatant disregard for property and life is sickening. The near worship and adoration of anyone in the costume of the State is revolting.

I'm not desensitized, I just don't know what to say anymore...

Here's the gut punch:

There would never have been this level of outrage at a cop killing an unarmed man for no reason.

[Pericles]

That missive in post #4 was really good.

[phill4paul]

Here's the gut punch:

There would never have been this level of outrage at a cop killing an unarmed man for no reason.

Or a woman like Patricia Clark.

[Anti Federalist]

Typical Pavlovian response.

I swear, these people will apologize and lick boots when they come and slaughter the first borns.




Outcry and threats meet officer who shot Border Collie

by CRAIG CIVALE

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Outcry-and-threats-meet-officer-who-shot-Border-Collie-156489085.html

Posted on June 1, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Updated today at 12:22 PM

FORT WORTH - Her name was Lily. A five-year-old Border Collie shot in her own yard by a Fort Worth police officer, despite pleas from the dog's owners.

"I'm yelling, 'My dogs don't bite, they're not aggressive, they're coming to greet you," said the dog's owner, Mark Boling. "He turned and shot Lily in the back."

The deadly shooting has triggered plenty of outrage.

The Fort Worth Police Department's Chief of Staff, Major Paul Henderson, tweeted "several threats have been received," and went on to say, "I have had contact with the family about the incident."

Online we found more nasty comments.

There are calls for the officer to be fired. Someone else threatens "payback's coming." And one person commented, "if he was that scared, I'm not sure if I want him to protect my family."

Boling called for calm.

"I know there are lots of animal lovers who feel for my wife and I, but this is the wrong approach," he said.

Though he still believes the officer was wrong, Boling wants to see a policy change, not a police officer fired.

Fort Worth police said the department has about 20 officer-involved animal shootings a year. However, this one, involving this breed of dog, is different.

"I think most people would think that a Border Collie is gentle - a children's dog," Boling said. "I'm sure that has to do a lot with the outcry."

Police say their officer believed the dog was being aggressive. They continue to investigate, while trying to control the backlash.

[Vessol]

*wringing his hands* Well I don't want to hold anyone responsible, I just want to change some policy which I can't really specify in any specific way.

[heavenlyboy34]

In the past, the media acted as a filter, said Tyler Barnett, a social media expert and president of Tyler Barnett Public Relations in Beverly Hills, Calif. Advances in social media have eliminated that filter, allowing lunatics to voice their opinions, he said. People have to be prepared for the good and the bad when a forum opens itself up to the public, Barnett said. However, he said, "I don't think it's ever appropriate to threaten to kill someone."

Because only lunatics would be upset at cops slaughtering people's pets for no good reason. :rolleyes: /lunatic

[Anti Federalist]

Because only lunatics would be upset at cops slaughtering people's pets for no good reason. :rolleyes: /lunatic

This was for their own good, citizen.

Can't you understand that?

Reported.

[evilfunnystuff]

"I think most people would think that a Border Collie is gentle - a children's dog," Boling said. "I'm sure that has to do a lot with the outcry."

I hate this "racist" shit.

[trey4sports]

he needs to be working in the private sector.

[heavenlyboy34]

This was for their own good, citizen.

Can't you understand that?

Reported.
They're coming to take me away! :eek::toady:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-lJZiqZaGA

[phill4paul]

There is a difference between a threat and a WARNING! That being said, DO NOT come on my property and shoot my dog. I WILL kill you where you stand with your smoking gun. Discharging a fire arm on my property in an aggressive manner is an act of WAR. I will act in an defensive yet aggressive manner.

This is NOT a threat. It IS a WARNING.

Put me on your list. Read my name every day.

[Henry Rogue]

crazy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypwM-mVqSEg&feature=relmfu

[PaulConventionWV]

You're a bunch of lunatics.



Shooting of dog by police brings strong reader response

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/31/3999876/shooting-of-dog-by-police-brings.html

Posted Thursday, May. 31, 2012 Updated Thursday, May. 31, 2012

FORT WORTH -- Readers upset that a Fort Worth police officer fatally shot a border collie mix Sunday have made their feelings known through e-mails and hundreds of comments on a story at star-telegram.com.

Readers have suggested that the officer -- who has not been identified -- overreacted, was "trigger happy," was inadequately trained and should be fired.

One reader questioned why it was acceptable for an officer to fatally shoot a dog while it was not OK for a fisherman to fatally shoot an 11-foot alligator that he felt threatened by in the Trinity River. In that recent incident, a man was cited for hunting by illegal means and methods and for not having a hunting license and faces $5,300 in restitution.

And while some people defended the officer's actions, others let their emotions run wild, saying they would retaliate against a police officer who shot their dog on their property, a troubling line of comments that blurs the line between free speech and terroristic threats.

This comment was among those deleted from star-telegram.com: "Here is a solution, if you see a cop shoot immediately it might save an innocent life.

Another solution, train dogs to attack anyone with a gun."

One reader's e-mail to the Star-Telegram said that if a police officer shot his dog, "Then we would have a big problem, because I would charge that cop and beat him senseless, if he hadn't already killed me too. Then, where would we be??? Dead dog, dead owner, or cop."

Fort Worth police say they are not responding to the threats.

"This is an emotionally charged issue and we understand that," Maj. Paul Henderson said in an e-mail. "What we would like for everyone to know is that we have been in contact with the family and are investigating the actions of the officer, his account of the incident, and potential tactical and/or policy violations. The incident will also undergo an independent review by our Critical Police Incident Review Board."

In general, the Star-Telegram will provide law enforcement agencies information on those whose posts are perceived as threatening.

'Castle Law!'

The shooting occurred after Mark and Cindy Boling returned to their home in the 4700 block of Norma Street with their two dogs and found an officer walking up the driveway.

The officer, who was assisting an officer investigating a copper theft in the area, was at the wrong address.

The Bolings' dogs started barking and the officer asked the owner to control them, while at the same time the owner asked the officer to stand where he was. Boling said that he told the officer that his dogs do not bite but that the officer continued to approach.

The officer was waiting by the driveway when the two barking dogs charged him aggressively while he repeatedly asked the owner to call the animals back, according to Sgt. Pedro Criado, police spokesman.

Boling said that he gained control of one of the dogs but that the officer raised his gun and fired once, striking the other dog -- Lily, a border collie-English setter mix. The dog dashed into the back yard, where it died within minutes.

One reader said in a online comment that his "property is protected by Castle Law! That means that if you come onto my 'private property' to kill animals, people or to take property you are going to die here. Wearing a costume will not change this! Being a city employee will not change this! Being armed will not change this! Private Property means just what it says."

Joe Larsen, a Houston-based First Amendment attorney, said such comments are protected by the Constitution. The posts are conditional, Larsen said -- what would happen in a certain situation.

"This guy is not advocating going out and killing a cop," Larsen said.

Still, targeting police officers on newspaper websites is not going to win the posters any friends, Larsen said.

"More speech is always better than less," he said. "But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you have more people posting on that site that are holding that person up to ridicule."

'Fringe outlooks'

Social media have completely changed the way we communicate, Larsen said, explaining that people now respond to information sooner after digesting it and that that is not always a good thing.

"I'm astonished when I read a lot of the posts," Larsen said. "People with fringe outlooks are able to find others like them. There was no forum for this type of speech 20 years ago. There's the opportunity for extreme opinions to come forward and make themselves known where they would not have had the opportunity in the past."

In the past, the media acted as a filter, said Tyler Barnett, a social media expert and president of Tyler Barnett Public Relations in Beverly Hills, Calif. Advances in social media have eliminated that filter, allowing lunatics to voice their opinions, he said. People have to be prepared for the good and the bad when a forum opens itself up to the public, Barnett said. However, he said, "I don't think it's ever appropriate to threaten to kill someone."

(Unless you're the President or other government official. Then it's perfectly OK. - AF)

To be relevant in today's market, a 21st-century news organization needs to have a forum where people can share ideas, said Jake Batsell, an assistant professor of digital journalism at Southern Methodist University. Usually, the forum adds a lot to the conversation, Batsell said. And usually, as with this story, most of the comments are civil.

Some news outlets are experimenting with ways to compel posters to identify themselves as a way to raise the level of discourse, Batsell said.

Some outlets have devised ways to tie posters' screen names to Facebook or Twitter profiles. Other communication companies' comment sections are monitored by full-time moderators, which has elevated the dialogue but is time-consuming and expensive, Batsell said.

The first reader comment in the article was ruined by terrible punctuation. I could barely tell what they were trying to say.

[Anti Federalist]

The first reader comment in the article was ruined by terrible punctuation. I could barely tell what they were trying to say.
Which one?

They scroll from newest to oldest.

[PaulConventionWV]

Here's the gut punch:

There would never have been this level of outrage at a cop killing an unarmed man for no reason.

As much as it's hard to wrap my head around this, I can't help acknowledging its truth. The Sunday school teacher who was shot dead by a cop for rolling up the window and driving away when she was approached for simple suspicion by a third party never had much outrage shown in her name. Her husband was "sad." An eyewitness gave his account with little emotional detail. Beyod that, nobody said a word.

I think there is a sense of "justification" when a cop kills a person. In other words, it MUST have been justified because cops don't just go around killing innocent civilians... right? However, when it's a dog, many more people will say the dog was just wanting to play or whatever and there's not as much fear of blowback when people question the treatment of a dog. Maybe I have that backward, but either way, the phenomenon you have pointed out, AF, is truly strange to me. Maybe people really do care more about dogs than other people.

After all, people view dogs as "man's best friend." What they mean by that is, potentially, their best friend. When it comes to another man, it seems people are too busy worrying about their own lives that, as long as they get what they want, they don't feel obligated to speak out against what happens to other people. After all, they didn't know that person. People feel like they know a dog before they ever meet it because, well, it's a dog. Just like you know a prized piece of art before you meet it, a dog is something a lot of people will recognize immediately as a universal good. A random person, on the other hand, we could care less about. Part of it may be the state propaganda that leads us to view each and every person as a criminal, or it may just be our natural way of viewing the world. Look out for yourself. If someone destroys or shows they are capable of destroying, without any repercussion, one of your most valuable possessions, such as a dog, people feel outraged becaue it affects them. If, on the other hand, an innocent person is killed, many may feel they should just lay low because it doesn't affect them. Our sense of self-protection often outweighs our yearning for justice.

A cop kills a man? None of my business. A cop kills a dog? I just may be able to feel outraged by that. It's all a result of the drone mentality that causes us only to focus on our own path to happiness. If that is threatened or insulted or made insecure in any way, we lash out. If another individual is targeted, we say too bad so sad and move right along on our little train track to success, with the state as our conductor.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Boling called for calm.

"I know there are lots of animal lovers who feel for my wife and I, but this is the wrong approach," he said.

Though he still believes the officer was wrong, Boling wants to see a policy change, not a police officer fired.



I don't know what to say. I'd be calling for criminal charges after the firing. If that's how strong their reaction is, they can expect no policy change, either.



"I'm astonished when I read a lot of the posts," Larsen said. "People with fringe outlooks are able to find others like them. There was no forum for this type of speech 20 years ago.

This shit didn't happen so often 20 years ago. 40 years ago, the "others like them" were called neighbors and wouldn't put up with this from police.

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for taking the time to type out what I think about this.

No further justification is needed other than to look at the outrage at the puppy throwing Marine in Iraq.

The fact that he may have vaporized ten families in their hovels the day before means nothing

But let him throw a puppy off cliff...

+rep


As much as it's hard to wrap my head around this, I can't help acknowledging its truth. The Sunday school teacher who was shot dead by a cop for rolling up the window and driving away when she was approached for simple suspicion by a third party never had much outrage shown in her name. Her husband was "sad." An eyewitness gave his account with little emotional detail. Beyod that, nobody said a word.

I think there is a sense of "justification" when a cop kills a person. In other words, it MUST have been justified because cops don't just go around killing innocent civilians... right? However, when it's a dog, many more people will say the dog was just wanting to play or whatever and there's not as much fear of blowback when people question the treatment of a dog. Maybe I have that backward, but either way, the phenomenon you have pointed out, AF, is truly strange to me. Maybe people really do care more about dogs than other people.

After all, people view dogs as "man's best friend." What they mean by that is, potentially, their best friend. When it comes to another man, it seems people are too busy worrying about their own lives that, as long as they get what they want, they don't feel obligated to speak out against what happens to other people. After all, they didn't know that person. People feel like they know a dog before they ever meet it because, well, it's a dog. A person, on the other hand, we could care less about. Part of it may be the state propaganda that leads us to view each and every person as a criminal, or it may just be our natural way of viewing the world. Look out for yourself. If someone destroys or shows they are capable of destroying, without any repercussion, one of your most valuable possessions, such as a dog, people feel outraged becaue it affects them. If, on the other hand, an innocent person is killed, many may feel they should just lay low because it doesn't affect them. Our sense of self-protection often outweighs our yearning for justice.

A cop kills a man? None of my business. A cop kills a dog? I just may be able to feel outraged by that. It's all a result of the drone mentality that causes us only to focus on our own path to happiness. If that is threatened or insulted or made insecure in any way, we lash out. If another individual is targeted, we say too bad so sad and move right along on our little train track to success, with the state as our conductor.

[heavenlyboy34]

As much as it's hard to wrap my head around this, I can't help acknowledging its truth. The Sunday school teacher who was shot dead by a cop for rolling up the window and driving away when she was approached for simple suspicion by a third party never had much outrage shown in her name. Her husband was "sad." An eyewitness gave his account with little emotional detail. Beyod that, nobody said a word.

I think there is a sense of "justification" when a cop kills a person. In other words, it MUST have been justified because cops don't just go around killing innocent civilians... right? However, when it's a dog, many more people will say the dog was just wanting to play or whatever and there's not as much fear of blowback when people question the treatment of a dog. Maybe I have that backward, but either way, the phenomenon you have pointed out, AF, is truly strange to me. Maybe people really do care more about dogs than other people.

After all, people view dogs as "man's best friend." What they mean by that is, potentially, their best friend. When it comes to another man, it seems people are too busy worrying about their own lives that, as long as they get what they want, they don't feel obligated to speak out against what happens to other people. After all, they didn't know that person. People feel like they know a dog before they ever meet it because, well, it's a dog. A person, on the other hand, we could care less about. Part of it may be the state propaganda that leads us to view each and every person as a criminal, or it may just be our natural way of viewing the world. Look out for yourself. If someone destroys or shows they are capable of destroying, without any repercussion, one of your most valuable possessions, such as a dog, people feel outraged becaue it affects them. If, on the other hand, an innocent person is killed, many may feel they should just lay low because it doesn't affect them. Our sense of self-protection often outweighs our yearning for justice.

A cop kills a man? None of my business. A cop kills a dog? I just may be able to feel outraged by that. It's all a result of the drone mentality that causes us only to focus on our own path to happiness. If that is threatened or insulted or made insecure in any way, we lash out. If another individual is targeted, we say too bad so sad and move right along on our little train track to success, with the state as our conductor.
I suspect that the problem is moreso an irrational reverence and deference to the cops when they're dealing with people. (they're the "good guys", right? Only "bad guys" resist the cops, right?)

[PaulConventionWV]

I suspect that the problem is moreso an irrational reverence and deference to the cops when they're dealing with people. (they're the "good guys", right? Only "bad guys" resist the cops, right?)

Perhaps. I did sort of mention that in the second paragraph. I admit I am a bit biased to think it's in people's nature because of what I have seen from so many people.

[Kluge]

Thanks for taking the time to type out what I think about this.

No further justification is needed other than to look at the outrage at the puppy throwing Marine in Iraq.

The fact that he may have vaporized ten families in their hovels the day before means nothing

But let him throw a puppy off cliff...

+rep

A year or so ago I disagreed with you about the outrage over pets being killed being more vocal than that of humans being murdered. After Aiyesha Jones, the lady in the parking lot, the Marine in Arizona, several massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many, many other incidents, I've changed my mind.

[Anti Federalist]

A year or so ago I disagreed with you about the outrage over pets being killed being more vocal than that of humans being murdered. After Aiyesha Jones, the lady in the parking lot, the Marine in Arizona, several massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many, many other incidents, I've changed my mind.
I'm not happy that you are convinced, trust me.