Good point. Similarly, most people have been sexually gratified by a pubescent child.

This is why I have an intense distrust of things like zero-tolerance policies... the spirit of the law is so much more important than the letter, and yet there are huge industries build up around manipulating the latter (lawyers, accountants, etc.)

sound like we agree the dog was scared but to what degree. for me its zero tolerance. i see the dog standing still, staring directly at him, knowing the man is aggravated and owner is startled too. you can see the dog go into sunken stature with ears back still staring. dog clearly knows something is wrong.

also agree she's (the bigger) asshole for doing this, but as a life-long dog owner you see this conflict play out countless times and usually using a normal voice to talk to the person is enough and you gain a new dog friend.

she seems to be a good doggo owner (takes dog for walks, dog has a jacket and seems happy otherwise) and hopefully this incident will help her close the gap on being an awesome pet owner.

Local politicians create the Law. PD is obligated to enforce it. on 1 - 10 he seemed about a 1 or 2. They should have taken him home and fined him a token amount (50 bucks ). However Law states ZERO tolerance which led to this sad situation.

Change the law so cops can have more discretion.

Guess MADD has a lot to do with current laws.

"There is plenty of scum to go around on both sides."

Ahh the classic false equivalency that Trump supporters often resort to.

First of all, every child should be taught at a young age that just because other children may act like little shits, that doesn't mean they can. The amount of functional adult Trump supporters who use "the Democrats are bad too!" as an excuse for Trump's behavior is just astounding. It's really just a pathetic diversionary tactic used to avoid discussing the issues at hand.

Second, your claim that Democrats are just as cruel is simply not true. Blaming Democrats for the very thing Trump is guilty of is a common smear tactic employed by extremist right wing propaganda.

Take Trump's zero tolerance policy which separated minors from their families for example. Right wing propaganda outlets like OAN love showing pictures of children housed alone in Obama era detention facilities and cry foul at the liberal media at the lack of coverage. The reality is that Obama faced a huge surge of thousand of unaccompanied minors from south america in 2014 who were detained. So yes, thousands of children were detained, but they were NOT separated from the families in the first place.

And while some families were separated during Obama's tenure, Obama's policies tried to limit this as much as possible. It is a far cry from what Trump's zero tolerance policy accomplished. The "liberal" media did not report this under Obama OR Bush simply because it was not an issue. If you believed that there was unfair media coverage for Trump on this issue, then you were lied to and manipulated. Its part of what we discussed earlier how Trump uses lies to discredit the media and further erode our democracy.

The point is that right wing propaganda and Trump himself routinely uses lies and deception to paint himself as the target of a "liberal media bias" that they themselves manufactured. And his gullible supporters like yourself love believing in his victim complex. If you don't believe me, then just refer to non partisan international sources like the BBC and you'll soon discover that Trump is just as shitty from an impartial view as the "biased liberal media" portrays him.

Both sides are not the same, no matter what lies Trump and Fox News et al. tries to tell you. And there are plenty of respectable media sources which are not CNN which also exposes Trump for the lying scum that he is.

Yep, a comedian on a comedy tour taking a joke picture pretending to assault a sleeping woman who then quit of his own accord is exactly the same as a long term pedophile who enjoys his parties full support and never backs down or apologizes even after losing, or a philanderer who blackmail his mistress by taking naked pictures of her tied up and threatening to make them public then fights removal.

There is no equivalency. There's not a monopoly on one side, no, but there's absolutely not "every bit as much corruption and dishonesty on the Democrat side of politics as there is on the Republican". Republican dishonesty is about selling the country to Russia and raiding the treasury, and hiding or excusing inexcusable behavior and permeates everything they say. Democratic dishonesty is about which email account an email came from and pretending the leadership has no bias, and bowing to hyper sensitivity and disingenuous faux outrage.

For example...
Asked how his tax plan benefits the rich, he replied....
Trump: "No, I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very very strongly, as you see, I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."

When asked about his rich friends....
"They can call me all they want; not going to help," he said Sept. 27, 2017. "I'm doing the right thing and it's not good for me, believe me."

When asked about the Trump zero tolerance plan to tear families apart as a political ploy, Trump claimed the Democrats did it and only they can reverse it, then he reversed his plan himself proving both family destroying lies to be lies.

The consistency, levels, and importance of the dishonesty from Republicans is exponentially greater than that from Democrats, who are far from perfect themselves.

Edit: Btw, Mahr has addressed the issue of him running for office repeatedly, he's capable and intelligent enough to be honest and say he's a horrible politician and would probably never run, and he knows he's far more influential exactly where he is than he might be as a freshman representative.....and he's smart enough to see that a candidate that gets out the vote for the opposition (like Clinton) is a horrendously stupid idea.
And Franken worked out great until he caved to false outrage and quit while pedophiles and abusive philanderers were welcomed into the opposing party feigning the outrage over a funny (but disrespectful) picture.

Funny, following the law isn't important when it's environmental law, or international law, charity law, fraud law, tax law, etc.....or when it takes effort to follow American law. That's why he spent money on building and running child jails instead of immigration judges, who could solve the problem 100% by making the application process last under 3 weeks.
Democratic politicians have tried to solve this repeatedly, but obstructionist republicans couldn't let any Obama laws pass and kicked it down the road to where we are now, where democratic bills stand zero chance of consideration, much less a vote.

Trump intentionally caused this with his presidential order to move to zero tolerance and arrest asylum seekers in an effort to force the political issue while Republicans only need to stop Democrats from filibustering, but enough Republicans balked at his monsterousness that he actually needs democrats votes now, something he won't get.

Since it's so often American policy and American drug trade that has made their homes terrible places, we owe those who our actions have displaced an opportunity for asylum.

It's like I come to your home, break in, take your valuables, burn the house down looking for more, then deride you for needing help, deny you shelter, and tell you to get your shit together and stabilize your life while my other gang members pick through the rubble of your home, then we dump you in Reno, your wife in Oklahoma, and your kids.....somewhere, not our problem, you find them.

There isn't some sudden rush of immigrants like Trump and oan/faux claim, the rate is still fairly steady.

Also, contrary to the lies you've repeated, no party advocates open borders. That's as true as saying Republicans are advocating the destruction of families and murder of children. Democrats have tried to fund rational immigration controls and have been stymied, but Republicans just want to lock the door and only let in those with connections and money.....like the Bin Ladens.

To think otherwise is just ignorant of the facts.

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that this was mostly an ignorant, fundamentally racist individual who was grieving the loss of her child and hated the fact that news media were making a (profitable) story out of that child's death.

Not saying that she wasn't racist, but this wasn't exactly high level oppression - the racist asshole here was very much at a power disadvantage. If the reporter had been a white man I'd guess she would call him a cocksucker - lashing out with the worst she had. I can understand a zero tolerance policy toward racist invective, but I can't really get behind dumping on this obviously powerless woman.

@SDGundamX

it is all good mate.
you vote however you wish,for whatever reasons you deem pertinent.

i do not identify so strongly with a video that it somehow represents me,or everything i stand for,and i have no issue if someone disagrees.though i always do respect when someone states WHY they downvoted.

which you did,and mad respect my man.

as i stated earlier i was fairly ignorant to a lot of this new flavor of social justice warrior.gamergate included.in fact,i still do find gamergate really that important in the larger context,though i am sure there are gamers who would disagree with me.

i found this video interesting in that it was addressing how the more radical and extreme elements were attempting to hijack public spaces by controlling language,and therefore dominate the conversation.

since i was not familiar with this particular youtubers stance on gamergate,nor followed his videos,i harbored zero bias on his conclusions.

in my opinion,this mans stance or political leanings in regards to gamergate is not enough of a valid reason to dismiss what he is laying down in this video.

what you are suggesting (and if i am reading your position wrong,please let me know),is that because this youtuber held a certain position on a related subject,devalues and dismisses his position on radical social justice warriors.

a good analogy is me pointing to the sky and stating "the sky is blue" and having my statement dismissed because you may disagree with my politics,religion or philosophy.

but that would not make my statement any less true.

i agree with you that it does not matter of someone is a narcissist or a special snowflake.it is the argument that matters.the IDEAS that should be examined for their veracity and clarity.

and yes,this youtuber makes certain assumptions that are not only irrelevant but extremely biased.

which brings me back to my main point.
freedom of speech and how these radicals attempt to impose their own selective bias by controlling the language we use to express ourselves and those very ideas that you and i find to important.

so while the radical right attempts to legislate morality and impose THEIR own narrow and subjective understandings on all of us.

the radical left is attempting to silence dissent and dialogue by controlling language by using this weird orwellian doublethink.

"zero tolerance for the intolerant" almost every college campus has something similar to this all over campus.

now THAT phrase is a brilliant example of orwellian doublethink.
definition of doublethink:The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

so my main point is in regards to freedom of speech and how the radical end of these social justice warriors are threatening that most basic and vital right.

did i get my point across?
well,the jury is still out,but i hope that at least i got a few people thinking and giving this situation a bit more scrutiny.

i am also attempting to address this phenom of binary thinking.
that because i post a video that criticizes the more radical elements of social justice warriors.this automatically translates to me being "anti-social justice warriors".

my recent posts on this matter have confused and troubled some sifters.because they had a certain mental image of who i was and because they may identify as a social justice warrior,my posts were offensive to them,and confusing.

now thankfully @Jinx spoke up and inquired about my reasons,because it appeared to him that i was behaving out of character.

but i am not.
i am,and always have been,about freedom,equality,fairness and justice.i apply that metric as evenly as i humanly can ( i make mistakes,of course).

bad ideas MUST be challenged and how this new batch of social justice warriors are behaving in order to further their agenda is a bad fucking idea.

does this mean trash ALL people who are socially conscious and wish to create a better world by fighting injustice,racism and bigotry?

of COURSE not!
but i do blame those well-intentioned people for not standing up this new form of bully groupthink.just because someone identifies as a social justice warrior does not mean that they get a free pass just for being part of a group.

so just like i blame the "good" cops who stand by and allow the "bad" cops to break the law,abuse their authority and behave like fascists with impunity.they are just as responsible as those cops who cross the line.

so while the intentions may be good,the execution is a horrible lovecraftian nightmare,with far reaching implications that affect us all and can be easily abused.

freedom of speech is good.
disagreement is healthy.
we cannot be so allergic to conflict that we shut down the conversation,and all reside in our own little echo chambers where everybody is agreeing and nobody is questioning.

as a society there is grave danger in that practice.

and that is really what i am talking about.
thanks for commenting my man.
as you may have figured out.this is a fairly important subject to me.
stay awesome!

@rbar
well,the man is obviously cis-gender scum.
he was encroaching on her "safe space" and derisive laughter is a form of violence,which "triggered" her response.so her reaction by way of eye-burning chemical deterrent is totally understandable.

she was just defending herself from the oppressive "patriarchy".

this just in:
a man who filmed having an altercation with a woman at a convenience store has lost his job.the company he works for,after being made aware of the employees behavior had this to say-"we hare at super PC mart have a zero tolerance for those in our employ who condone "rape culture".having been made aware of our employees abhorrent and insensitive behavior,have since terminated this mans employment.there is no room in our organization for men who would so callously disregard the plight of the fragile snowflake.his actions do not represent our ideals nor image and we humbly apologize to the victim".

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

No, I mentioned those few officers that had not seen the criminal action (and so not ignored it), they are just such a tiny minority that they are statistically insignificant. I gave them...and the non-corrupt forces an incredibly generous 10%, even though I believe the true measure is closer to <2%. I have yet to see an independent investigation of any police force that failed to find rampant criminal behavior force wide. I conceded that they likely do exist...somewhere...but they have yet to show themselves, and appear to be quite endangered if not extinct.
Whistleblowers do show up, but in such tiny numbers compared to total law enforcement that they statistically don't exist at all.
I understand that's your position, I just disagree. Ben Franklin was talking about private citizens VS law enforcement, and you have twisted it backwards. Those IN law enforcement have a higher duty to be honest, non-violent, non-criminals. Do you not agree? And please understand no one has suggested putting them all in prison based on a presumption of guilt...which is what Ben Franklin was talking about...the court of public opinion is a different matter. Also, in practice, assuming that all law enforcement is 'bad' and are untrustworthy liars actually lets far more innocent 'escape suffering', since they are the one's making the (often enough, false) charges. Just something to think about.

OK, let me try another tact. Do you think it's OK to put all members of a mafia crime family in prison, even though some may have done little more than honest accounting work? Well, I'm not suggesting prison, or even replacement, just meaningful, independent oversight EDIT:with real teeth. While I would LIKE to replace all officers (including the 'good' ones, let them all re-apply with stricter standards) and start fresh, I do see that that's not in any way reasonable or feasible...the best I can hope for is a change in behavior and a change in how we treat them...to one of zero tolerance for any professional malfeasance.
OK, once again, there is a statistically insignificant population of law enforcement that is totally 'pure' and not criminal. They exist. Because law enforcement as a group has become SO corrupt, they will be lumped in with the rest in public opinion until they prove themselves. There comes a point when the presumption of innocence is so damaged by a particular group of like minded individuals (which excludes by race, as a race is not 'like minded') that it no longer makes sense....and I'm far past that point. I now presume they are all trained liars (and I contend that's true, all of them, 100%, it's part of the job, and another way they're 'bad', but that's another discussion altogether) and that they'll lie to and about anyone they come in contact with. It's a terrible presumption to have to make about a group of people, but the only logical one to make since the alternative so overwhelmingly often leads to severe suffering for the innocent.

Both of the male officers were canned at later points due to related issues, one lied on a police report about a different beating and the other beat another person up and got caught on video.

However, apparently Denver has unlimited appeals for PO's, which means after a couple of years both of these officers were reinstated. Additionally the DA in the area has a long history of looking the other way when it comes to prosecuting cops.

I don't condone shooting or beating officers, lowering ourselves to that standard makes us no better. I do think it is beyond time to take severe steps to curtail these types of officers, through judicious use of repeated psych exams and zero tolerance policies. If you do something and get caught, you should do time and/or NEVER allowed to be an officer again. You should also lose your right to bear arms like a felon does, because you broke your trust with the public you were supposed to serve.

[Updated at 10:00 a.m.] On Twitter, the teen clarified that he was never kicked off the football team—that story was "made up" by the media, he said. The school district also denied that he would be suspended; whether the petition influenced that decision is unclear. For me, the fact that 20,000 people expected the hero to get unfairly railroaded by the system is still quite a testament to the ubiquity of zero tolerance.

Yeah, it was way too easy to believe he'd get treated unfairly. I'm glad the cops are trying to charge the bully though. That shit, no matter WHAT the blind kid could of said or did, is just fucking troglodytic.

I'm with @lantern53 on this.

@newtboy how about some more one sided anti cop shit.

Truly what about this guy held up in the house with a gun? Was he some 80 yr old man kicking back drinking beer and eating Cheetos say F off to the cops?

Or some shit kicking thug worthy of tearing the mess out of the home to get to?


Truly how about some balance to the story. Sure the place is trashed but the why is not told that justifies this. Maybe it not justified I don't know and can't tell by this story.



How many good cop deeds done for every bad cop deed do you think happens every day? Sure there are bad cops and sure there are good cops the run hot in the heat of the moment. But you only care about the bad shit cops do. Dip shits like you desire zero tolerance. But reality is different and does not provide utopia.

Yes, that's one of my problems with police, lax recruitment. They should do a better job screening applicants, far too many bullies make it through the process. The image they present only attracts the wrong kind of people, and even screens out better applicants (allegedly for anyone over 110 IQ for instance). The right kind of person wouldn't be accepted in the current cop culture (as this story illustrates clearly), and the right kind of people also wouldn't want to associate with them.

I think some officers do make that much on salary, but quite true it's not many. When you count the benefits they get though, they are not under paid in most cases. Most get free medical, life insurance, retirement, many other 'freebies', and incredible overtime, so looking at only base salary is not an honest assessment.
Where I live, $200000 is probably more than 5 times the average pay rate...in some areas it may be the average pay rate. In high cost of living areas, I agree, it would be right to pay them better, (but conversely, that means those in Detroit should be paid less for a more dangerous job...how to reconcile that?) but we should DEMAND better performance everywhere, with zero tolerance for abuse.

EDIT: It seems we could retrain ex-military for the job. They've proven they are willing to take MORE dangerous jobs for far less money ($20-30K last I heard). That's a possible win win, vets get a good job program, we get an improving police force...as long as the retraining and testing is thorough.