Yep…not true at Parkland, wasn’t true here. There were DOZENS of “good guys with guns” milling around outside, and 19 inside, not one even tried to help, some assaulted students, parents, and teachers, but not the shooter.

Edit: 19 officers were inside, on the other side of the door while children were being shot to death for 45 minutes…during which time they heard the screams of children being shot to death, they received multiple calls from inside the classroom explaining that there were multiple dead kids, multiple still living children, and more being shot with every call, yet they did absolutely nothing but wait. They claim today that they decided he was a barricaded suspect and there was no time pressure to stop him despite being able to hear children being murdered just feet away from where they stood with their thumbs up their asses.
It now seems, according to today’s story from police (a story that changes with every telling) even the tactical team from border police was on scene almost 40 minutes before they went in.

*doublepromote *quality debunking of another of the right’s idiotic talking points.

I think 21 officers from that force need to be executed on the spot by grieving parents, with no charges for the shooters, and the rest fired and banned from being even unarmed security guards for life, with prison if they even attempt another job in law enforcement. This was undeniable proof that police aren’t heroes, aren’t there to protect the public, and are in reality just cowardly thugs with guns and authority that don’t step up when needed.

Yeah, but in the U.S. that would be a manslaughter charge. No, the kid wouldn't have meant to kill him. Yeah, the other guy started it. But he didn't have to punch the dude. He could have broken it up by pushing the guy away or physically putting himself between the attacker and the victim.

Even if the manslaughter charges didn't stick, it would almost certainly go to a civil case of the dead kid's parents suing the kid who intervened and I have no doubt they would win.

Not saying it's right, but that is the reality of the U.S. legal system. It IS dangerous to promote the message that sometimes violence is okay to teens. Things turned out okay this time because no one got permanently injured or killed. Doesn't mean the dice are always gonna roll that way though.

EDIT: To clarify my last point, what I mean is that even if someone who deserves to die gets killed, there's a high likelihood there will be serious consequences for the person who killed them. If not a prison sentence, then probably monetary damages in a lawsuit, and if not that then years spent paying lawyers to fight said charges/lawsuit.

Ah that's where we differ. I think a million dead kids is a million dead kids - whether it was caused by a racist with a silly moustache on one continent a fat man trying to make bank on another.

Reagan was just the first stooge hired by the remnants of the Nixon administration. (By Bush Snr {his head of the CIA}, Donald Rumsfeld {2nd in command of the CIA} & Dick Cheney {3rd in command of the CIA}).

Literally an actor. And a 3rd rate cowboy actor at that (only for domestic & retarded audiences).

BTW Dubya was next & a gift to these fellas, none of them dumb enough to be the man out front making excuses.

They decided that a few million dead kids was fine if it swelled the family pile by 20%. Vietnam, East Timor, Iran Chile etc etc etc etc
.....Does anyone really know how much bank Cheney made from the slaughter/'rebuilding' in Iraq? A billion? 10 billion? 100 Billion? Will any American ever ask? Guess not.

In the future analysis of this time, these men will be held up worse that than Hitler, Stalin & Genghis Khan for sure. Their crimes are comparable in every way (especially the massive piles of dead kids) but without the personal trauma to explain psychosis. The US government of the last 50 years consists of the richest, fattest, most privileged men ever to live in millions of years of humanity, and yet they've committed the worst crimes of all time. Millions dead, crippled, traumatized, orphaned.
Is it their fault or the fault of those around them who do nothing or worse; cheer?

That reached several lifetimes of quotas for seeing dead and dying women, men and children. So many dead kids... For fucks sake.

This whole part of the world needs to just go away, because there's just no cure for this.

He did things for the lulz...in other words, he wasn't necessarily into looking at pictures of dead kids, rather, he did things to cause a reaction. Furthermore, he couldn't have had successful subreddits without other users' contributions. In my opinion anybody that's been there and contributed is no better than he is.>> ^lucky760:

Why do they call him a troll? From everything they said it just sounds like he's a dipshit low-life pervert.

didnt look dead, special needs student. One kid I saw in high school always had his head tilted like that. >> ^cracanata:

I see nobody cares for the dead kid (@0:40)

I see nobody cares for the dead kid (@0:40)

and now the regime has been proven to be behind the massacres, tacitly if not directly.

point blank executions of children. i believe there is a video here, NSFW or anyone who doesnt want to experience horror... warning

were the guns in Houla loud enough for the world to hear yet?

@shang

What a load of shit. There are ZERO verifiable witness reports that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is anecdotal bullshit allegedly said by a person named "John". No last name. No written statement. Not that it even matters. What human being would not defend himself (after trying to run away) against a stranger chasing them with a gun?

And I would love to see these official documents that show that Martin was a convicted rapist. Please link them. They don't exist. You are a liar spreading lies about a dead kid and you should be ashamed of yourself. Even if they did exist, it still doesn't matter because that has nothing to do with what happened.

Again, to make it clear, even if Martin was a drug addicted rapist on the loose, Zimmerman was STILL in the wrong. He clearly had no idea of those alleged facts, and that is obvious from the 911 tape. He didn't say "there is a known rapist in my neighborhood", in what was his 46th call to the police over "suspicious" people.

I don't know what castle doctrine has to do with any of this either. Does castle doctrine give you the right to chase after a fleeing person and shoot them off of your property? At no time was Martin on Zimmerman's property and at no time was Zimmerman in danger when he initiated pursuit. Which he was advised to not do by the police. The 'Stand Your Ground' law does not give you the right to pursue either. Pretty self evident from the god damn name of the law. STAND YOUR GROUND. Not, chase after unarmed kid who poses no physical threat to you.

Quoting JEB BUSH now regarding this:
"stand your ground" doesn't apply to this case."Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back"

Zimmerman created the entire incident on his own.


edit ... Oh, I forgot there was a sift here. Yeah, this black panther bullshit doesn't help anything. They are fucking racists too.

Can you imagine the kid jumping on the bed and punching a hole in the ceiling. Dead kid.

Weren't they afraid that the bees were disappearing a few years back? We found where they were hiding.

I really dig andrew jackson jihad. they're kind of lo-fi anti folk diy 2 man out of pheonix. but they're not assholes. they've got easy beats and clever lyrics. sometimes their songs remind me of like... really dark metal songs, slowed down and folked up. like most diy outfits, they have a shit ton of random albums, i'll link you some songs from their split with ghost mice because i think it has the most complex, darkest shit on it. and on that album ghost mice covers their song "survival" which makes me really really happy. but i honestly have no idea how to embed just audio here....... pm and give me instructions and i'll change it.

1. little prince
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYm2H7kK8uo

i like these next 2 songs, because a. they're fucked up and b. they're one song split in half
6. all the dead kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5LHm8mky4E&feature=related

7. unicorn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ddX36PAG1Q

and just because i really really really love it, here's their song "survival"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fkKlr6pCSM

that was really cute

don't forget about dead kids, etc

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Hmmm I downvoted... kids see this & kids are dumb = Dead kids
The glorification of violence by smiling kids 'killing' each other... There are kids right now in armies, killing each other. And they are not happily smiling, unless they're drugged out of their mind to keep theam attached to their army by addiction.
Edit: The kids smile, there are no consequences seen for their actions, to me, this is glorification. And yes, it's not aimed at children, but they'll see it. And they know where their dad has his hunting rifle.

I respect your downvote... I'm cool with that. But I think you're highly exaggerating how "dangerous" this video is. Unless they are very young children (i.e. under the age of 6) they know the difference between make-believe and reality. If kids were truly that impressionable (i.e. gullible) there should be a slew of kids murdering each other in the streets after watching violent movies or playing violent video games. Yet, the FBI reports that violent crime stats have gone down this year--yet again. It's been on the decline for years now, even as violent games, movies, and TV shows--and childrens' access to them--have been on the rise.
As to dad having a hunting rifle... anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house).


I agree, I should have set the focus more from the video to the society which sees no problem with the video. By no means I want to say that this video leads to streets littered with dead kids, but:
In my opinion, it contributes to the view of a society in which guns are presented as toys. It's not a great leap from toy to the real thing.

Children learn late in their development about death as an ever-present 'danger' to themselves and others, about 8-10 years of age. But the concept of action and consequence grows only with education.
If education is lacking, the lack of this concept can last up into the middle teens. This can lead to kids playing with guns, pointing at their friends or parents and sometimes pulling the trigger. Young Kids not properly educated don't see the seriousness in the relation of gun -> trigger -> bullet -> wound -> death ; until it has happened or they grow up. (I tried to find a good source, but atm i have only my german pedagogy lessons about child development; so you may disregard what i said about the action/consequence thing by the rules of good debate.)

"anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house)."

Yes, but what about the kids whose parents do not own firearms? Are the kids of firearm-owners tested on their knowledge about guns? Are the firearm-owners tested on the fact that they have taught their children? Has every owner of a gun also received a mandated education on the subject?