Now, how about you address Ashley Babbitt, the dead traitorous cunt that destroys at least one position you hold sacred….either she and the MAGA insurrectionists were not innocent peaceful marchers calmly protesting like a normal day but were anti democracy violently murderous terrorists attacking police that showed god level restraint by only shooting her, or police shoot innocent non threatening people for no legitimate reason.

Which one do you want to finally admit is correct…because I think we both know they both are. It’s pretty chicken shit cowardly of you to continue to avoid the glaring reality by just not answering, and very telling about you that you simply cannot ever admit you are w-w-w-w-wrong.

That cop's alternative being what, letting the rampaging mob have their way with the legislators he was duty-bound to protect? It's not like the officer was just wandering around and randomly shot her - she was at the front of a violent mob that had just broken through a barrier. By shooting her, he kept the mob at bay for a bit longer, which may very well have saved lives. When people on this site decry police violence, it tends to be in a context where that violence was unnecessary and excessive for the situation. The fact that more of the insurrectionists weren't shot actually illustrates incredible restraint and professionalism, on the part of the Capitol police.

I'd like to add: fucking stop with the "unarmed" bullshit. They were a RAMPAGING MOB. They were chanting their wish to kill the Vice President, who they believed to be in the building. Do you really believe a group of people with only bludgeoning weapons are incapable of causing massive amounts of harm? They had violently broken into one of the core seats of power in the US, in a direct effort to stop the democratic process and what has in *every other instance* been a peaceful transition of power.

Seriously - if you support the 1/6/2021 insurrection, you support an attempted fascistic overthrow of the US government. It isn't up for debate, that's what happened on that day. It wasn't a fucking protest, they weren't a goddamned tourist group. They smashed their way into the Capitol, at the behest of a man seemingly incapable of admitting defeat (gracefully or otherwise), with the goal of keeping him in power against the will of the voters of this country. That shit is not at all acceptable, and I hope the lot of them serve sufficient time in prison to act as a warning to all other fascists.

Found the video sickening even though it's nothing new for police to totally botch welfare checks. At least they didn't shoot her.

Police should not be involved in welfare checks other than as backup. They are not trained for it. Mind you I have no fucking idea what these goons trained for if 7? of them can't physically lift a restrained child into a car without bitching and resorting to spray.

The female officer was trying to de-escalate and may have got somewhere if the raging thundercunt had let her do her job.

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

well at least they didn't shoot her as she was running away

First, never proven publicly, and more importantly not in court, so assassinating him was unconstitutional and probably should have gotten Obama impeached, but the right wasn't going to go after him for killing the scary Muslims, even if they're American......
......but to this attack, what connection did his 8 year old grand daughter have to terrorism that necessitated shooting her in the neck?

Only one asshole, the idiot that attacked the rider because she's 100% wrong about the law and her rights to enforce it. He could have legally killed that woman. She kidnapped (that's what it is when you illegally detain someone, like she did) and assault and battered him. As I see it, he would have been justified shooting her.
I hope they find and charge that moron, she committed at least 2 felonies on camera.

Edit-keep in mind she had already blocked and attacked him before the video starts, explaining and excusing his attitude in my eyes.

Nice, of course he wouldn't have READ it. ;-)


More seriously, he's now saying that he obviously meant the "2nd amendment people" would vote as a unit to stop her, not shoot her, and the outrage over this threat is pure media bullshit and hype...forgetting that in the scenario he was describing at the time Clinton had already won the election and was putting anti-gun judges in place, at which time...."nothing you can do, folks...although the 2nd amendment people, maybe there is", so obviously, unambiguously, incontrovertibly, voting was not what he meant for numerous reasons including the election being long over in his scenario.

I am so happy you thought of me and said hello. I was thinking of you, too.

I lost my little doggie, Tess, about two weeks ago, and it really sucked the wind out of my sails. She started breathing funny on Wednesday, and she was dead Thursday night. I had to shoot her, because I couldn't stand to watch her suffer. I'll always second guess myself on that, but she was breathing so hard her tongue was turning blue...as if I could have hugged her back to life.

When I pulled the trigger...I realized in the coldest measure of reality...that a chapter of my life had come to an end.

Twelve years, that little shit followed me through thick and thin and I never thought much about it. I loved her, of course, but...now that she's gone...a part of me has died as well.

I'm a bad Buddhist, I guess...this is all chapter and verse....

On the global field, I feel like we have met, or are approaching, the end of an epoch. Out with the olde, in with the new. Kind of hoping it's not WW-III and all...but I can sense a significant change in the works.

I hope you are well, too, and happy, genuinely happy.

This shot of tequila is for you. May you laugh and smile for no reason at all, soon, and for days on end.

Wow...and how do you expect to "help" them if you don't institutionalize them? This woman is (according to the comments) already in a minimum security mental facility but it's not working (obviously). There are many levels of institutionalization, hers needs to be raised a couple of levels!
There's a difference between homosexuality (and other mental 'deviancy') and a completely insane person that believes she is being stalked by random people that angrily confronts them for stalking her, and note they were not stalking so the attack will likely come and against someone completely unaware it's coming. Because it's likely SOMEONE will be hurt (and it depends on her specific attack whether it's her or her victim, if she goes in from behind and sucker punches, stabs, clocks on the head with a rock she may not be hurt herself...otherwise she'll probably get the worst of it) her behavior needs curtailing. It's about protecting HER as well. This behavior will not end well for her, either in the hospital or morgue if not prison, and those that are railing against committing people with massive dangerous control issues simply aren't thinking it through. According to her own posts, her behavior is getting MORE out of control, not less. This will not end well.
If this was in Florida, someone might shoot her standing their ground. I might if she accosted me like that, blocking me into my vehicle while making insane ranting accusations.

"the odds are, that if you had had a gun, that he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you".

Firstly, what odds? Study please.

Secondly, if she has it out and is using it - i.e. she is firing the gun and bullets are hitting her assailant - then I doubt he's going to be able to ninja his way out of the bullet holes leaking his life blood out of his body and/or disabling his central nervous system, wrestle the gun off of her, then shoot her with it.

Just like @bareboards2, I didn't give an opinion or say anything about gun laws. I am just stating facts.

The woman (in the article I linked) used a gun for self protection. The gun was used to shoot her attacker in her own home.

Those are facts.

If you think that there is something to conclude from those two facts, go ahead and make your own conclusions.

In case you didn't notice, all I did was copy and paste @bareboards2's post and change a few words to reflect the article I linked. I don't see you lecturing @bareboards2 about anecdotal evidence. The difference is that @bareboards2's story fits with your opinion and mine doesn't.

You certainly are an expert in anecdotal evidence as you gave me a prime example when you said: "Problem is, when you count ALL the cherries, the reality is that domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved." Actually I wouldn't even call that anecdotal evidence, it's more like anally extracted evidence because it's neither evidence nor factual.

Here are some real facts, no opinions:

70 million Americans own guns (NRA 2010)

45% of American households have a firearm in them (Gallup 2011)

Homicides by firearm in 2010 = 11,078 (CDC)

Average homicide by firearm 1999-2010 = 12,807 (CDC)

The 2008 US Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported 5.3 million violent crimes (simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders), with 430,000 (8%) committed by an offender armed with a gun. Just looking at murder alone, 67% of the murders were committed with a firearm (this number doesn't separate how many of these homicides are gang related or committed with illegally obtained guns). The NCVS also reported that guns were used for self defense 116,000 times.

There are no records kept for when a gun is used in self defense. The NCVS report only counts reported self defense cases during the survey. Other studies have been done to attempt to get a more accurate estimate on the use of guns for self defense. These studies show estimates ranging from 500,000 (CDC) to 2.5 million (1995 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology) times per year. A couple of other studies both estimate around 1 million times per year (2000 Journal of Quantitative Criminology).

You claim "domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved," but look at the numbers. Even the lowest estimated use of guns for self defense per year, 116,000, is still greater than the number of murders committed with a gun per year. That is at least 116,000 assaults, robberies, rapes and murders prevented by civilians with a guns.

This needs to be on the front page. The Pakistani Taliban have openly taken credit for stopping her bus, walking on and shooting her in the head. They are proud that they attempted to murder a 14 year old girl for promoting the idea that girls should attend school.