LA deputies have long been accused of being a criminal gang, complete with tattoos that indicate their crimes like murder and rape just like other street gangs. The LA Sheriff is finally, after decades of complaints, investigating this matter, but the method of investigating is a near coverup on its face.
Officers involved are ASKED to bring PHOTOS of any gang tattoos they have…but won’t be strip searched to see if they’re lying like citizens are, and won’t have those tattoos documented by the Sheriff like normal citizens do. They are not required to answer questions, and there’s no repercussions for refusing to cooperate.
Sure sounds like another investigation for show that’s not designed to catch the murderous police gangs.
It’s also laughable that they only accused 35 LA police. What nonsense.

I honestly don't understand how these people are called alt-right. What is "right wing" about their beliefs or agenda? Racism is certainly not a right wing ideal, and certainly not limited to the supposed "right".

These people are about as "right wing" as the black panthers, the violent factions of BLM, or even the occupy wall street gang.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Sorry, too busy signing up for my local urban liberal street gang. They are insisting I save a spotted owl as part of my initiation ritual.

I know the source. It's called Facebook meme's, or in other words, some attention seeking dumbass with absolutely no facts posting some random bullshit and then other dumbasses repost it because it was a picture and a quote.

There's a reason you can't find a source on it . . . Because it's simply not true.

I've read your posts on here and I have to say, I thought we left YouTube. This level of stupidity and willful dumbassery is usually only found there.

Liberal street gangs? Do you even know what liberal means?? Or what a street gang is?

I really hope you're just a pathetic troll and not really this stupid.

This is called a "survey" where people do statistical data mining to find FACTS.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

As far as gangs: "The profile of a typical gang member is a male school dropout or truant, who is unemployed or has no employable skills. The gang member is usually in trouble with the police and does not receive adequate family attention. The gang provides identity and status and, in return, the member develops a fierce loyalty to the gang and nation."

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/Communities/Gang%20Awareness

Sorry, but liberal isn't listed as a requirement. What really happens is gangs tend to pick on poor, disenfranchised people that liberals, as a political party, are typically trying to help out of those situations so they can become productive members of society. Such programs include, public education, adult literacy programs and so forth.

My only guess is someone's been watching too much Fox News. . .

@Deano and @Stormsinger:
"Liberal street gangs and urban youth" refers to the portion of gangs and urban youth who have liberal values (nearly all gangs and urban youth). Those gangs and urban youth are the source of most violent crime, so your thesis that violent crime is due to rural gun-owners is inconsistent with the data.

@EMPIRE and @Fletch:
Your response is that because I have different opinions than you and I'm willing speak against the mainstream, I'm a "troll." That definitely proves me wrong that liberals tend to be closed-minded conformists who punish intellectual diversity

I know! I never knew street gangs were liberals!

Now I have a whole new world view to play with...

Does this mean that icecream truck drivers are conservatives? What about school crossing guards? Auto mechanics? The mind boggles...

Er, he's not making fun of "rural people".
He's using the broad stereotypes of this show to make a few larger jabs at people who are a little too obsessed with guns and are unwilling to engage in any kind of reform or safeguarding.

[edit]
WTF? "Liberal street gangs"? You're going to have to explain that one!
Bit obsessed with the word Liberal aren't we?

It's good to see Jim Carrey speaking out in ways other than his normal advocating against vaccines and getting kids killed.

Unfortunately, the rural people he's making fun of have little to do with the US's high rate of violent crime, which is mostly due to liberal street gangs and liberal urban youth.

Dude just got jumped into a manatee street gang.

If you went into Detroit and took out the biggest street gang, do you think the other street gangs would behave?

Same thing in Iraq.

"....and authorities in Philadelphia claim they believe street gangs to be behind the recent heist of several pallets of the substance from a manufacturing facility earlier this year, presumably, for their vintage sneaker collections."

See, if only n64 version had hookers and street gangs, it would have been a much better game.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

Dunno how anyone can see stuff like that transpire and think it's a good idea to let someone go under that law who actively pursues and kills.

The Wiki on SYG has this blurb:

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[36] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[37][36] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[36] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used." This is in reference to Sarah McKinley, a teen widow with her infant child, who shot an intruder who broke through the front door. The intruder was apparently drunk, screaming and at the wrong house


Self Defense claims tripling should be indicative that you got some problems on your hands. And I doubt they count these cases as "crimes", making their crime rate lower. Reinforcing the idea that the law is sound.


And I'll just note, I've never heard of your stabbing case prior to you mentioning it. Whether it's got no racial elements to exploit or no gun involved to exploit for news, I don't know. But people care a lot less if it's anything but a gun involved.

If it were a sane implementation of a self defense law. Martin would have had an obligation to continue to back away from the fight until given no other choice. He would have to have legal provocation, meaning that he must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. So pushing or grabbing might not be enough unless he was going for for something vital like your neck instead of your arm or hand or back of your shirt.

In a lot of cases this means someone pretty much has to have a weapon ready to use or make moves to take physical action against you.

Until scene photos come out showing he was in trapped in a corner, he had possible escape routes or he could have knocked on doors or whatever to get attention draw to what was happening if he didn't have time to call police. Some witness woman said it happened in her backyard, and if what they showed on video was it there was no fence but I can't be sure. The houses they showed were really close together, if it was the neighborhood shouting would have been heard by at least 6 houses given how close they were barring planes flying overhead or other noise.

Based on their laws, if SYG applied to Martin (and it should barring they come up with some reason why) he would have had immunity under the law, and Zimmerman wouldn't have been covered if he was found to meet criteria under "Aggressor". However SYG is a rather crazy law, I'll post a blurb at the bottom of this to show there's indication that people abuse it and it's very hard to apply in any sane matter due to nearly all encounters resulting in the other person ending up dead.

But in a less "kill the other guy" type self-defense law you have emphasis placed on avoiding the fight and have to have a damn good reason for lethal force and not just "reasonable belief". If you get provoked your "culpability" is assessed to see if you tried to avoid the fight at all costs.

In this case, blame would have probably been split something like 10-20% Martin 80-90% Zimmerman. A court in a sane area would say that Martin had ample opportunity to call police, ask for help as a door, or yelled for help before Zimmerman caught up. Or perhaps that he could have kept running. Hard to say for sure. But for him to be totally blameless Zimmerman would have had to have shown physical action toward him or some such...the following wouldn't have been enough.

But under SYG, the following could have been enough to give Trayvon reasonable belief that Zimmerman meant imminent use of unlawful force against him. And if you look up unlawful force it's defined as "force to escape arrest, forced use by non-law enforcement, or and non-consenting touch"...it's extremely vague I couldn't find a good definition of it anywhere. I found about 6-8 of them and just took the things in common and different variations and tried to compact it down to that....seriously try googling it and finding a good clear, applicable definition and one that is from Florida...I couldn't.

So Trayvon basically has to reasonable believe that Zimmerman was going to grab him, push him, or otherwise place his hands on him. And I think someone being chased could reasonable expect that.

Here's the blurb from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[32][33] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[33] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[34][35]

The Trayvon Martin case brought a large degree of criticism to the law. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, claimed self-defense, evidence indicates that he first pursued Trayvon Martin, prior to the altercation that resulted in the shooting. Legal experts are split as to whether charges will be dropped under Florida's stand-your-ground law before the case even goes to trial, as the extant Florida law allows Zimmerman to argue that the charges should be dropped before trial even begins. Legal experts are also split as to whether Zimmerman's actions will be viewed as self-defense should the case go to trial.

Basically in Florida you can go crazed gunman on a place if you say they were threatening and leave no one alive. If they do the kind of investigation they did with Trayvon, they might not even check all the witnesses or for security footage of the area, and then you'll have immunity....and none of the victims families can sue you for wrongful death, etc. If Im reading the immunity clause of it correctly.



>> ^longde:

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>>