UCLA student tased multiple times... pointless police violence?

Call me a traditionalist if you will, but my understanding of laws is that they are pointless without enforcement. Add the two words to supply meaning. Law ---- Enforcement. Now, nobody is suggesting that the man be arrested for being in the library while he was not supposed to be. However, he was asked numerous times to comply. That's where a simple infraction becomes obstruction, which is a much more serious offense. I fully agree that officers must use what is commonly referred to as "officer discretion," which could be expounded to mean that "here's a difference between the ministration and administration of justice. Nobody (except mechanical jurisprudence theorists) wants a ministerial agency of justice, one that would ritually and religiously follow every rule and regulation down to the letter in a mechanistic, repetitive, assembly-line manner. Instead, we need responsible administers -- officials who show "good judgment" and exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. By definition, discretion is the making of choices among a number of possible courses of action."I certainly agree that not every scenario is going to go perfectly and that all officers have to learn how to pick and choose their battles. I'm a firm believer in winning the trust of an individual and using diplomacy whenever possible to use the minimal amount of force to gain compliance. But there are instances where diplomacy fails. Once that dialogue begins to break down, officers have to go to the next level of force. Of course, but dare I say that everyone is minimalizing the action in order to make the whole instance seem disproportionate. The rule is a simple one. And that simple rule, alone, does not justify any immediate use of force. However, this simple rule was what precipitated a much more serious offense. Again, adding that it was at a library is absolutely immaterial information in order to illicit sympathy. Obstruction and resisting is the offense that we're dealing with. I'm confident that his charge didn't read, "No library card." Do you understand what I'm saying? There are certain people here who are placing law enforcement agents in an indefensible position, because, in their mind, if something is simple enough, that it shouldn't actually be enforced. That kind of mentality emasculates law enforcement. LE officers are placed in a position of authority. That alone, as evidenced by the man's own words, conjures up for some people an immediate negative response. That goes with the territory. So whether it improved the respect of the UCLA PD is really of no consequence.What should they have done? Should they have just left? Should they have even arrested him? What, in your mind, was the right course of action? Yeah, I've dealt with those kind of people. Let me give you a for instance that actually happened to me. This is a question about perception. A man was brought into the hospital by another officer for making suicidal ideations. Under state law, law enforcement and healthcare professionals are required to place a Title 13 'hold' on those kinds of individuals. That means they can't leave a hospital until a pyschological evaluation is conducted. The initial officer had to leave, so I had the unpleasant task of watching the man.Now, this man was inebriated and wanting to commit suicide-- a dangerous combination in some cases, because if they don't have regard for their own lives, how much less would they have yours? He kept getting out of his bed and trying to leave. Each time I had to redirect him to his room. At first it was a minor annoyance, but after awhile, it became apparent that he was playing a game with me. He, like a child, was testing boundaries to see if I would follow through.Now, at one point, I thought I had gained his trust and established a good rapport. But out of the clear blue, he decided that he no longer liked me. At this point he was becoming more combatitve and I had to take a defensive posture and use a more assertive tone. He would stand up, clench his fists, stare brazenly at me, and say he was going to whoop my ass. Each time I managed to diffuse it only momentarily. I had to finally establish a limit. I informed him that if he comes near me again in a threatening manner, I was going to have to secure him to his bed.In true, child-like fashion, he just had to test me. He clenched his fists and walked up to me within striking distance. I employed some defensive tactics and took him down with a reasonable amount of force. Because he was resisting, he locked up, and his head hit the wall. Now, this wall was made out of drywall, and so, it cracked, making a visible indentation of his head. Because of the commotion, people came running in as I was handcuffing him. Now, the perception might have been that I used excessive force. But I know well that I didn't. And my whole department knew that. But perception is often all that matters. I didn't get in any trouble because I did nothing wrong. However, those of a more liberal persuasion decided they no longer liked me.That story was one about misperception and how it happens to law enforcement. The second moral to the story is one of gaining compliance. Because i did not back down in my resolve, he knew that I might buisness. And you know what? That man was an angel for the rest of the night and we had a good conversation from then on out and I got to talk with him about his problems. I could see that it was very cathartic for him.So, the point is, if you want to gain the respect of the public, just like a child, you have to offer boundaries. The second you lose control of a boundry in law enforcement, or if they think you are bluffing, you've lost and it will impact you greatly. The guy in the video is no different. He was playing a game. And at any given time, he could have complied, stood up, walked out, and be done with it. He WANTED to make it as difficult as possible, and create the biggest scene imaginable. And in the end, he got what he wanted. He got to put on a big show and he will probably have the department cave in, cede defeat, and he will remain a spoiled brat. I did see that, and I don't agree with his choice of words. He should not have made such a threat. However, it was no doubt made out of fear. When you have people in your face waving their hands around, it can get kind of scary knowing that you are severely outnumbered and knowing that a mob might erupt at anytime under such volatile circumstances. LE officers have to put on their game face, even though they are, at times, terrified. And unless you are in that situation, its not something you can really appreciate until you are in such a situation. Nonetheless, he should have been reprimanded by his watch commander or patrol supervisor. Holmes, I don't just support cops without a reason to do so, by some sort of default. If you're wrong, you're wrong. And I've already expressed that I would have handled things differently. I have posted three instances of what real police brutality looks like. I'm not unreasonable. I don't believe that what transpired was excessive. At worst, that tactic simply was not working, in which, its time to try something else. It is a provocation Holmes, and it does hinder law enforcement. Its certainly a whole lot better than dealing with the type of protesters who don paramilitary gear and are ready for an all-out-war, but it is still an act of aggression. I have no problem with peaceful protest-- none whatsoever. I'll give you an example of what is not peaceful or constructive. In Pittsburgh, PA a mob of angry individuals decided to block the entrance of a military recruitment office in order to stop people from going in. That's not a protest, that's a crime. And so, in response, the police had to come in and remove all the subjects and arrest them for that crime. Had they carried picket signs in a park across the street, it would have remained as a peaceful protest. So whether they acted passive aggressively is pretty much immaterial to how they intentionally impeded the actions of other individuals and their place of buisness. No. Why would you think I would agree with beating passive aggressive demonstrators? I agree with pain compliance after negotiations fail. If there is order and people have permits and they are being peaceful and not impeding the freedom of someone else, then it isn't a crime at all.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

First of all, you never know if a weapon is present or not. You always have to be on your guard against any such weapons. I will now direct you as to why its so important to mindful of it. Secondly, I don't need a weapon to pose a threat to someone, and I doubt that you do either.As for the specious plea that he was being singled out for his race is often used as some sort of defense. That plea will be harder to prove considering that in the video I saw what appeared to be an Asian, Negro, and Caucasian police officers making the arrest. The lethality of tasers is nominal. I would venture to say that they pose as much a risk as pepper foam does. And the only way to die from pepper foam is if you go into anaphylactic shock due to an allergy from peppers. If they were truly very dangerous, they wouldn't be so widely used. That's because it isn't designed to be lethal at all. Its desgined as a pain compliance tool, like pepper foam. Impact weapons and firearms is how you handle violent offenders.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

I was referring to that man and people like him, who like children, seek the line of demarcation in the interests of crossing that threshold. Call that basic human psychology or or simple common sense, but it exists.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Simple. Stand up. I think many people in here don't understand how tasers work. They incapacitate someone while they are being shocked. Once the current stops they regain all of their motor functions. Its no different from suffering a minor, low voltage shock. It hurts. It sucks. Nobody likes it. But there is no lasting damage. Therefore, usually that pain is a great motivator, which is why it was invented. Crash, we have no idea what precipitated the initial tasering. What we do know is that he refused to get up and walk out, even after knowing full-well that would taser him again. We also know that he was lucid, and spoke in full, clear sentences. Its not like he was injured and physically couldn't comply. What else could you conclude except that he was playing a game? That's because tasers aren't often used in 'dangerous' situations. Their primary function is pain compliance. The idea is that brandishing it alone is enough to make someone comply. If it doesn't, perhaps a jolt will. I will post instances caught on video of taserings. You tell me whether or not you believe the use was justified.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WSpU56cj7Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSG19c3elhQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVE3xiJI9Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEAqJ0BPd0g&mode=related&...Now, we've seen four instances of the employment of tasers by four separate law enforcement institutions. Los Angelas, CA - Spokane, WA -Cincinnati, OH - Boyton Beach, FL - and the Ohio state troopers. One of two options here. Either the entire body of law enforcement is crazy, or you don't have the first clue as to how to conduct law enforcement. I'm gonna on the side of caution here and roll with Occam's Razor on this one. In each instance that you've seen, the offender was given ample time to comply with orders. The use of the taser was only well after the individuals refused to comply. Its really a very simple concept. If you resist its just going to make it worse. If you comply, everything will be fine. The problem, I suspect, is that you can't imagine a world devoid of that. What justification do you have for assuming that it was racially motivated? I mean, the way you'd seem to have it, Arabs would be immune from the law simply because it might be misconstrued as racism. I've already posted several things criticizing cops-- so, so much for that. And our friend in the library is far from hippy.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Well, thank you. Right back at you. I appreciate our dialogue. I disagree here. I think I am the typical officer. I think most police officers are generally very good ones only because becoming a police officer is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. There is a lengthy process that weeds out those of an unstable nature.I am currently in the process of applying with the Port of Portland, who handles all law enforcement aspects in the ports surrounding the Portland metro area and handle Portland International airport (PDX). They have a very typical law enforcement structure. First, you have to take a two hour test to measure one's intelliegence capacity and attention to detail. Anything lower than 70% is unacceptable and you will be weeded out immediately. Contingent on your success, one then goes into the background investigations portion, which is basically what I do now. They are looking for several things. They check your residency for the past 10 years, employment history, references, driving record, criminal record, drug usage, and your credit report. They are looking for someone with minor, if any, traffic infractions. Somebody with no criminal record, and if so, a misdemeanor at most. They are looking for reliability from your previous employers, looking for someone who has not taken any kind of drugs in at least 3 years. Some drugs will completely preclude you. They are looking for someone responsible who can manage their own financial affairs because if they hire you, they can't have all of this looming debt hanging over your head, because it would essentially mean it looming over their head.Once you make it past there, you then have to take a physical agility test to see if you are even capable of performing the duties of law enforcement. After that, you have to take a polygraph exam to see if you are a deceptive or honest person. This one mainly focuses on honesty. They aren't looking for squeaky clean people necessarily, they want an honest and forthright disposition. However, this is also used as a tool to find those who have fallen through the cracks by never getting caught by an LE agency. Provided you make it, you then have to take a comprehensive psychological battery to see if you are stable enough to perform the duties required of a good law enforcement officer. You also need to go through a minimum of two interviews, sometimes three. Contingent on your success, you then have to attend a law enforcement academy that goes over a wide array of curricula. You must maintain a good average in order to stay in the program.Provided you pass all of these steps, you finally made it. This process usually is very effective of weeding out people that don't belong in that type of work, obviously for its sensitive nature. I think we can all appreciate that. Having said that, there are people who slip through the cracks. And I'm sure we all have the quintessential bad cop in mind. It happens sometimes. But I wouldn't to say that it is far more rare than good cops. You have to look at it from several different angles. I know what a cop who looses control looks like. This usually happens when they are very scared and those reactive instincts begin to take over. Watching the video, I didn't see that. They didn't lose control. Losing control would entail hitting the man, screaming unduly at him or at the crowd of bystanders, using profane or demeaning language. I didn;t see any of that. They were professional in their dealing with the public. The law is written in black in white. And officers could view it in a letter of the law approach, when viewing it as a spirit of the law approach is much better. There's always going to be extenuating circumstances, and in this way, officer discretion is paramount.I can tell you one thing that officers look for that will determine the outcome of almost any situation. Attitude. If the officers had said, "Hey, I know its annoying, but I have to ask you to leave to get your id card." If the man had simply said, "Oh, yeah, my bad. I forgot." You know what the officer might have said? "Hey, listen... Don't worry about it this time, just from now on, try to remember." And that would be that. But this kid was clearly not too bright. I would venture to say, based off his irrelevant uses of certain words, he had an aversion towards authority. His attitude made it what it was. Even when you are faced with a bad cop who has a terrible attitude, you shirk it off until they leave and go through the proper channels, i.e. his employer. Popping off at the mouth, whether you are in the right or not, is pointless. It will get you nowhere.Let me tell you something. I've had the misfortune of meeting the world's worst cop. This man came up to me, literally for no reason, and started harassing me saying, "Look at you, with your faded-ass tatoo's! You're a loser!" I don't think I could explain the shock on my face. This came out of nowhere... Nowhere! And to top it off, my tatoo's are not faded at all, especially back then. But I did notice that his were severely faded. I thought that was ironic. Now, imagine if I started popping off at the mouth. What do you think would have happened to me? This man was downright dangerous. He might have been the type of guy to arrest me, take me in a dark alley, and wail on me with a billy club. Instead, I chose to eat his words.Maybe 2 or 3 days later, I was at work, and I noticed the same cop outside. He had stopped a convertible with two women. They aways down the street so I couldn't hear what he was saying, but I noticed his swagger as he walked up to the driver's side door, reach in, and brazenly grabbed the breast of the driver. I was stunned! This time, I made sure that I got his badge number and his name and reported him. I never saw him again. I can only presume that he was fired. In fact, in those days, I recall hearing that Internal Investigations at the Miami police department got 39 officers fired. It wouldn't surprise me if he was in that number. If that's what happened. If the officers actually grabbed him and stopped him form leaving, then yes, that's a big problem. But if they simply touched him and said, "Hey, let me talk to you for a minute," and he flew into a rage, then the officers are still justified. Hang on here, because we don't even have consensus on whether or not the man did anything wrong. Should he even have been arrested, or should they have left the scene? We keep going back and forth with the best to affect the arrest or whether what he did was even an arrestable offense. Do you have a transcript? I'd like to read their official statement. Whether the man called for an uprising is irrelevant. And if their department issued that as the official reason why, that is a bunch of b.s. That would be the police chief trying to save his butt from a scandal, which is scandalous in itself. You can clearly hear from the audio that he was screaming and becoming highly agitated. Then you hear the officers saying, "Get up," meaning he sat right back down in protest. If called from some sort of uprising, he said it under his breath or was making gestures to the crowd because I certainly didn't hear anything like that. They should have carried him out because the taser wasn't working.This is really long. I'll finish the rest later.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Sorry it took awhile to respond, but I go in chronological order, and I usually have many posts to respond to. I'm too popular here and often get alot of people piling on me for my unpopular beliefs.The Response Matrix warrants the use of pain compliance for resolving passive aggressive people. So, there is no inconsistency there. However, if you listen to the tape, the man was likely being an Active aggressor before being tased. So, in that, it seems doubly justified. I think that once tasing was not achieving the intended goal, which was to remove the subject from the grounds and to affect the arrest, they should have shifted gears. I certainly would not have tased that man as many times as they did. I would have removed him physically probably after the first or second tasing-- this all depending on whether he was actively aggressive towards them in the beginning.But to show that the response was still within the realm of reason, I listed 4 more real-world examples of tasers being employed on video. I think each instance shows that law enforcement personnel were justified in their actions. I will show you another instance of tasing that I do not agree with.I think the officer shot the woman prematurely out of fear.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVdH1G0KQt4

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Actually stun grenades are quite effective. But you meant 'frag' grenades, in which case, your point is noted. Well, I still maintain that the man could have avoided all of that by simply complying. At the same time, I would agree that the taser was essentially an ineffective tool and they should have gone to another method. Police officers are beyond reproach until it is demonstrably proven that they have engaged in any wrongdoing. These are the results of this whole counter-culture where the righteous is placed on trial and the offender is placed in an iconoclastic status. BOTH the officers and the offender should be presumed innocent until a court of law makes that determination counter to that. I see it as a diversionary tactic instead of dealing with the actual argument. (Not you, but the people that mention it erroneously). Aside from which, was it determined that the librarians made the call and the police responded? If that's the case, that puts a damper on the whole racism charge. Well, what a convenient defense.... LOL! That way, whenever a person from Middle Eastern decent has done anything wrong, they can always fall back on this in order to place the arresting party on trial. Modulous, anything has the potential for injury. A man attacking a police officer may indirectly hit their head on the floor during an ensuing struggle and bite their tongue. Does that mean that takedown maneuvors should be outlawed? I mean, if you are allergic to pepper foam, you can die from anaphylactic shock. Does that mean we should outlaw pepper foam? The fact is, I can't find a single case of someone dying as the result of being tasered, not to say that it isn't possible. And to show how confident they are with this method, any department employing the use of tasers must be instructed in their usage. That entails the officer having to be shocked with it as well. That's not a good enough reason to abandone the whole project. You'd have to show that tasers routinely cause death or serious injury. Otherwise, just about everything could be outlawed. Hell, we take medications that pose a greater threat than tasers ever could. The alternative is hitting them with a big stick. I don't need any medical documentation to show how much worse batons are. Serious threats require firearms. I guess we'd have to first come to an agreement on what constitutes a serious threat. That's fine. I've already mentioned that I would have done things differently. I can't about the initial tasering because the camera didn't show the reactions of the individual. It was implied, based on audio, that he was becoming combative, but I can't say for sure. And after the second or third shock, it should have been apparent that a new method would have been more useful.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This inquiry appears to be very misleading. Case in point:"In 27 cases, medical examiners said Tasers were a cause, a contributing factor or could not be ruled out in someone's death. In 35 cases, coroners and other officials reported the stun gun was not a factor. Below is a synopsis of each case. The Republic requested autopsy reports for all of the cases and so far has received 50."1. David Flores, 37, Fairfield, Calif.
A private investigator, Flores died after being shocked three times during a scuffle with police. Flores suffered a heart attack. Toxicology results indicate Flores died from agitated delirium due to acute cocaine and methamphetamine intoxication.2. Enrique Juarez Ochoa, 34, Bakersfield, Calif.
Police responded to a call from Ochoa's mother, who said her son was acting strangely. Police shocked and handcuffed Ochoa and placed him face down on the ground for 15-20 minutes. Officers transported him to a medical center for evaluation. About 15 minutes later, officers noticed that he had stopped moving. Autopsy report lists cause of death as disseminated intravascular coagulation due to blunt impact trauma while in a hyper-excitable state and cocaine toxicity.3. Mark Burkett, 18, Gainesville, Fla.
"Burkett, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, collapsed after struggling with officers at a county jail. Burkett was shocked with a Taser and became unresponsive. He died four days after being placed on life support. Autopsy report lists cause of death as acute exhaustive mania, meaning he worked himself into a frenzy that caused him to suffer a cardiac arrest Toxicology exam revealed no traces of cocaine, methamphetamine or steroids. Coroner notes that mania in psychiatric patients can lead to death. Coroner reports family history of paranoid schizophrenia."5. Marvin Hendrix, 27, Hamilton, Ohio
Hendrix was fighting with paramedics at his house. A police officer shocked him twice. Two minutes after being shocked, he lost consciousness. An autopsy revealed Hendrix swallowed a bag of crack cocaine about seven hours before he died. The cause of death was cocaine toxicity. The medical examiner reported "the exact role of Taser in this individual's demise is unknown.6. Steven Vasquez, 40, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
"Vasquez was shocked during an altercation with police who were attempting to escort him out of a bar. A medical examiner said he died four days later as a result of drug toxicity, due to a mixture of pain medication. Coroner says Taser shocks were not a contributing factor in the death."7. Vincent Delostia, 31, Hollywood, Fla.
"Delostia was running around in traffic then ran into the lobby of a hotel where he refused to leave. When police arrived, he lay down and kicked at officers. He was shocked, rolled onto his stomach and handcuffs were placed around his arms and legs. After 30 seconds of restraint, he stopped breathing. The coroner said the cause of death was cocaine toxicity and notes a history of bipolar disorder. Says Delostia exhibited multiple signs of excited delirium/"8. Anthony Spencer, 35, Philadelphia, PA
"Police, responding to a domestic disturbance, used pepper spray and Tasers to subdue Spencer, who was brandishing a knife. He died in an ambulance en route to the hospital. City officials said tests reportedly found that the death was due to cocaine intoxication and that shocks from a Taser were not a contributing factor."Anyway, these are the first 8 that I've read. I think the headline of this article is extremely misleading, as evidenced by the forensic pathology.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Yes, that's very doubtful that he was waiving a gun, otherwise, they would have shot him with a firearm. But this information only minimizes the act. Its a detractor. If sleeping a park is not allowed, then LE officers can ask that person to leave. If that person refuses to leave and escalates the situation, is LE personnel supposed to just forget about it because, technically, all he was doing was just catching some Z's? Again, the not having an id card in his possession is what precipitated the event. He, no doubt, was charged with "failure to present library card." His charge likely read, "Obstruction" or "Resisting Arrest." If I came into your house and just sat on your couch, you'd probably be pretty freaked out and would either attack me or ask me to leave. But suppose I wasn't violent. Suppose I just sat there. All I did was refuse to leave. Am I not still resisting? It is unlawful for me to be in your house without your expressed consent. And if the police came and asked me to leave, but I refused, I would still be resisting arrest. For the sake of officer safety, I wouldn't hesitate to agree that it is the best form of resistance to deal with-- but its resistance, nonetheless. Arrest means to take into custody. The arrestee doesn't get to make the rules and leave when he's good and ready. A power play? No, they were trying to take him in for booking. That seems to be his problem, now doesn't it? At any given time he could have taken the threats seriously. You shouldn't think of an officers request as veiled threats. The man was causing a disturbance. The law on this matter is very clear. Did you know that when an officer is behind you, once they deploy their code lights, you are required to comply with their requests. If they say, "Stay in your vehicle, please," then you stay in your vehicle. If they say, "Stand up, please," then you are expected to stand up. These are reasonable and lawful requests in order to affect the arrest. If they say, "Take your pants off so I can see your genitalia," then you'd certainly have a case, otherwise, asking someone to get up after they've been arrested is a reasonable request. There's any number of crimes they could tack on.Obstruction, resisting arrest, failure to obey a peace officer, etc.. His crime was a misdemeanor.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

What does that have to do with nationality? Chiro makes a good point, so does Crashfrog. Aside from which, they are in agreement with you on virtually every point, aside from your violent overthrow of the cops. They're right. Whether the officers were in the right or the wrong is inconsequential to exacerbating the instance any further. Where did you come up with this convoluted rationale? First of all, aren't you British? Is this a self-indictment since the Britons have engaged in the Iraq crisis? Here's a novel idea: Why don't you try not to implicate everyone simply because they were born in a certain place, and we'll give you the same respect.Secondly, we know your political stance. You have romanticized the notion of leftist, guerilla warfare, which, hilariously, undermines all of your previous points.You fail...

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

First of all, Chiroptera is opposed to the war, and so is most everyone engaged in the conversation. You're demonizing people that basically agree with you, save your fanaticism. As for tyrannizing dark skinned citizens within the US borders, what exactly are you referring to? Is this allusion to Mexicans?Lastly, do hear that popping sound yet?

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers