Impeach Bush Protester Tasered

h/t Ace - more here. No, he isn't one of ours - tasered at a John Kerry event.

Andrew Meyer, of Weston, approached an open microphone at the University Auditorium on campus and began asking Kerry several questions, including why he didn't contest the 2004 election results and why President George W. Bush hasn't been impeached.

Comments

[bloodrage bob]

this all happened while kerry droned on, right? with smiling acquiescence from kerry, right? kerry had no complaint while the cops bravely tasered the helpless unarmed guy down on the ground, right?

just goes to prove what i've been saying: liberals REALLY don't like unapproved free speech. liberals REALLY clamp down hard on free speech when it's speech *they don't like*. i especially liked it when the lady cop bravely yelled at the guy, "stop talking or we'll tase you!". (no doubt she's a democrat.) kerry must have liked it, too: he certainly had no problem with it. "everyone needs to cool down and enjoy the show."

liberalism in action, gang. get used to it.

[nowingker]

Though I know accuracy isn't the currency of Riehl World or the wingers, Kerry had nothing to do with this.

The police tasered the kid AFTER Kerry had agreed to answer his question.

Another example of the thug mentality that has overtaken the country since Bush took office.

[joeb]

So why didn't Kerry stop the cops? Any way I look at it the cops way over reacted. Tasers are EVIL(like pit bulls)and should be outlawed.
Best to keep a low profile when cops are on the scene. They are not trained to be understanding. This guy appeared to be looking for(and creating)a confrontation and he got what he wanted. Tasers are cruel. Cops need to be trained like on Capitol Hill that when someone makes an unwanted scene they just grab them and take them QUICKLY out of the room. What were these cops doing letting this go on so long?

[bloodrage bob]

things ya can always depend on: sun rising in the east; death & taxes; and liberals blindly - dare we say "lemminglike" - leaping to the defense of any fellow liberal accused of anything.

how can you defend kerry's inaction on this, nowinkie? (i mean except for that whole "lemminglike" thing you people do) kerry was a protester too! he knows about this stuff! he was down with the struggle against *the man*! wasn't he? didn't he passionately care about the Struggle? the Cause? he (repeatedly) SAID he did ...

yet he stood there, droning on and on and on while the cops bravely tasered the subdued, unarmed college student. smiling with approval. telling jokes, to lighten the mood. guess that whole "i was a protester too, man!" thing doesn't count so much when KERRY is one being pestered, huh? "officers! subdue that impudent ruffian! be sure to rough him up as punishment for interrupting me!"

even MORE liberal hypocrisy (and stupidity. you saying kerry didn't realize that cameras were rolling?) on display! what an amazing week!

[nowingker]

Pit bulls are not evil, that is media induced propanganda.

There is plenty of evidence that police are not using tasers as they were intended, which was not to taser people who gave you lip or didn't immediately follow your verbal commands, they are supposed to be used when someone is actively resisting and could hurt you or themselves.

Kerry did nothing becuase he's an idiot,though he claims he didn't know they tasered the kid.

However, Kerry isnt' the issue, the issue is the police should not have gotten involved at all since he agreed toanswer the question.

[bloodrage bob]

"kerry isn't the issue", nowinkie? says who? you?

while kerry "not being the issue" WOULD be convenient for liberals hoping to overlook kerry's amazing stupidity - droning on and grinning like a befuddled idiot while the brave cops bravely taser the unarmed college student in front of dozens(?) of rolling cameras - *I* beg to differ.

*I* think this is a FINE example of just exactly how stupid, how *moronic* democrats like kerry truly are. living in their little fantasy-world bubbles, not worrying about mundane things like tax increases because his heiress wife just raised his allowance, kerry blunders from one P.R. disaster to another, forever putting his foot in his mouth or worse, always in front of rolling tape or open mikes.

had this little episode happened during a bush speech, or even better a *cheney* speech, you can be sure every liberal halfwit on the web would be squealing about it. ('evil nazi cheney stamps down free speech!") that being the case, i submit that kerry's moronic acquiescence to this outrage **IS** the issue. whether liberals like it or not. my GOD, what a frickin' idiot. why would anyone defend such a bonehead? oh yeah, THAAAAT's right .... that whole "lemming" thing you liberals do.

[nowingker]

Only a frothing at the mouth Winger would consider "Kerry did nothing because he is an idiot" as defending Kerry.

So, I can only assume that foam and spittle is running down your mouth as you post Bloodrage.

[bloodrage bob]

only a spineless hypocrite leftoid would insist that "because he's a democrat, kerry's shameful acquiescence to the tasering of a college protester is meaningless".

so i can only assume your fine-boned, oddly thin neck and wrists are a clue as to your psychological makeup, nowinkie. well, that and the hypocrisy.

[templar knight]

Wait a minute. Turn this thing around, with Anne Coulter on the podium, and the police would have stood there doing nothing, and as a matter of fact, conservatives have been physically attacked while campus police did nothing more than watch, not a Taser or backbone to be found.

These liberal thugs I'm referring to are allowed to do anything, from torching newspapers and physically assaulting speakers, to preventing free speech by every kind of disruption imaginable, yet the police stand there with their fingers up their butts. Yeah, Kerry got special treatment, no doubt about that.

[K]

It is impossible to care. The student stands there and makes a speech, gives Kerry virtually no chance to answer any point, and obviously thinks the meeting has been held to admire his great insights about 2004 and Bush.

As to the police. It is hard to see and hear the details of those first seconds when they tried to separate him from that beloved microphone. It looked a little aggressive to me but I couldn't tell.

It sure didn't take him long to play the victim card. "Poor me. God, how could others not understand that I may not to be touched or interupted?"

Even Kerry isn't this dense. From the stage you often can't see much in the audience. Kerry lost control of he situation.

Kerry did not ask the guy to relinquish the microphone. That is what you do in that situation. Tell the guy he is being disruptive so you won't answer until he has sat down.

[southdakotaboy]

I have to agree with templar knight about this whole thing. If you are a conservative speaker on a college campus you are constantly faced with harrasment and the threat of physical violence mostly to the apathy of the campus police. However it seems if you even ask popinted questions or go over your time with a lib speaker be ready to get tazered.
This just goes to show what is going to happen if we are unlucky enough to see the Dems take control in 2008.

[seekeronos]

Pit Bulls are not evil, but they sure don't require much mishandling for them to turn on their owners, much less other humans. That said, most Pit owners hven't gotten much of a clue as to how to properly rear their animals.

Tasers are not evil, but LEO organizations that fail to properly train their LEOs in the principles of crowd control or the use of non-lethal force in volatile situations show an evil quality of irresponsibility.

Guns are not evil, but communities and families that do not teach responsibility and proper markmanship skills have a lot to answer for when gun crimes do happen.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'll agree with SDB and TK on this one: Most colleges and universities have a political practice that leans very far to the left of the mainstream in the USA. Couple that with a (perceived) need to control the comings and goings of the youngsters in their "care", and we have what amounts to the beginnings of a police state, wherein anything that falls outside of the "approved" or "party line" is swiftly and savagely punished.

Had Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Daniel Pipes been on stage, and a leftist rabble-rouser been disrupting things, I am fairly certain the "Kampus Kops" would have also remained inactive, short of a direct physical assault on the featured speaker's person (got to avoid legal liability).

Expect no less in the same environment writ large, which is what will result with Democrat control of the White House and the Congress: a totalitarian police state that will make the excesses of Clinton I regime seem like a walk in the park, and one the mullahs of any Islamist Shariah state beam with pride.

[Terry Gain]

Clearly the police over-reacted and this guy was tortured. If he were a terrorist the MSM would be up in arms.

Has anyone noticed that the Surge is working? Read it and weep Boob, Chris, gillian etc.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001517.html

[rwilymz]

"Pit bulls are not evil, that is media induced propanganda"

It is media oversimplification. But pit bulls are bred to be aggressive, and unless they are trained to channel their aggression toward other dogs -- as they were originally bred for -- they will feel a compulsion for aggression and no preferred target. In which case, EVERYone is in potential trouble.

I have an inherent distrust of "law enforcement", consider most of them to be partially-trained boobs and the human equivalent of an untrained pit bull.

[nowingker]

It is media oversimplification. But pit bulls are bred to be aggressive, and unless they are trained to channel their aggression toward other dogs -- as they were originally bred for -- they will feel a compulsion for aggression and no preferred target. In which case, EVERYone is in potential trouble.
-------------------------------------

That isn't really true either. Most pit bulls are very loving toward humans since they have been bred to be aggressive toward other animals and NOT toward humans, one of the reasons dog figthers love them, they are not human aggressive and will do anything to please their owners, including die or kill other dogs, but they rarely turn on their handlers. What they need is a LOT of activity that channels their aggression in a positive way, not toward other animals or people. The breed is terribly misunderstood and unfairly maligned. And certainly, if you chain up and mistreat an aggressive, energetic animal and it gets loose, it is as likely to attack a child as a dog.

On our favorite topic, I'm glad to see the surge is working so well that no Americans are allowed to travel by land outside of the Green Zone. You must be so proud of such a fine accomplishment. I think it shows how we have really, really turned the corner and that Iraqis are totally behind us now. LOL>

[Fergus MacIntyre]

I consider this whole taser incident absolutely hilarious, especially because the dumb-arse protestor kept yelling "Excuse me, bro!" right up until the voltage hit him. Anyone who addresses a police officer or a security guard as "bro" deserves to be tasered. Also, I despise the current trend of saying "Excuse me" as a synonym for "Don't interrupt me", so that's one more reason he deserved to get electrocuted.

The correct context for saying "Excuse me" is as an apology for a social error, such as after belching in public. It does NOT mean "Don't interrupt me." I also despise the fad of challenging another speaker by saying "Excuse me?" in an interrogatory tone (as if it were a question) when it would be more honest and accurate (and less confusing) to say "I disagree with what you just said."

As for John Kerry: well, if there's anybody out there who still expects conscientious or ethical behaviour from John Kerry, I've got some swampland to sell to you as prime real estate.

[bloodrage bob]

so, fergus, i take it then you'd have no problem if i taser a cop the next time he/she interrupts me, or is rude to me. right? because the cop "deserves to be electrocuted" for doing that, right?

what? what's that you say? "it's different for cops"? the rules don't apply to them? if a cop electrocutes YOU, it's ok because "you deserved it"; but if you electrocute a cop, you'll be charged with attempted murder?

excuse me?

[TheSpartan]

Thing is if Kerry had stepped in on the situation you guys would be claiming he was preventing law enforcement from "doing there job, like a typical Liberal" so it was really a no win for him in your eyes.

[rwilymz]

"Most pit bulls are very loving toward humans since they have been bred to be aggressive toward other animals and NOT toward humans"

No. Pit bulls are instinctively gentle with ***their owners***, or the humans who handle them and feed them. Unless they are trained to channel their aggression at a specific target, though, they will take their in-bred aggression and fling it out at random [put that term in quotes, since it's only random to "rational" people looking on and not the dog] targets. And that is as likely to be other people as other male dogs.

Pit bulls are the dogs of choice for drug dealers and many gangbangers, not to mention the pseudo-punks who simply want to look and/or act like same, and the incidence of pit bull maulings of humans has risen right along with it.

And then they are owned in increasing numbers by those who claim that pit bulls are simply "gentle giants" and "misunderstood" and that if "given a loving home" with "no abuse or deprivation" that the dog will be kind and gentle. And it will -- to its owners. But then when the AC repairman shows up a little early and walks around the back of the house and gets his face bitten off, the owners and their family show the cops and the TV cameras an amiable, loving mutt rolling on the grass with their 3 year-old daughter and claim "but he's never been that way ever ever before..." and the dopes who don't know the difference between breeding and training in the display of behavioral traits say such things as:

"The breed is terribly misunderstood and unfairly maligned."

The breed is veryveryvery *well* understood, and "maligned" appropriately.

It was bred for fighting; it will take the impulse to fight and use it in either:
a] ways that it is TRAINED to fight, or
b] ways that it believes is appropriate in the absence of training.

It is a breed trait that does not evaporate in the face of non-positive training. Border collies have a breed trait of herding; when not trained to herd sheep, they will herd whatever is available -- including children. Labradors are bred to jump in water and fetch -- and in the absence of training to grab dead ducks only on command, they will jump in every available body of water and drag out sticks and algae.

In the absence of fight training, pit bulls will still fight -- whatever they think is appropriate.

"...if Kerry had stepped in on the situation..."

Then his Secret Service protection wasn't doing its job. There is no unplanned, uncontrolled interaction between the general public and presidential candidates or even big-name Congressholes. Was not going to happen. Unplanned/uncontrolled interaction tends to get met by Secret Service actions that would make tasering this weenie seem like a joy buzzer.

The doofus was a publicity hound hounding publicity; he wasn't going to give up the mike before he issued his tired, conspiratorial polemic. He was not there to ask the candidate for a position on an issue, however cliched and trite; he was there to pontificate.

Kerry didn't seem to understand that ["I'd like to answer his question..."], which may seem in Kerry's character to the cynics among us, as there would be quite a lot the guy doesn't understand. But anyone who suggests that Kerry could/should have intervened on behalf of a polemicist "on his team" is making the exact same kind of inane partisan jabbery as those who insisted that Bush should have immediately left the schoolroom 6 years ago last week and started issuing command orders.

It doesn't work that way. High-level politicians are under the direct control of their security detail when in public and they [Kerry and Bush, both] sit when they are told to sit, stay where they are told to stay, and just generally act like they've got a leash on them at all times.

[nowingker]

I see you line of b.s. is not confined to foreign policy and the Iraq war. Pit bulls make bad guard dogs because they have not been bred as 'protection' dogs, they are as likely to wag their tail at the mailman as any other non protection breed of dog. Pit bulls don't attack humans any more than any other large dog attacks humans, you just happen to hear about it more often becuase its a stock media scare story. You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading more crap about this breed.

[rwilymz]

"Pit bulls make bad guard dogs because they have not been bred as 'protection' dogs"

I didn't say they were bred for protection; I said they were bred for fighting. If you're going to try to criticise the critic of your superficial knowledge of animal breeding, then you first need to figure out what the criticism is in the first place.

"they are as likely to wag their tail at the mailman as any other non protection breed of dog"

I didn't say otherwise, actually. In fact, I'll do you one better: they are **more** likely to wag their cuddwy widdow taiw at the mailman than bite his face off. But here's the thing: it's still bred to fight, and doesn't have a trained outlet for it. The dog will then fight what it assumes to be an appropriate target at the moment it decides to indulge its breeding.

And the mailman, who gets wagged at every day for three years will get his face bitten off on the one day when the dog decides the time is right. ...and then it will go back to wagging its tail at the same mailman.

"Pit bulls don't attack humans any more than any other large dog attacks humans"

More than some, less than others. Other large breeds -- dobermans, rottweilers -- were indeed bred for protection, and they *do* have a behavioral breed trait that targets humans. Those, specifically, who cross what the dogs perceives to be its boundaries. But that doesn't preclude them from directing their bred aggression towards other dogs.

Pit bulls are about as big, in general, as a Labrador, and you need to seriously abuse and deprive a Lab in order to get it to react defensively or aggressively.

...I mention them both because while the outward signs of both are identical -- some dopey guy gets his face bitten off -- they are two separate and distinct reactions from the dog, and you'd need to have two separate and distinct circumstances to get them.

"You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading more crap about this breed."

I *would* be ashamed if I were. But I'm not. So I won't bother wasting my time feeling bad about the truth.

You're trying to paint a picture of a pit bull as a pussy cat who will only lunge and attack if he's specifically trained to; THAT is what's false. He will lunge and attack, randomly and with very little warning, **only** unless he's trained NOT to --- ***and that training is successful***. Which means: it must directed at some rare/never circumstance.

You can no more train a behavioral breed-trait out of an animal than you can "train" a Belgian draft horse to be a shetland pony.

[seekeronos]

As for young master Meyer (the dumbbell that got Tasered)...

...the funny thing is that there *IS* a separate reading of the rules for LEOs/cops than ordinary civilians.

Like gun (especially handgun and automatic weapons) privileges. And the "right" to summarily smack down/Taser/restrain someone they deem to be "violently resisting arrest".

In fact, even TOUCHING a cop/LEO in some states is a felony assault... (I think in NYS it is a Class C felony, will have to double check) whereas in most states there is a considerable degree of latitude in how a cop/LEO may manhandle a suspect/detainee before the courts might rule it as "excessive force".

It might not "ought to be that way", but indeed, it is.

[LOL]

Pitt bulls come originally from the breed American Bull Dogs, which were originally bred to fight bulls, not dogs (hence the name). A pit bull, if correctly trained will not attack other humans just out of some "instinct". The reason there is a high incidence of pit bull attacks is because many of them are still bred as fighting dogs and well those dogs will be violent in some situations.

Pit bull does require smarter care than some other breeds, but it doesn't NEED to fight things, only a total ignoramus would claim that.

[LOL]

pitt bulls were actually an iconic "family friendly" dog back in the days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Around ww2 the american bull terrier was considered the ideal family friendly dog. It will not attack humans to work out its aggression if it has not been trained to be a fighting dog. I swear it's like the wingers on this board know NOTHING about reality. It's as if all you guys do is spend all day reading wingnut blogs and that's where your whole impression of reality comes from.

GO OUTSIDE WINGERS YOU MIGHT LEARN SOME SHIT

[Pierson W. W. Dilliwithers-Mathers III, Major, Confederate States Army (Retired)]

Y'all damnyankees dun' know nothin' about how to keep a proper coon dog. But them there pit bulls, they be the very spawn of Cerberus himself, looking at any opportunity to devour a young'gin stilll in his shortpants, or some old spinster auntie.

Here in the Great State (may she rise again with the Southron Nation) of Alabammy, we keep it really simple:

If ya'll got a mad dog that likes to bite folks, you put it down with a nice round, like a .308 (should work mighty fine with them pit bull type dogs). I finally had to put my faithful coon dog "Grant" down a couple-three years back, the ol' boy never knew what hit him.

Of course, I miss my old trusty Tredegar I had from the War of Damnyankee Aggression -- that could put a fair size hole in a Great Dane, be it man or dog.

[Pierson W. W. Dilliwithers-Mathers III, Major, Confederate States Army (Retired)]

Oh, and this here's for that LOL boy (I bet yer another one of those low down yeller Bluebellies from Mass'achassets, ya carpetbagging damnyankee rascal, ain't you?)...:

I wouldn't go believing everything you read off that Wicked-Pedia. That is written only by Lincoln Republicans (I think ya'll call them Democrats these days, just to keep us confused) and damnyankees.

[bloodrage bob]

yes yes yes, there are 2 standards. one for the proles; the other for the government security forces. what a cop does to *you* is state-sanctioned police power; should you do it to *him*, well, that'd be attempted murder. got it. don't *LIKE IT*; think that folks who defend this arrangement are sheep bleating dutifully on orders of the security forces "we must o-baaaaaaay the police and do as they say!"; think the cops are becoming ever more militarized and praetorianesque as we slide down the slopes to police-statedom .... but there it is. that seems to be what the serfs want.

the cops - so our political masters tell us - have powers that allow them use of force when needed.

but the florida college jerk was tasered *because he wouldn't be quiet*. he was down on the ground; not resisting; not fighting .... just squirming and making noise. the lady dyke cop yelled at him "if you don't shut up we'll taser you!", and sure enough, that's exactly what happened. is that how it is now? refusing a cop's "order" to "shut up" will get you tased? is that what tasers are for? is that what cops are for? is that what america was started up for? "liberty and justice and immediate compliance with orders given by the security forces"??

now, i've bashed kerry for not stopping this, which he most certainly should have: the former presidential candidate *with the microphone*? he could have stopped it easily. the cops are used to backing off when authoritative, pompous voices tell them to stop. but kerry isn't the *real* villain in this story. the cops are. anyone wanna defend the badge-heavy heroes who seem to be *TOO* in love with their beloved tasers? tasers they told us would be used only on "ultra-violent" baddies? tasers which seem to be being used a LOT on mouthy grandmaws, wheelchair-bound cripples, 8-year-olds throwing tantrums, and idiotic but otherwise harmless college protesters instead? ah, well. in a way, the kid was lucky. had this happened at his home, the brave cops would almost certainly have shot his dog, too. "the officer felt threatened by the cocker spaniel. shooting the dog was entirely justified." god willing, the idiot kid sues 'em all, and *costs them their precious little pensions*.

[LOL]

sure the cops overreacted in their use of force. Of course one could say the same about Bush's use of the army to invade Iraq, and all the millions of lives that has ruined, but no, it's this small incident of police brutality that is the true horror! That is where liberty is truly is being holocausted!

[rwilymz]

"A pit bull, if correctly trained will not attack other humans just out of some "instinct"."

And if NOT "correctly trained", it quite likely will.

Guess how many are NOT "correctly trained"?

Ans: virtually all.

"The reason there is a high incidence of pit bull attacks is because many of them are still bred as fighting dogs and well those dogs will be violent in some situations."

This is an ignorant statement. They were already bred to fight. It is a behavioral breed trait the same as size and strength is a physiological breed trait of Belgian horses. To say that Belgians are "still bred" for size and that's the only reason they have it displays a gross ignorance of the subject.

Pit bulls **were** bred to fight, which means that fighting is their natural behavior. If not *trained* to channel their natural behavior, it *will* *come* *out*.

"it doesn't NEED to fight things"

What do dogs know about "need"? It WILL fight things; if trained it will fight only those things it was trained to fight; if not trained, it will fight whatever it feels like, whenever it feels like it.

It will not attack humans to work out its aggression if it has not been trained to be a fighting dog

You seriously need to read that again. And then some of its references. It won't [likely] attack it's handlers. Those that do are culled. ...or should be. But an untrained pit bull can -- and many have -- "spontaneously" and "without seeming warning" attacked strangers ... and then immediately went back to being the happy-go-lucky, friendly, lovable pooch they were.

The breed is like that.

I'm sorry you have to hold a right-angles-to-reality view of it. The answer ain't changing just because you wish to remain deliberately naive.

[nowingker]

I wonder why it was viewed as the perfect family dog until gang bangers got ahold of it?

Did the people in the 1940s not know that pit bulls can turn on a human in an instant? I wonder why we never heard of any pit bull attacks UNTIL they became a gang banger status symbol and every urban gansta or white trash meth head wanted one?

I wonder why, since they were bred to fight bulls since the 1800s, that NOBODY but YOU seemed to know that pit bulls would turn on humans in an instant because they 'needed' to fight something and this obvious truth was hidden until the gang bangers started buying them, mistreating them and training them to be mean???

Perhaps becuase you are talking out your a** as usual, mixing fact with fiction and adding in your own twisted viewpoint as usual.

A pit bull is no more likely to attack any human than a shepard, rotweiler or doberman, in fact they may be LESS likely to attack a human than those dogs.

[rwilymz]

"Did the people in the 1940s not know that pit bulls can turn on a human in an instant?"

Most likely.

Now, ask if the people living next door to those who owned them in the 1940s had a loyyer on retainer to sue for intentional infliction of emotional damage, medical expenses and pain and suffering. And the follow-on question is: ask those folks if they figured that if the dog is a strange dog, you stay away from it and don't bother it regardless.

"I wonder why we never heard of any pit bull attacks UNTIL they became a gang banger status symbol ..."

Because you weren't paying attention? The AKC has known about for decades. If I'm not mistaken, they are required to be separated from other dogs as well as extraneous people at Westminster and the like.

"I wonder why, since they were bred to fight bulls since the 1800s, that NOBODY but YOU seemed to know ..."

It's NOT "nobody but me". If all I'm doing is restating the "tall tales", they had to come from somewhere ... right? Unless you think I'm ubiquitous and eternal. ...and if you do, your worship of me is a little less sincere than it might oughta be ... just sayin.

"until the gang bangers started buying them, mistreating them and training them to be mean?"

This is the part you simply do not get. They were BRED to fight, just like Belgians were BRED to be big and strong. You do not need to TRAIN a Belgian to be big and strong; he is already. You train a Belgian to CONTROL his size and strength, and use it for a specific purpose. You don't do that, you've got a horse that will walk over the typical pasture fences and corrals and just be a general lummox.

Will the Belgian do this ALL THE TIME? Probably not. But he can, at the drop of a hat.

Will a pit bull fight ALL THE TIME? Probably not, but he can at the drop of a hat. ...unless trained to control his fighting instinct.

Now. How many people know how to handle fighting dogs? Veryveryvery few. And the ones who do are -- like Michael Vick and his crowd -- doing it for the sake of getting fighters. There have been hundreds of cases of pit bulls, owned by sympathetic dweebs like you, who were "trained" to be kind and gentle and who turned on neighbors, or neighbors' dogs or cats, and the owners who "trained" them where flabbergasted, "oh, but he is so **gentle**".

Well, he **IS** gentle. But he was bred to fight, has no outlet for it, and just decides to act on it every once in a while.

No biggie, right?

"A pit bull is no more likely to attack any human than a shepard, rotweiler or doberman..."

All breeds bred for territorial protection. Now axe if they're less likely to go spaz than a lab, collie, or pyrenees.

"Perhaps becuase you are talking out your a** as usual, mixing fact with fiction and adding in your own twisted viewpoint as usual."

The one mixing fact with fiction is vous, mon merde, vous. You don't know the difference between breeding and training, you simply don't get what has been understood for a few thousand years in the area of animal husbandry, and you're trying to tell someone who breeds animals as a sideline that he is less knowledgeable than you, who don't even know the basics.

I'm sorry. You're simply full of shit. You no more have to "train" a pit bull to be aggressive than you have to "train" Belgian to be massive, or a greyhound to be fast, or a chihuahua to be a nasty little pee-on-the-floor couch shredder. The training comes in in CONTROLLING their behavioral breed traits.

And if you naively believe that the breed trait doesn't exist because it is massive hype and paranoia, then you can't train to control it. I know professional dog trainers who will not train pit bulls, because they do not have the knowledge in fighting dogs to do it properly. I know others who will take pit bulls only if the owner does all the work.

These are professionals. Who know more about dogs than I do. ...and it's apparent I know more than you. Our current vet does not take pit bulls -- not because they are worried about themselves, I don't think, but because they can't afford a dog fight out in the waiting room, between a pit bull whose owner insists that he's really a pussy cat and NEVER EVER aggressive, and some poor mutt whose licking his own ass in just the wrong way.

Professionals.

I'm sorry. Really. And if your claim is going to be limited to "not all of the hype is true" then confine your gripes to that; but if you're going to insist -- as you do on every other goddammed subject under the sun -- that because part of the hype is false, therefore it is ALL false, then you're going to have me reminding you, on those subjects I know, that you are full of shit.

[seekeronos]

Funny how the libs on this thread have nothing more substantive to say about the "Don't Tase me, Bro!" knucklehead ... so they get on their moral high horse about how pit bulls are vilified.

FWIW, there are numerous communities in Europe (ya know, that EUtopia of leftism and humanism, that socialist worker's paradise and a bag of chips too!) that consider any of a number of breeds that can be loosely described as "pit bulls" - generally, hyperagressive fighting dogs of their kind as "Canis non grata" -- animals to be killed/disposed of upon capture.

And if I'm not mistaken, the UK has a blanket ban on breeds of dogs bred to be "fighting dogs", barring a rather extremely expensive licensing process.

[LOL]

Dont tase me bro isn't a significant story dude. Thousands of people are dying in a criminal war in Iraq, but just like a winger, if you flash something before them on TEE VEE their puny brains jump up and down in outrage. Just like Terry Schiavo you guys are sad fucking couch potatoes, living a pathetic vicarious life.

[xboxremote]

If anyone wants to own a peace of history:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220154173334