Again. Police murder two more innocent black men. How do we stop this?

[Gromgor]

Stop looking at just the incidents covered by the social media juggernaut.

[Red Syns]

Heh.

You want to protest events and make posts about events broadcasted by the media juggernaut, but then tell me to look beyond that?

Do you actually have a debate position, or is it just "Here, look at this, this is wrong. Oh, you scrutinized it and found my logic lacking? You better look at all these other incidents that I'm not going to actually provide links or evidence for."

[Xywalan]

The closest I can think of is Tamir Rice, where the police certainly could have chosen another way to approach the situation, to include keeping their distance and using megaphones. At the same time, if you point a realistic looking weapon at any armed individual, police or not, don't expect anything but an escalation of the situation. YOU already raised it to lethal levels.

Translation: A black kid cannot play with a plastic toy gun unless he accepts the risk of getting shot by the police in less than two seconds.

Oh, not only the police is allowed to shoot any black kid playing with a toy gun in less than two seconds, but also, the police get to beat up and arrest his sister, and as an extra bonus, the prosecutor can just throw the case and not indict any one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNKZiEobVjs


Your concern for the value of "black lives" is at the same level of KKK. FYI, that is why the "BLM" movement is going on, so that racist assholes like yourself complain about it.

[Red Syns]

Ad Hominem much? I won't pretend I don't have prejudices, but I'm hardly an out and out racist, and far from the KKK.

However, your utter lack of logic, arguments, or evidence is appalling.

Yes, Tamir Rice was shot and killed for pointing a realistic looking weapon at a police officer. In this particular incident:

1. The weapon lacked the appropriate orange tip to indicate toy vs. real. Pro tip: looking down the barrel of a toy gun vs. a real gun, they are nearly identical, and the time it takes to differentiate would prove lethal if the firearm in question is real.
2. The weapon was pointed towards the officer the moment he stepped out of the car. Pro tip: pointing a firearm at ANY armed individual is going to get you shot.
3. Someone else called the police to report someone with a "probably fake" gun. Pro tip: if you call 911, dispatch is not going to tell the police the gun is "probably fake, but he is pointing it at everyone." They're going to report that someone called reporting a possibly armed individual in the park. The police are going to respond as though the weapon is real, because that's the safest course of action.

Was driving right up to him the correct course of action? Probably not, I'm unfamiliar with that department's training on the matter. The smarter, and safer, option would have been to keep a distance until he could either be convinced to put the weapon down...assuming the park was empty. Was it empty? I don't recall ever hearing, it definitely had people prior to their arrival. If it was not empty, then the police were responding to a potentially armed individual in a park full of innocent civilians, where time is not a luxury.

I believe I stated earlier that I'm unfamiliar with the followup of the Tamir Rice case, however. I understand that reading is hard for you, and logic is harder, but at least try to finish basic reading and comprehension before spewing nonsense about me being on KKK levels of racist.

As said before, if there was an incident of clear excessive force, and it goes without justice, that is the situation to make posts, articles, and protests. Calling someone a murderer without investigation or trial is wrong.

[Aristotle]

I believe we have created an impossible job for the police. We've turned them into glorified tax collectors which has made them adversaries of the populace. We've put them in charge of dealing with the fallout of economic problems, poverty, etc.

Police are forced to deal with the brutal fallout of our idiotic failure of a "war on drugs."

We've created an impossible job, that over time less and less quality people will even be interested in taking, and then we're surprised when horribly tragic mistakes happen.

I feel for the police because their job is outrageous.

I feel for the victims of all these tragedies because these things never should have happened.

We've completely warped the concept of law enforcement to its ruination.

[Xywalan]

Ad Hominem much?

Against dog whistles, sure, plenty.

However, your utter lack of logic, arguments, or evidence is appalling.

Typical. Let's see how you do with logic, or evidence.

Yes, Tamir Rice was shot and killed for pointing a realistic looking weapon at a police officer.

Plenty of fails here, both of logic and evidence.
Tamir Rice did not point the toy gun at the police. The police car charged at him, the police guy jumped out and shot him in two seconds.
But I know you know this. And I know why you utter this lie. You also know that the police went there with the intent to kill, otherwise you don't charge that way with the car at the kid.

1. The weapon lacked the appropriate orange tip to indicate toy vs. real. Pro tip: looking down the barrel of a toy gun vs. a real gun, they are nearly identical, and the time it takes to differentiate would prove lethal if the firearm in question is real.

Again, translation: Black kids cannot play with toy guns.
Also, the claim that this was a super-realistic replica of fantastic quality is just a bullshit lie. It was a cheap toy gun.
Also, even if it had the orange plastic cap, do you think the police had the time to notice the damn thing?
And here is another method to detect racist assholes: they do nitpick tragedies to justify murder of innocent people.
Here's another fail: Ohio is an open-carry state. So even if he had a real gun, the police should not have shot him in two seconds.

With these many fails, I am surprised you miss the typical rasict talking point: "black kids grow so fast and they get so big, the 12 years old's physical size intimidated the cop and he thought the kid's an adult!"

2. The weapon was pointed towards the officer the moment he stepped out of the car. Pro tip: pointing a firearm at ANY armed individual is going to get you shot.

Bullshit. Why would a teenager point a fake plastic toy gun at an officer who is charging at him?
Also, yes, white people also get shot but they are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt or to face the "nicer" side of the police.
And plenty of white guys who point guns at the police and get away with it, which is good, I don't want police shoot people willy-nilly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daVhasi95c4

3. Someone else called the police to report someone with a "probably fake" gun. Pro tip: if you call 911, dispatch is not going to tell the police the gun is "probably fake, but he is pointing it at everyone." They're going to report that someone called reporting a possibly armed individual in the park. The police are going to respond as though the weapon is real, because that's the safest course of action.

Yes, it is someone else's fault. And yes, police is going to hear "black", "man", and "gun" and will shoot the person without asking any question in two seconds.
And that is fine by you.
I would normally ask, "would you accept this if it happens to your family or friends?" but then probably none of them are black, so you can easily answer "Fuck hell, no!"

Was driving right up to him the correct course of action? Probably not, I'm unfamiliar with that department's training on the matter. [

Right, probably not. PROBABLY.

You mean:
A) Driving to a kid, with a plastic toy gun and shooting him in less than two seconds
B) Realizing it was a mistake but then let him bleed to death
C) And then tackling and arresting her sister for rushing to his help
might be wrong but you are not really sure. Right.

Calling someone a murderer without investigation or trial is wrong.

Yes, calling the white trigger-happy murdering police a murderer is MORALLY wrong but driving up to a kid and shooting him in 2 seconds flat, is erm, maybe a bad call, an ooopies, an "oh dear, I just spilled my coffee" type incident.
Got ya.

[Red Syns]

I believe we have created an impossible job for the police. We've turned them into glorified tax collectors which has made them adversaries of the populace. We've put them in charge of dealing with the fallout of economic problems, poverty, etc.

Police are forced to deal with the brutal fallout of our idiotic failure of a "war on drugs."

We've created an impossible job, that over time less and less quality people will even be interested in taking, and then we're surprised when horribly tragic mistakes happen.

I feel for the police because their job is outrageous.

I feel for the victims of all these tragedies because these things never should have happened.

We've completely warped the concept of law enforcement to its ruination.

I can agree with this. The war on drugs is stupid, expensive, and not having the sort of impact lawmakers hoped it would. I would love to see the vast majority of drug laws removed, with the exception of those that apply to alcohol at the federal level (and potentially a few extra, since alcohol has to be directly consumed where many drug products can have indirect effects):

1. No use by or in the presence of minors, due to developmental and health impacts.
2. No driving under any influences.
3. Local policies could decide on public use, I'd prefer use to stay in private homes or businesses myself.

As for Xywalan, this will be the last acknowledgement of his existence, since he clearly has never looked at a picture of the toy gun in question, nor has he anything but trolling to say.

[Gromgor]

Goddammit Xywalan. I have to go to work and when I get back you've fucking done my job for me. Asshole.

However, I will say this:

As for Xywalan, this will be the last acknowledgement of his existence, since he clearly has never looked at a picture of the toy gun in question, nor has he anything but trolling to say.

I disagree with Xywalan on about 80% of the shit we argue about on this forum and at no time, ever, have I felt he was trolling, lacking in logic, or anything of that sort. We interpret things differently? Sure. We reach different conclusions? Of Course. We hold different values to different parts of an argument? Yeah.

Never, and I can't really say this for too many other people on the internet, but NEVER has Xywalan just trolled for the sake of trolling. He lambasted your argument and your response was, "Well, uh, you clearly didn't look at a picture of the gun." Nevermind that the cop never even had time to look at the gun. He was drawing his weapon as he was leaping out of his cruiser as it was still being stopped and your response when this is pointed out is "Well, umm, cops get to murder people because orange."

You are the lowest, most depraved version of the cop-apologists and one of the biggest contributors to the continuation of terrible, tragic injustices. You fail to grasp the concept that an Officer Involved Shooting, when investigated by the same group of society (badge wearers), are almost always going to be viewed in the absolute best light, with the highest amount of good faith assumed and that this process is absolutely NOT what should be. An Officer Involved Shooting should ALWAYS go to trial. No opportunity for a D.A. to provide a defense for the actions to a grand jury - as has happened quite blatantly and recently. It should immediately be to the citizens that the question of justified/unjustified falls. One can not be impartial and unbiased when self-investigating. That you find no fault in your own logic is evidence that examining one's own deeds and frame of mind is a terrible thing when paired with an authority and military/martial capacity over others.

[Red Syns]

Lambasted? Big word for your mentally deficiencies. All I saw was a vomiting of taking my words out of context and stupidity, but whatever floats your boat.

First, I'm going to summarize his entire first post:
1. I'm a racist (with no supporting evidence).
2. Accusing me of saying that only black children shouldn't play with realistic looking firearms (again, no supporting evidence).
3. Said the police "beat up and arrested his sister," when she ran towards a person the police had just shot under suspicion of having a firearm. Newsflash, that's a race-neutral reaction to someone running wildly towards someone who the police just engaged. It's race-neutral, it's age-neutral, and stopping people from flocking to the body is the appropriate reaction, it's not my fault you're too ignorant of scene security to have ANY FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about.

Allow me to post you some links. Move the arrow shaped thing that moves when you move your mouse over it, then push the left button on your mouse when it is over them:

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/in...un_from_a.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/toy-gun-tam...ry?id=35982086

Make up your mind in less than a tenth of a second. I'm even giving you the benefit of seeing them side-on, rather than the much smaller and much more identical down-the-barrel view. Oh, they look really similar, don't they? If only toy guns came with an orange tip to make it more obvious, immediately, if it was a toy. If only.


So, with that out of the way, let's move on to the second post.

I'll allow that I don't see anything that states Tamir Rice pointed the weapon at the police. WARNING: Links ahead. Follow the previous procedures for utilizing your miniscule capabilities at thinking to read the contents.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...f_tamir_r.html

The evidence shows that the 12-year-old boy grabbed a plastic replica gun from his waistband in the moment before a police officer fatally shot him outside a recreation center, McGinty told cleveland.com on Tuesday.

Are you able to read and comprehend that paragraph? If you can, then you'll understand that as the police moved towards him, he pulled a gun out of his waistband. Guess what? That's an aggressive action, which will result in the police escalating above it. It's bog standard security basics, I get the same training for watch standing. Are you still following?


On to the next part. Once again, I never said black kids can't play with toy guns. I said you shouldn't point realistic looking toy guns with the orange tips removed at police. I never mentioned race or age.

Once again, I never said it was super-realistic (it's a pretty good replica, though). I said it was realistic enough, and it doesn't take much. Consider that the object is moving, at a distance of several feet, and uniformly colored. Details on the object are not going to be readily obvious in such a situation.

Yes, yes I do think they had the time, because it's a BRIGHT ORANGE TIP on a BLACK WEAPON. The focus of any person is immediately drawn to the tip of the barrel to see where it's pointed, and it should have been obvious (it was not).

Ohio is open carry does not equal you have the right to DRAW A WEAPON ON THE POLICE. Are you mentally fucking retarded?

With so many fails, I'm not surprised you're trying to throw more words into my mouth.


On to the next part, shall we?

I don't know. Why would a teenager draw his weapon at police as they are approaching? It seems pretty fucking stupid to me, but you're the one who can't be bothered to actually READ ANY OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE INVESTIGATION YOU'RE SO DETERMINED TO IGNORE.

I'll ignore the rest of the comment here until you can actually provide evidence, which means numbers, not videos.


On to the next part, shall we?

The police received a report of an armed person in the park pointing a weapon at everyone. That is a clear and immediate threat to the health of all in the vicinity of the person in question. I don't think anybody can contest that point, but you're certainly welcome to continue drooling out of your breathing hole to try and contend it. In the meantime, I'm going to eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit what is probably a more sound argument.

And yes, if the evidence showed that my family or friend PULLED A GOD DAMNED WEAPON ON A POLICE OFFICER AS HE APPROACHED THEM, they FUCKING DESERVED TO GET SHOT. End of fucking story.


On to the next part, shall we?

I said probably because 1. I don't know the conditions of the environment and 2. there are more conditions that dictate keeping their distance is wiser than moving in. You STILL have not told me if the park was empty, or if there was anyone else present.

Would you like to guess what condition results in a need to move in immediately? Right, presence of non-involved citizens. Since you can't/won't tell me if the park was empty, you cannot say if their decision to drive up was right or not.

Are you still following? I can take a break if you like. No? Good? Alright, let's keep going.

So, they drove up on him. He drew a gun. He got shot for this incredibly stupid action.

Here's the part that I agree is wrong: with two officers present, first aid should have immediately been rendered. One officer could have provided security while the other was providing first aid. On this singular point, you are correct, and if there are any laws that would impact their lack of first aid, they should be charged under it. But that's not being charged with the SHOOTING.

And yes, rushing two officers after a shooting is going to get you restrained. You WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE BODY. That's is BASIC FUCKING SECURITY PROTOCOL, and if you refuse to calm down and keep your distance, you will be restrained and forced to keep your distance. I get it, you're retarded, and this is hard for you to comprehend, but please at least try.



So, if you're done flinging pointless, unjustified insults, we can return to a civil discussion. If not, then I'll just ignore you as I'm ignoring the fucktard who keeps insisting on calling me a racist.

[Gromgor]

Lambasted? Big word for your mentally deficiencies. All I saw was a vomiting of taking my words out of context and stupidity, but whatever floats your boat.

Oh. I promise you, my "mentally deficiencies" (by the way, nice job there) are less severe than you might imply.

First, I'm going to summarize his entire first post:
1. I'm a racist (with no supporting evidence).

Self-evident

2. Accusing me of saying that only black children shouldn't play with realistic looking firearms (again, no supporting evidence).

Implied

3. Said the police "beat up and arrested his sister," when she ran towards a person the police had just shot under suspicion of having a firearm. Newsflash, that's a race-neutral reaction to someone running wildly towards someone who the police just engaged. It's race-neutral, it's age-neutral, and stopping people from flocking to the body is the appropriate reaction, it's not my fault you're too ignorant of scene security to have ANY FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about.

Restraining someone is to be expected. I'll give you that one. I have to question why officers were so interested in restraint after the fact, but not before? There was no mention of shots fired. At worst the situation the officers were responding to was a hostage situation. The more likely (statistically) was an emotionally unstable individual contemplating suicide (given the information the cops had been given - random individual with a gun, not firing it, but rather playing with it). Absolutely NOTHING of this situation warranted officers charging in. In fact pretty much all military/police training DEMANDS the officers not charge in unless there is a specific need to act immediately. No shots reported as fired? Then the shooter is not an active threat. Immediate, maybe. But not active. So the police are real interested in restraint, except when they're not. They're real interested in civilians following orders and protocols, but not so much themselves.

Allow me to post you some links. Move the arrow shaped thing that moves when you move your mouse over it, then push the left button on your mouse when it is over them:

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/in...un_from_a.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/toy-gun-tam...ry?id=35982086

Make up your mind in less than a tenth of a second. I'm even giving you the benefit of seeing them side-on, rather than the much smaller and much more identical down-the-barrel view. Oh, they look really similar, don't they? If only toy guns came with an orange tip to make it more obvious, immediately, if it was a toy. If only.

If officers had followed training, if they had exercised restraint, if they had sought to deescalate, they would have had more than 1/10th of a second to ascertain and establish that the weapon was in fact not a weapon, and thus lethal force was not only not necessary, but in fact very excessive.

So, with that out of the way, let's move on to the second post.

I'll allow that I don't see anything that states Tamir Rice pointed the weapon at the police. WARNING: Links ahead. Follow the previous procedures for utilizing your miniscule capabilities at thinking to read the contents.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...f_tamir_r.html

The evidence shows that the 12-year-old boy grabbed a plastic replica gun from his waistband in the moment before a police officer fatally shot him outside a recreation center, McGinty told cleveland.com on Tuesday.
Are you able to read and comprehend that paragraph? If you can, then you'll understand that as the police moved towards him, he pulled a gun out of his waistband. Guess what? That's an aggressive action, which will result in the police escalating above it. It's bog standard security basics, I get the same training for watch standing. Are you still following?

First - The very link that you cite here shows that the evidence doesn't show shit except that the assistant county prosecutor (Remember that little blurb about self-investigating and how a PROSECUTOR presented the Defense FOR the officers? This was that specific incident) claims that there was indisputable evidence showing blah blah blah - except further into the article, surprise, surprise, it's disputed.

But again - if the officers had not just raced in to within mere feet of the kid, they would have been able to learn that the gun was not real. Also, I'd like to point out that this article also state, and I'm copy/pasting directly from it so all the copyright whatever go to it:

"That point of contrast, prosecutors said, is the replica Colt 1911 that Tamir was seen aiming at people in the HOURS before someone called 911." (BOLD ADDED BY ME FOR EMPHASIS)

HOURS. fucking HOURS this kid was playing with this gun. Nobody shot. Nobody dead. No body count.

Also, I'd like to comment on the irony that later in this post you ask for evidence stating that you want to see stats, not video, as evidence. But I digress.

On to the next part. Once again, I never said black kids can't play with toy guns. I said you shouldn't point realistic looking toy guns with the orange tips removed at police. I never mentioned race or age.

You're right. You didn't say it. You implied it.

Once again, I never said it was super-realistic (it's a pretty good replica, though). I said it was realistic enough, and it doesn't take much. Consider that the object is moving, at a distance of several feet, and uniformly colored. Details on the object are not going to be readily obvious in such a situation.

PotaTO, poTAto - Won't really argue this one. Doesn't matter. It was "realistic enough" and I'll leave it at that - even though that technically supports your argument.

Yes, yes I do think they had the time, because it's a BRIGHT ORANGE TIP on a BLACK WEAPON. The focus of any person is immediately drawn to the tip of the barrel to see where it's pointed, and it should have been obvious (it was not).

The officer got out of his cruiser and was pulling the trigger before he would have even had a chance to differentiate color. He was falling out of his car he was exiting it so quickly, squeezing the trigger as he went. Orange wouldn't have even registered to him.

Ohio is open carry does not equal you have the right to DRAW A WEAPON ON THE POLICE. Are you mentally fucking retarded?

With so many fails, I'm not surprised you're trying to throw more words into my mouth.

Nobody has argued that you should have that right. Also, no, I don't think anyone on this forum is fucking retarded.

Any words thrown into your mouth are either a lack of your proper explanation, or proper interpretation of what you imply.

On to the next part, shall we?

I don't know. Why would a teenager draw his weapon at police as they are approaching? It seems pretty fucking stupid to me, but you're the one who can't be bothered to actually READ ANY OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE INVESTIGATION YOU'RE SO DETERMINED TO IGNORE.

Because he was a kid, playing with a toy gun, and didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Suddenly a wild Rattata appe....I mean trigger-happy officers appears! It might seem stupid to you. A lot of things seem to. But this was a kid just enjoying a day of play when he's taken by surprise by a giant fucking car parking at his feet, two people ejecting themselves from the vehicle and unloading into his chest. Why in the hell would you EVER expect the kid to do something reasonable?

I'll ignore the rest of the comment here until you can actually provide evidence, which means numbers, not videos.

See, told you that you did this!

On to the next part, shall we?

The police received a report of an armed person in the park pointing a weapon at everyone. That is a clear and immediate threat to the health of all in the vicinity of the person in question. I don't think anybody can contest that point, but you're certainly welcome to continue drooling out of your breathing hole to try and contend it. In the meantime, I'm going to eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit what is probably a more sound argument.

Protocol would be to ascertain actual level of threat, number of individuals at risk, etc. Also mental state of the individual (was he suicidal, was this a death-by-cop scenario?

I don't think anybody can contest that point, but you're certainly welcome to continue drooling out of your breathing hole to try and contend it. In the meantime, I'm going to eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit what is probably a more sound argument.

I'm contesting it right now. Hell, the article you cited with the "indisputable" evidence contests it.

Also, I like you. You're colorful in your wordings. Nothing original or particularly great in imagery, but I assume you're either young or old. So you're either inexperienced or you're outdated.

And yes, if the evidence showed that my family or friend PULLED A GOD DAMNED WEAPON ON A POLICE OFFICER AS HE APPROACHED THEM, they FUCKING DESERVED TO GET SHOT. End of fucking story.

Except the kid din't pull a gun on the cops. He was holding a toy. It was because of the officers disregard of training, protocol and human life that they never took 2 fucking minutes after HOURS (again, bolded for emphasis) to find out what was really going on. Just to be a sarcastic shit, I'd say that means their investigative skills are sub-par for an officer and they should be fired for that incompetency alone.

On to the next part, shall we?

Ok. Proceed...

I said probably because 1. I don't know the conditions of the environment and 2. there are more conditions that dictate keeping their distance is wiser than moving in. You STILL have not told me if the park was empty, or if there was anyone else present.

If the park was empty, then I would argue it would be better for the officers to move in than if there were innocent bystanders that could be hurt in such a bumrush. No. I'm not arguing they should have rushed in - just that the consequences would have been less severe in such an instance.

Would you like to guess what condition results in a need to move in immediately? Right, presence of non-involved citizens.

Negative. Presence of non-involved citizens requires EVEN GREATER RESTRAINT. There's this thing that Law Enforcement is taught that places priority on what you protect. The first thing you protect is HUMAN LIFE/CIVILIANS. Meaning you DON'T FUCKING RUN IN, GUNS A-BLAZIN'. After that you protect other things like the suspect, yourself and lastly, property.

You ascertain threat, and if none exists, you don't use Force.

Since you can't/won't tell me if the park was empty, you cannot say if their decision to drive up was right or not.

The park was not empty - obviously his sister was present to try to run to her brother.

Their decision to drive up was not right. It violates policy taught to all law enforcement.

Are you still following? I can take a break if you like. No? Good? Alright, let's keep going.

I'm following. Disagreeing with almost every bit of it, but following. I don't need breaks, I brought my own line breaks and I've been using them pretty liberally.

So, they drove up on him. He drew a gun. He got shot for this incredibly stupid action.

He got shot for the officers incredibly reckless, stupid behavior.

Here's the part that I agree is wrong: with two officers present, first aid should have immediately been rendered. One officer could have provided security while the other was providing first aid. On this singular point, you are correct, and if there are any laws that would impact their lack of first aid, they should be charged under it. But that's not being charged with the SHOOTING.

Fairplay and all, I acknowledge this and will refrain from comment. =)

And yes, rushing two officers after a shooting is going to get you restrained. You WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE BODY. That's is BASIC FUCKING SECURITY PROTOCOL, and if you refuse to calm down and keep your distance, you will be restrained and forced to keep your distance. I get it, you're retarded, and this is hard for you to comprehend, but please at least try.

A 14 yr. old girl runs to her just shot brother. This is completely reasonable. I agree that the officers prohibiting her getting to the body is acceptable. I honestly don't think she was arrested, only restrained (there is a difference) but if she was arrested, then there is an issue. I don't remember the specifics of this so I will refrain from comment on it.

So, if you're done flinging pointless, unjustified insults, we can return to a civil discussion. If not, then I'll just ignore you as I'm ignoring the fucktard who keeps insisting on calling me a racist.

When you stop being a cop-apologist who enables the tyrannical behavior of a police society left (collectively) unchecked, then I'll stop calling you such. I find your total disregard for normal human behavior to be atrocious, dangerous and ultimately destructive to society. Also, imagine I ate some alphabet soup and a bunch of jello shots and puked up some colorful verbiage. Please and thank you.