Man Who Shot, Killed Ohio K-9 Officer Jethro Sentenced to 45 Years in Prison

[Danke]

Whatever they have at the dog pound , I can jail break 'em and trade 'em for rifles .

Lol, "jail break." You mean, "pick up." Right.

 

[oyarde]

Lol, "jail break." You mean, "pick up." Right.

Yeah , pick up some dogs to trade to the white eye police for rifles ,good plan to get some tax dollars back .

 

[Danke]

Yeah , pick up some dogs to trade to the white eye police for rifles ,good plan to get some tax dollars back .

What kind of self respecting police officer would trade with an Injun? Especially firearms?

 

[oyarde]

Last time I was by there they had some fat , old , one eyed pit bulls . Those would be perfect , I could have the Mrs make them a little purple heart eye patch , once they get the bullet proof vest they will look just like cops. Same haircut .

 

[oyarde]

What kind of self respecting police officer would trade with an Injun? Especially firearms?

It is OK , I am a Great American Patriot .

 

[Danke]

It is OK , I am a Great American Patriot .

 

[oyarde]

Time to make some dog trainer business cards . I wonder if they have any .308 's ?

 

[Origanalist]

Not sure why would brag that you are an irrational wacko, who would kill over a dog.

Dogs do not have rights. No animal except humans have rights. Rights exist to further humanity. There is no justification in a free society for putting someone in jail for mistreatment of an animal. It is purely a property rights issue. If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement, that may be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal. Morality and legality are two separate issues.

If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement

If that's something you want to do, sometimes morality trumps legality for many. Myself included. And doing so for any purpose other than self defense instantly classifies you as a threat to anyone around you. Not saying you would do so, just what the response would be.

Once the state takes an animal and turns it into a weapon against my liberty it no longer deserves any sympathy from me however. It may not be the dogs fault but it is what it is.

 

[Origanalist]

Dressing up tonight?

 

[oyarde]

What kind of self respecting police officer would trade with an Injun? Especially firearms?

I noticed this dog was in Ohio , my first thought was it was trespassing , but I think Canton is North of the Greenville Treaty line . Most of Ohio still belongs to the Miami , Shawnee etc. I would charge Ohio rent.....

 

[Danke]

I noticed this dog was in Ohio , my first thought was it was trespassing , but I think Canton is North of the Greenville Treaty line . Most of Ohio still belongs to the Miami , Shawnee etc. I would charge Ohio rent.....

You guys will never admit it, but you lost, smoking that peyote.

 

[oyarde]

You guys will never admit it, but you lost, smoking that peyote.

I have my scouts keeping a careful eye on the Wabash , we have to ensure not too many of those commies from Illinois make it across. When I am Gov. , we will evaluate if we need a wall. And yes , I will make them pay for it , of course .

 

[Danke]

I have my scouts keeping a careful eye on the Wabash , we have to ensure not too many of those commies from Illinois make it across. When I am Gov. , we will evaluate if we need a wall. And yes , I will make them pay for it , of course .

Tribal dudes have governors?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Dogs are property and are not human. As long as it is your dog you should be able to do whatever you want to it with ZERO repercussions.

Any other stance is authoritarian. Period.

 

[osan]

Not sure why would brag that you are an irrational wacko, who would kill over a dog.

Sigh... incapable of offering a rational response, you resort to the ad hominem? For whatever reason, I thought you were better than this.

Dogs do not have rights.

Firstly, how do you know that?

No animal except humans have rights.

Prove it.

I wonder if you can even prove that YOU have rights.

Rights exist to further humanity.

Is a man's claim to life extant only to "further humanity"? Your statement makes no sense, as forwarded. Perhaps you have erred in its formulation? If rights exist to further humanity, the implication must be that the rights are not those of the individual but of collective humankind. Otherwise, the statement is nonsensical; how can an individual right exist solely for the furtherance of the collective?

There is no justification in a free society for putting someone in jail for mistreatment of an animal.

Who says? What is your basis?

It is purely a property rights issue.

Please demonstrate.

If you want to smash a dog's head into the cement, that may be immoral, but it shouldn't be illegal.

And here is the money shot. Legality is normatively irrelevant. That we as a species have advanced it positively in status above morality demonstrates how bereft of sense and decency we have become, statistically speaking. Law must perforce derive its authority from moral principle or it is not, in fact, law but mere statute, which is nothing more than the whim of a subpopulation. Legality speaks solely to issues of statutory formalism and not to law. It therefore also fails to speak with any moral authority and is thereby invalid. That, of course, does not mean that men with guns will not impose the immoral statute upon you and enforce it with violence and the threat thereof.

If the act is immoral, then it ought to be unlawful and "legality" should not even be in our vocabulary, save as a term of derision to denote the immoral, unlawful caprice of tyrants and associated criminals responsible for violating men's valid claims.

To assert that immoral acts should not be illegal makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football. You would serve yourself well to reconsider this gravely flawed position on the matter.

Morality and legality are two separate issues.

Here we agree, legality having no normative validity whatsoever, yet possessing the positive force of actual law through the agency of men with guns.

Your position is the product of wanting to be able to do what you want in spite of what moral propriety says contrariwise. It is my displeasure to inform you that this is a sign of moral turpitude or perhaps merely ignorance.

 

[osan]

Ya fuck that. Those fucking dogs are trained animals for the police state. I don't care if they're innocent, the fault lies entirely with his trainer. This isn't someones pet that also serves as protection for their domicile. Their whole existence is an affront to liberty because of who their masters are.

Which is precisely why I value the life of the dog over those of their handlers.

I would also note that if it is indeed the case that this guy got 45 years because of the dog and not so much due to the robbery, the message there is you may as well just shoot the cop because the price seems about the same.

I'm not sure these rocket surgeons realize the potential trouble to which the loss of proportionality may give rise.

 

[Origanalist]

Which is precisely why I value the life of the dog over those of their handlers.

I would also note that if it is indeed the case that this guy got 45 years because of the dog and not so much due to the robbery, the message there is you may as well just shoot the cop because the price seems about the same.

I'm not sure these rocket surgeons realize the potential trouble to which the loss of proportionality may give rise.

Probably not, but those behind the rise of the police state most assuredly do. The movement is towards making anything associated with government untouchable. They would make themselves holy.

 

[Krugminator2]

Sigh... incapable of offering a rational response, you resort to the ad hominem? For whatever reason, I thought you were better than this.

Who says? What is your basis?

Please demonstrate.

Anyone who values the life of dogs over humans is by definition irrational. Anyone who would kill another human for killing a dog is not tethered to reality. That is directly addressing your position. I highly doubt when push came to shove you would think like that.

The starting axiom is existence exists, And you have the right to exist. Everything flows from that.

Humans developed rights in order for humans to survive. For something to have rights, it has to have the ability or the potential to respect the rights of others. Animals don't possess that ability. They don't have a capacity for reason, and thus don't have a capacity to be moral. If you enter into a contract with a dog, it will be incapable of honoring that contract. If you did grant a bear a right to life, then you have to grant a salmon a right to life. If animals truly did have rights, then you would have to hold a bear accountable for murder every time it eats a salmon. If a human gets put in a cage with a lion, the lion is not going to voluntarily trade and cooperate with the human. It will eat the human.

If a human violates the rights of another human, it loses rights. But a human is granted rights in the first place because it possesses the capacity to respect the rights of others.

 

[Origanalist]

Anyone who values the life of dogs over humans is by definition irrational. Anyone who would kill another human for killing a dog is not tethered to reality. That is directly addressing your position. I highly doubt when push came to shove you would think like that.

The starting axiom is existence exists, And you have the right to exist. Everything flows from that.

Humans developed rights in order for humans to survive. For something to have rights, it has to have the ability or the potential to respect the rights of others. Animals don't possess that ability. They don't have a capacity for reason, and thus don't have a capacity to be moral. If you enter into a contract with a dog, it will be incapable of honoring that contract. If you did grant a bear a right to life, then you have to grant a salmon a right to life. If animals truly did have rights, then you would have to hold a bear accountable for murder every time it eats a salmon. If a human gets put in a cage with a lion, the lion is not going to voluntarily trade and cooperate with the human. It will eat the human. The same applies to humans. If a human violates the rights of another human, it loses rights.

If you put a human in a cage with a dog will the dog eat the human? It depends on if the dog is feral, trained to attack or trained to accept humans without attacking. So what you state about dogs is not true, they do have that ability.

 

[oyarde]

Tribal dudes have governors?

Once I secede I may keep that office for myself .