Useless Pussies

Do you know who actually grabbed a woman by her pussy without her consent?

Jacob Blake.

Read the text of her complaint. That woman was very traumatized.

Are any pussy-hatters objecting to the lionization of a man who actually committed a real sexual assault?

Ha ha ha.

They only care about pussies when those pussies can be used for a convenient cause.

It’s interesting how all the recent civil rights heroes are heavily into violent crimes against women and children.

64 thoughts on “Useless Pussies”

  1. Among the worst things is that there may soon be more Rittenhouses and Blakes. The description below reminds of third-world situations. The armed watcher praises cops for being supportive, but if he shoots somebody, he is not a cop and is more liable to get jailed. Cops have laws defining their role and protecting them. They also have cameras.

    Btw, is it legal to shoot people if they are setting fire to your business? To your house? What if they ‘only’ break windows and start looting? I am not a lawyer, but those situations seem … sticky and stinky for everyone.

    // Armed neighborhood watch group forms to protect Kenosha subdivision
    About a 10-minute drive from Downtown Kenosha, two men stood this week with AR-15 firearms protecting their subdivision.

    The armed men were Jason and Gilbert, part of a group of about 10 residents of the subdivision that have been out nights since Tuesday protecting their neighborhood in light of the unrest in Kenosha.

    The effort was launched after a Neighborhood Watch meeting … The decision to arm came afterwards.

    “A lot of us are veterans (both men said they served in the Marines), some are former cops, so we’re comfortable (handling firearms),” Jason said. “We’re simply doing nothing more than protecting the subdivision.”

    “Our approach is when we see a car coming through we flash the ground (with a flashlight) just to let them know there is a presence here,” Gilbert said.

    If a vehicle does pull into the subdivision, the watch group uses “a friendly approach” to the drivers, letting them know they are just keeping an eye on things.

    “The cops have been very supportive,” Jason said of the guard’s initiative. “They said ‘guys, just be careful.’ And they actually suggested to use our cars to block a bit (of the street).”


  2. Once again: either you’re for extrajudicial murder and attempted murder by authorities, or you aren’t. That’s regardless of what the person may or may not be accused of.


    1. “extrajudicial murder and attempted murder ”

      That is very strong rhetoric for this case when, according to police (and/or backed up by video footage)

      With all the information on Blake’s behavior it was entirely reasonable for the police to assume he was going for a weapon (reaching to a place where they are often kept) and since other forms of force had failed to stop him then shooting is a last resort…. seven shots sounds excessive but by that time adrenaline has taken over.

      This case is regrettable but what did Blake do to avoid it? The case leftists seem to be making is that police should try to arrest anyone who doesn’t consent to be arrested…. which is…. (I dunno…. what is it?)


      1. What are the police supposed to do when they come across a person with an outstanding warrant against him and he refuses to be detained? I’m not asking this rhetorically. A whole city is being burned, people are dying over this. There’s got to be an answer beyond the inane “nobody deserves to die.” Yes, nobody deserves to die. Now that we agreed on this, what should happen in these situations? What’s the point of victims reporting crime if it can’t be prosecuted?


        1. I just saw a video of a man trying to rape a woman in broad daylight in NYC. Everybody is standing vapidly by while he is raping her. Should the police try to apprehend him? And no, he doesn’t deserve to die. But he deserves to go to jail. What if he disagrees, though? What should the police do? Shrug their shoulders and leave?


        2. No. Some people really do deserve to die.

          Was this guy one of them? If we believe his ex, yes. This is the kind of guy who, once he’s slept with a woman, considers her his property, to use and abuse as he pleases, forever. If the woman herself had shot him when he entered the house, she would have been entirely justified.

          If we don’t believe his ex, then this is still a guy who did not cooperate with police, was not stopped by tasers (a good indication he was high), and still reached into his vehicle. This is a situation where many, many cops have been shot: perp reaches into vehicle, grabs a gun, shoots cop. By the time you can see the gun, it’s too late. They are trained to shoot if the perp reaches into a vehicle. It doesn’t matter that this guy “only” had a knife. The cops didn’t know that, and didn’t have the luxury of waiting to find out.

          The man is too stupid to live. Somehow, he survived anyway. Given the circumstances, it’s hard to see it as “cops shot a guy”. More like “stupid, violent criminal got himself shot.”


    2. Why do we keep on and on about murder? Blake is alive. I’m very glad that he’s alive but I’m not glad that he won’t go to jail for this crime.

      There’s got to be some space between “let’s kill him” and “let’s declare him a saint.” Both Blake and Floyd committed violence against women. This has got to matter to somebody.


    3. // either you’re for extrajudicial murder and attempted murder by authorities, or you aren’t.

      I am not for extrajudicial murder.

      At the same time, I am for enabling police to protect themselves against people who pull guns or knives on them.

      Remember former cases in which police were not (completely) in the wrong, yet the killed were presented as complete innocents?

      There is detailed analysis here, but I haven’t read it:


  3. That’s almost funny:

    “In videos circulating on social media, one of the victims, Joseph Rosenbaum, a white man, is recorded screaming “shoot me n*****” multiple times at the posse of armed vigilantes — a surprising turn of phrase from a BLM protestor.”

    May be, this could help Democrats to get off their high horse, drawing attention to racists using BLM protests as a cover.



  4. Have those arsonists also been inspired by protests?

    // A Jewish student center at the University of Delaware was set on fire Tuesday night. According to authorities, the burning of the Chabad Center for Jewish Life was intentional; however, they are not labeling it as a hate crime.

    it took firefighters 45 minutes to get the fire under control, and crews had to remain on scene for three hours to extinguish other hotspots. Though the building was not occupied during the fire and no injuries were reported, there was “significant” damage estimated at $75,000

    The Chabad Center for Jewish Life called itself a “home away from home” for Jewish students to socialize, take classes, or receive advice and referrals.

    StandWithUs Center for Combating Antisemitism Director Carly F. Gammill told Campus Reform that this illustrates the increasing danger that Jewish Americans are facing around the country. She also highlighted the need for added security while pointing to an incident at a Chabad house in Oregon just last week.

    That incident was investigated as possible arson but investigators have since said they don’t suspect foul play, although the probe is ongoing.


    1. ” warrant for arrest and not license to kill”

      But how should police behave in a situation like that with a non-compliant, armed person violently resisting arrest (physically attacking the officers) and behaving in a very threatening manner?
      If they shouldn’t have shot him then what should they have done?


      1. I think the trigger for most people in this case is the number 7. I was talking to my father about this today and he seems to be enraged by the number of bullets more than by the fact that he was shot. I guess it would be easier for many people to accept if the number was in the 1-3 range.


        1. What gets me is that we saw gigantic demonstrations over bad dating experiences of aging starlets but here is a woman who is a real victim of abuse and sexual assault and nobody cares.


        2. “the number 7”

          I agree that the number is troubling an requires investigation. My uneducated guesses would be some kind of panic attack on the part of the shooter, compression of the shooter’s finger as a result of the struggle, or possibly a gun malfunction. My reasoning is that a trained shooter wouldn’t require seven bullets if he/she wanted to deliver a fatal blow. All of this doesn’t make the guy who was maniacally resisting arrest a sainted victim of systemic racism (as in, now pull the other one.)


    2. “Warrant for arrest is warrant for arrest and not license to kill”

      Sophomoric blather.

      “either you’re for extrajudicial murder and attempted murder by authorities, or you aren’t.”

      Textbook false dichotomy – thanks for the guffaw! (But wait, CNN is looking for chyron writers.)


      1. “refuses to be detained?”

        I really do think they want to extend the idea of ‘consent’ to arrest – if a person doesn’t consent to be arrested then they should be set free.

        You have heard of this I assume?


              1. Shooting once doesn’t stop the guy unless you nail him in the head, which is really hard. You learn this in the 101-level gun class. Educate yourself.


      2. “What should the police do if there’s a warrant against somebody for a serious offense and he refuses to be detained?”

        Realize that the “somebody” in question is a victim of systemic racism.
        Check your privilege (this admittedly becomes somewhat trickier if you’re not a cop of the “white” persuasion)
        Stop asking racist questions out loud, geesh!
        Go home and hide under blankets from the righteous anger of your BLM saviours.
        Defund the police.


        1. He had already put one of the cops in a headlock. At what point can the cops reasonably assume the guy is violent and defend themselves? There’s no such thing as “shoot-to-injure”. Are they supposed to wait until he kills one of the cops, or just let him get away because “omg we can’t be hurting someone over a mere rape charge, let him go!”

          Most criminals don’t actually want to be arrested. Is there some “peaceful apprehension” solution you’d endorse, for perps who won’t let themselves be arrested willingly? They’d already tried tasing him, twice. That didn’t work.


          1. From the CNN:

            Two Chicago police officers pulled over a person suspected of having a gun, and all three ended up hospitalized with gunshot wounds, officials say

            They somehow ended up hospitalized. It’s a mystery how this happened. I’m guessing they are racist. Or somebody is racist. It’s not ok to kill!


            1. Self-defense is not murder. Self-defense is not shooting 7 times to murder.

              Of course, cops have the right to self-defense, but this is not a permit to kill every time.


              1. Shooting someone 7 times does qualify as self-defense. Police are trained to shoot for center of mass, and shoot several times, because it’s hard to aim in a tense situation, and one, two, or even three shots aren’t going to stop a guy who’s high on PCP. That only stops rational people. Not the kind of people who are still fighting with cops after being tased twice. Add in that even at fairly close range, there’s a good chance some shots will miss… yes, seven shots is reasonable.

                Again, there’s no such thing as “shoot-to-injure”, or “shoot-to-incapacitate”. The cops do everything they can to avoid shooting anyone, but the decision to shoot at all is the decision to kill. That’s the training, and there are good reasons for it.

                I don’t understand what you are still confused about. Have you ever done any kind of firearms training? Talked to cops? Read up on the subject? You seem really ill-informed.


              2. Dude, how many guns have you fired? Have you ever even taken the NRA gun safety course? Gone to the range? Anything?

                Guns aren’t magic, and cops aren’t Annie Oakley. It’s not like the movies where good guys always hit their targets and bad guys always miss, and one shot drops the guy. You’re running on a fantasy version of how that works, and I don’t know how to help you get over it.


              3. “If this cop has to shoot 7 times to defend himself, he should be fired.”

                Nonsensical statement! If a cop has the need to shoot someone, the rules are to “fire at the center of mass” (as “methylethyl” has noted), AND to keep firing until the person stops being a potential threat (which means keep shooting until they fall to the ground).

                You don’t waste time counting the bullets in a life-or-death situation with a criminal.


      3. There are lots of options but the question is also, how the perception of refusing to be detained is produced. There’s so much to say. Notice how they keep claiming “refused to be detained” or claiming they were terrified — of things I wouldn’t be.


        1. We’ve all seen the videos of Jacob Blake and George Floyd. It’s clear that the former was clearly refusing to be detained because there was a serious warrant out on him and the latter was out of control and extremely high while also refusing to be detained. It’s all on video. Both men, by the way, were habitual violent abusers of women. They don’t “deserve to die” and one of them is alive while the other one would be alive if he hadn’t ingested a gigantic dose of fentanyl. But my solidarity with these terrible men is nil. It all goes to the women they had spent years torturing.


          1. “George Floyd”

            Apparently one of the motivations of the police might have been the knowledge that people who are as impaired by drugs as he clearly was are capable of doing insane and things that are very dangerous (to themselves and others) faster than anyone could predict so police are trained to not give them that opportunity.

            So, I’m genuinely sorry he’s dead (he should be alive and in jail)…. but I’m not gonna march for him. I could be convinced to march for innocent bystander victims of gang violence (certainly no shortage of those… where are the protests? mass demonstrations?) but even then not with those who enable pathological levels of violence and crime by beatifying violent criminals.


        1. “this cop tried to kill him”

          You just can’t say that for a fact. None of us know what happened for certain. It’s difficult to imagine that in a very brief encounter that a police officer would have formed a specific intent to murder an individual. How is that someone who strenuously is resisting arrest becomes cast as a victim? Makes no sense to me – the life-saving message here is “don’t resist arrest, police have guns and anything can happen once a scuffle starts.”


            1. “you don’t know shit”

              Quite possibly true. But I have to tell you that you’re not the first person to share this observation with me. So far it hasn’t made all that much difference to my daily life.

              And it doesn’t make your untenable argument any stronger – this guy was shot while actively, unreasonably, and unlawfully resisting arrest, he’s no victim. Claiming victimhood for this hood is all about re-making the facts of this case to breathe life into the poisonous race-baiting narrative of the Democratic party operatives and their BLM/Antifa/corporate media/NBA wokester allies.


          1. Yes, because cops don’t shoot unless they’ve decided killing is warranted. It’s how they’re trained, because it’d be bloody hard to recruit any if they had to let the criminals shoot first.


              1. If a perp, after being violent with cops, is failing to heed the cops’ instructions and reaching into his car, the cops can’t wait until they see the gun he’s pulling out. If they do, they’re dead.

                What is so hard to understand about that?

                This is how fast it happens:

                What kind of de-escalation would you recommend in this situation? There are countless examples of this available on YouTube and Twitter for your perusal. Try the search terms “Traffic stop” and “cop shot”

                There are also numerous cogent and well-informed posts and videos out there where lawyers, policemen, and firearms instructors, explain the tactical situation and the legal ins and outs.

                But it sounds like you’re really fixated on your opinion, and unwilling to listen to any outside evidence at this point, so… (shrugs). Probably nothing else to say. Have fun wallowing in your uninformed righteousness?


            1. ” cops don’t shoot unless they’ve decided killing is warranted”

              This is not well enough known – by the time the cops have decided to use their guns they’re not trying to ‘injure’ or ‘arrest’ you they want to kill you. People have these fantasies that they should be able to get in cops’ faces and be violent toward them and that the cops are bound by some Superman idea against killing.

              I’m not saying this is wonderful but it’s the way things are.

              Also, they tased Blake twice and that didn’t stop him – what’s going on there?


          2. “Shooting 7 times like this”

            Police are not bureaucrats or robots, they’re human beings. By the time the situation devolved into shooting their adrenaline was probably shooting off the charts. Their fight-or-flight instincts have taken over.

            You yourself have not offered one single bit of useful information on what you think the police officers in that particular case should have done (that would not have probably resulted in injury, possibly fatal, to themselves). It would be a good idea for you to stop this “7 times” line until you can clearly outline what they should have done. Not what they shouldn’t have done, but what they should have done.

            It’s regrettable that this whole thing happened and 7 shots sounds excessive but unless you’ve been in that kind of situation yourself…. negative criticism is easy, constructive criticism is not.


            1. “Police are not bureaucrats or robots, they’re human beings.”

              Well said, exactly right.

              The takeaway here should be ‘don’t resist lawful arrest by the police, it’s never going to end well.’ Instead, we have endless loops of victim narratives in order to create social chaos.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. // I would love to hear about Blake’s drug test. His behavior points to a strong possibility that he was on something.

                Has anyone administered this test in the first place?

                I heard on Fox that Trump may meet Blake or his relatives, iirc. I am sure he won’t ask Blake this question.

                Google says:

                “Lara Trump told “Fox News Sunday” that the president has reached out for a meeting with Blake’s family, but the family’s attorney said there hasn’t been any contact.

                Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has been in contact with the family, Crump said, speaking with them “for about an hour,” along with vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.