Chicago cops angry over new stun-gun policy

The Chicago Police Department is getting sued for rewriting rules without input from the city's police union. Specifically, the new rules apply to the use of stun-guns.

No longer will police be permitted to use a stun-gun on people who are intoxicated and may pose a threat, running away both with and without a hostage in tow, and those who are vulnerable to injury, including physical, psychological or simply emotional. 

Police will need to make their own assessment in the latter case and if they are proved wrong as witnessed in a criminal who shows: sadness, anger, fear, confusion, resentment, the heebie-jeebies, or simple dismay, the arresting officer can and will be brought up on charges and can face suspension and criminal charges for firing a stun-gun without making a proper psych eval.

The tighter policy comes after an August investigation by the Chicago Tribune on the department's reliance on the devices. 

The cop on the beat may therefore be forced to use a handgun in order to avoid allegations of misuse of force.

Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson overhauled the old department policy which unfortunately caused many criminals to be caught but saddened over the outcome. The new rules were introduced in May and enacted in October, according to the report.

Anti-criminal-escape critics attacked the policy calling it too permissive and the union representing rank-and-file cops argued the department didn't have the right to change the rules without its input and legally violated the union's collective bargaining rights.

Craig Futterman, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is suing the police department over its practices, and said the new policy doesn't go far enough. He to the Tribune that simply telling cops to stop shocking people with a stun-gun to avoid causing them emotional difficulty is only a half-measure. He would like cops to apologize to vulnerable criminals, drunks and fleeing felons if the cop so much as thinks about stun-gunning their butts.

"If cops would stay in better shape and stop frequenting Dunkin Donuts, they'd be able to catch folks running away even without a hostage in tow," Futterman said.

Geoffrey Alpert, an self-described "expert" on the use of force and a criminal justice professor at the University of South Carolina, thought the department's move was a good one. But he said that the move will be worthless without solid training, supervision and discipline.

In order to assist cops with determining the threat level of suspected perps, the department will be providing them with University of Chicago psychology courses, among them: intensive cognitive behavioral psychotherapy, psycho-diagnostics, interpretation of the Rorschach Inkblots and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, just for starters.

The real danger isn't the criminal who may have a hidden weapon, it's the beat cop who misdiagnoses a drunken bar brawler as a danger because he only got a "C" in Psych 101.

The Chicago PD had 745 stun-guns in 2015. Now they have about 4,000 and they're locked, loaded and all charged up to go.

Vvvvvvvvvvvvvvzzzzzzt!


Tweet

A psychological analysis of Trump supporters uncovers amazing findings on Hillary-Bernie supporters

While psychologists and neuroscientists often provide conflicting or overlapping analyses and results when studying the human mind, there are a few who apparently hit the nail right in the noggin.

That'd be me.

After reading fake analysis by leftists pretending to delineate the psychodynamics of the Trump voter, labeling us with Authoritarian Personality Syndrome for example, as well as five other universal attributes, I decided the same can be done with the Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton glass ceiling voter.

The fake study cited by Bobby Azarian of Raw Story, discusses a
review paper  by Thomas Pettigrew in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 

Pettigrew is a professor of psychology at UC Santa Cruz, a school noted for its May Day protest this year and leftist teachings. 

Pettigrew has been blaming authoritarianism for much of the problems with racism since the 1960s. He means well but he's obviously tunnel-visioned.

So let's look at what the study cited and decided that Trump voters share, and let's see if we can make sense of it for Hillary voters too.

1. Authoritarian Personality Syndrome:

"Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others," the study says, pointing its middle finger at Trump voters.

When conservatives such as Ben Shapiro and others have tried to speak at college campuses, there have been riots that have kept them from speaking. The leftist rioters apparently displayed their indifference or lack of concern for the personal freedom (as per our First Amendment) and the opinions and needs of conservative speakers.

Not one of those protesters was a Trump voter.

And speaking of the syndrome itself the author says that those who display it display aggression toward out-group members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. Although the study agrees that liberals can suffer from it, the syndrome is more common among right-wing folks.

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want to see an even bigger authority in the form of bigger government. In fact, they want it to be so big, with them at the top, that it provides government leaders with enormous power over the people, those who the government would treat as children needing all-encompassing assistance for most of their needs.

2. Social dominance orientation (SDO):

Although it is distinct from authoritarian personality syndrome, it is related to it because Pettigrew believes everything sociological is related to it.

People with SDO have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups (White) have dominance over the low-status groups. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.

In Communist terms SDO refers to something resembling the Collective. 

In terms of reality, the people who tend to support Trump are not the high-status groups at all--they're the coal miners in West Virginia, unemployed folks seeking work, conservatives who may not have voted for Trump in the primaries, but couldn't stand socialist Sanders or elitist Clinton.

True, some Trump supporters are white supremacists, but that doesn't make Trump a white supremacist. 

If it were true that those who voted for you defined who you are, then that would make Hillary Clinton an idiot, because anyone who would vote for someone without a real platform other than her vagina, and who has clearly violated the Espionage Act due to her arrogant use of a personal email server,  and who allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi and blamed a video for the attack, is an idiot.

3. Prejudice:

The study says that "It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump's supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that many do not. It is a well-known fact that the Republican Party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon's "southern strategy," used strategies that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with "dog whistles"--code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else."

This has been a claim made by leftists when nothing else works. The whole idea of "dog whistles" is just another way of saying "Republican use 'trigger words' that upset me." 

If a leftist says only a certain group can hear the "dog whistle," and he or she hears it, then how is that possible unless the leftist is defining what the word supposedly means?

Azarian claims Trump's dog whistles are "sometimes shockingly direct." He says that "There's no denying that he [Trump] routinely appeals to bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims "dangerous: and Mexican immigrants 'rapists' and 'murderers,' often in a blanketed fashion.

Except he never actually did. He was very clear about who in each group he was referring to--not all Muslims and not all Mexicans. Azarian dishonestly twisted Trump's words.

You don't have to be a bigot to be concerned about Islamic terrorism. It's simply a fact of life (or death, depending if the cup's half full). Trump even went on to explain that he wasn't referring to all Mexicans, "just the bad ones."

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, actually called Trump supporters 'deplorables' and that's really the definition of prejudice (pre-judging people you haven't met).

4. Intergroup contact:

Refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one's own, which is shown to reduce prejudice. "There is growing evidence that Trump's white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans," Azarian asserts.

What 'growing evidence'? 

How can any study know that without actually interviewing most of Trump's supporters and ask them if they work with or hang out with people of different races. And then take a 'Google-look' at Chris Matthews' son's wedding group photo and check out the absence of anyone other than caucasian people.

In fact, it's the Democratic Party that uses identity politics, that has resulted in a disunited country and this study is a good example of it.

5. Relative deprivation:

This one made me chuckle.

It refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled (such as the presidency). Nothing more need be said on this topic.

Basically, what this fake study shows is that results in political-sociological studies are nearly impossible to undertake without experimenter bias. And when studies are performed in obviously left-leaning academic institutions, this is even more problematic.

Everything the study applied to Trump supporters can just as easily be applied in spades to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters.

It all depends upon who the authors of the study voted for.


Tweet

Delusional man who believes he's a woman tries suicide again

Kansas City, Mo. -- Chelsea Manning, a man whose given name was Bradley which he changed to Chelsea because he has gender identity confusion, tried to off himself for the second unsuccessful time.

Manning is in prison for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks, a website that reveals classified information and compromises countries and people's lives. 

The disgraced transgender soldier had tried to kill himself back in July and was put into solitary confinement as punishment. This made him sad.

His attorneys, Vincent Ward and Chase Strangio gave the news of this suicide attempt to the press but declined to discuss the details of last month's attempt. However, it is safe to say that there is no change in Manning's mental status as he continues to believe he's a woman and would like his penis removed and inverted to provide himself with visual evidence.

Although his lawyers will not discuss the suicide, they did talk about his prison conditions, including a solitary confinement that exacerbated his fragile mental state. 

In an email to the AP, Strangio called 'her' treatment since 'her' 2010 arrest and subsequent time serving a mere 35-year sentence instead of a capital sentence, "demoralizing and destabilizing assaults on [her] health and humanity."

Perhaps if political correctness was avoided and real mental health interventions were tried, he wouldn't try to kill himself. 

But referring to transgender men by the opposite pronoun is an abuse of logic. Biologically, Manning is a man--it is only "on paper" that he's a 'her', and biology is a fact, not delusions.

If Manning thought that he was a rhesus monkey in human flesh, would we treat him like a monkey just to be PC?

Personally, I don't like traitors and I don't give a damn that Manning feels demoralized. Manning was arrested in 2010 and convicted in 2013 for leaking over 700,000 highly classified documents of the military and the State Department to WikiLeaks. 

What he did was seditious and in times of war, the death penalty would have been the punishment.

But insofar as assaulting his health, both physical and mental, I believe there are better interventions than simply going along with a delusion--and that goes for all people who believe they are not the gender that biology has assigned to them. 

Psychotherapy is the best way to go, but even the field of psychology and psychiatry have become politicized and what was once called "gender identification disorder" is now called "gender dysphoria" because the authors of the DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th Revision) were pressured into 'normalizing' the delusion of gender indentification confusion.

And politicizing diagnoses is a load of bull.

In spite of that, the ACLU sued the U.S. Department of Defense over its refusal to "treat" Manning's gender dysphoria. They wanted the DoD to pay for the surgically removal of Manning's penis and make it look like a vagina as a way to treat his mental problem.




Tweet

Trump or Obama--who's the real sociopath?

Former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.) thinks Donald Trump is a "sociopath." He would never support him and now that John "Karate Chop" Kasich is out of the race, the horse in his race is Hillary, a felon, not a sociopath. 

"The Hump," as his wife probably calls him, said that he will continue to support Kasich until the convention is "gaveled to a close." The Hump is  Kasich delegate and would go through fire and water to support him. Regarding Trump, The Hump said, "I think he's a sociopath."

Humphrey isn't a psychologist--he studied aviation and is a pilot. I believe he may be confusing Donald Trump with Barack Obama, who may be more of a sociopath than Trump.


Sociopaths are charming. It's one of the diagnostic characteristics of sociopaths--that's how they use people to their advantage.

Let's not kid ourselves, Obama is a lot more charming than Trump could ever be. In fact, that's the Donald's charm--the fact that he's so damn disagreeable with most everyone who gets in his way.

Sociopaths are incapable of love. Do you ever see vibrant love bubbles bursting over the heads of Barack and Michelle? I don't think so. But Trump's family have an incredible allegiance toward him that usually comes from parenting history. 

Of course, their allegiance could also come from the truckloads of money he has, but there's no proof of that. Trump appears to love his family more than Obama appears to love the Mooch.

Sociopaths tend to speak poetically. They throw around polysyllabic words like a monkey with his feces--just look at Charles Manson on YouTube and listen to him speak. 

Trump generally uses simple words, simple phrases. He prefers to speak to the public as if we are all in kindergarten. His big words are usually hyperbole--"tremendous,' 'amazing,' and the like.

Obama clearly is "on the wrong side of history" on this one. He uses words as if they're magic and uses our Constitution as if it's a doormat.

Sociopaths tend to dominate people and must "win" at all costs.

This is where Trump may trump Obama, but I wouldn't swear to it. Sure Trump uses the term "win, win, win," but that's because it's a one syllable word, whereas Obama says the same thing with bigger words but doesn't mean any one of them.

Manson's Einstein imitation

Sociopaths never apologize. 

This one's a tossup. I don't remember either one of them ever really apologizing even when it was blatantly obvious they were wrong. But I believe that this is a characteristic of politicians and people who dive to become one.

Sociopaths tend to be very intelligent.

I believe Trump beats Obama in the intellect department but Obama is clearly intelligent enough to have gotten by without ever holding down a real job. It may be due to the big words he uses. 

Sociopaths are delusional and actually believe that what they say becomes truth. The best example of this is when Obama said that you can keep your health care provider. And it will save the average American $2500 a year.

And you can keep your doctor. 

Period.

I see Obama and Trump both on par in this area, but we still haven't seen Trump as POTUS to determine just how delusional he might be. If he gets Mexico to pay for the wall, I'll be convinced he's the real deal and I'll just shut up.

There are several more areas used in the diagnosis of sociopathic behavior. It's difficult to know with accuracy if either man is displays the behavior because we know them only in their public lives.

What is clear is that laypersons should be careful about attributing a serious diagnosis to another individual. It's clearly unethical coming from a public figure to be labelling another. Fortunately, I am not a public figure so I can label The Hump a troglodyte.

Look it up, Donald.


Tweet

I Said I Wouldn't But I Did--I Lied

They say people lie a lot more than they think they do. In a Psychology Today article by Allison Kornet, (May 1, 1997), the author cites a study done in the prior year. 

Bella DePaulo, a psychologist from the University of Virginia, did a study on lying using 147 subjects between the ages of 17 and 71 and had them keep a diary of all the lies they told over the course of a week. She discovered from the diaries that most people lie between once and twice a day. In social exchanges lasting at least 10 minutes, both men and women lie about one fifth of the time. Over the course of a week, people lie about 30 percent of those with whom they react with on a one-to-one basis. Kids lie to their parents about half the time. And so it goes.

A sturdy wooden chair

I feel better about this, because I lied when I said that I would never watch The Five on Fox News ever again because Bob Beckel, the die-hard liberal, was on it, and his presence annoyed me to the point of boycotting the show. Well, I've changed my tune and I am once again watching The Five. In fact, it wasn't very long after my blog about never watching it again that I did, in fact, tune in. Beckel got me angry, as usual, but I came to realize that without listening to the other point of view, the lunatic ranting liberal viewpoint, that is, I was being narrow minded and less informed.

It's important to hear liberal thinking because it only solidifies your conservative opinions even more. And it also provides you with material to add to your own discourse agenda. So expect to hear more about the Shadow of Michael Moore in the future from me. 


And please forgive me for lying, for I knew not what I did .  .  .  wait, that's a lie.



 

Tweet