General Why Slut Shame When You Can Veteran Shame Instead,

[Deleted member 38137]

Apparently a Veteran in my suburbs went off his rocker and decided to paint Swastikas on cars. And OH, how the liberal media had a blast with it.

Google Iraqi war vet Detroit swastika and you will see it. This site won't let me post the link.

Funny how you can be an Islamic sympathizer and KILL people and your mental health needs to be assessed and you should get sympathy. But when one of OUR OWN as a COMBAT VET does something messed up, the whole entire spin of the story is negative.

And yes, you gals that have been fighting your own battles as a supporter, need to wonder what will happen TO YOU if your Vet does something unsavory due to PTSD. Will you be all over the news too??? We NEED to educate the public about this illness. And quick!!!

 

[joeylittle]

I'm really not clear on the slut shaming connection...

ETA: They aren't reporting that he has PTSD. They are reporting a 'mental health issue' and medication.

 

[Deleted member 38137]

I'm really not clear on the slut shaming connection...

ETA: They aren't reporting that he has PTSD...

I was using the "slut shaming" because it's a buzzword in people that are trolling the internet. Especially in the younger generation. Some girl will put up a Booty pic of herself and people will make rude comments and call her a slut.

The analogy and relation this has to my post is that if we allow the media to make actions of Veterans that are a little off due to PTSD a BIG DEAL when they are non-violent, then we are allowing Veteran Shaming.

I find it disgusting how cold blooded and calculated killers such as the Orlando and now the Fort Lauderdale killers are touted in the media as "mentally ill" while supporting Jihadist ideologies in an effort to excuse such behaviors. They weren't crazy enough to not know how to kill someone and planned out vicious attacks. Their actions weren't random. They were very calculated.

 

[Deleted member 38137]

Likewise, another member explained the following:

@PartTimeWarriorLover - in my experience it is highly unlikely that a veteran post Vietnam would have an underlying mental health problem prior to deploying. I'm not saying it couldn't happen but modern non-conscript armies do a lot of psych testing to ensure that those deemed "psych unsuit" are not accepted into the Military.

So, my guess would be that the guy is suffering from PTSD. :(

 

[joeylittle]

The analogy and relation this has to my post is that if we allow the media to make actions of Veterans that are a little off due to PTSD a BIG DEAL when they are non-violent, then we are allowing Veteran Shaming.

OK. But there is literally one media piece on this - from the local Fox affiliate - and he spray-painted swastikas and hate speech against african-americans on other peoples' property...he broke the law. I'm not sure I see where the 'big deal' is, here.

Slut shaming isn't just about girls putting up booty pics. It's about the whole "she was asking for it - look what she was wearing/where she was" thing that comes along with sexual assault and victim blaming.

So, I understand if you want to make an equivalent about victim blaming, because this guy really isn't a criminal, he's a vet suffering from PTSD...who committed a criminal act.

A woman who can't have her rape prosecuted because she is advised she was 'asking for it' isn't the same thing - and I'm not sure that this guy is being treated unfairly. It's certainly not a media circus.

 

[Deleted member 38137]

OK. But there is literally one media piece on this - from the local Fox affiliate - and he spray-pa...

First off, why is it relevant that he is an "Iraq War Veteran"? Why isn't he referred to as "Local Man"? Here is the first paragraph to the article. It's the first damn words!!!

"An Iraq war veteran accused of spray painting swastikas and other threatening graffiti was arraigned in court Monday."

Secondly, he's considered a danger to society. FOR GRAFFITI???

"Investigators asked for a high bond, going so far as to say the suspect is a danger to society."

Last I checked, spray painting building and vehicles isn't exactly mass murder. Wouldn't it be better treatment to put him in the VA psych ward than in jail?

Is he really dangerous or does the authorities PRESUME he is because he's been in combat???

Did you know that the standard protocol in most local governments is to send in the SWAT team when confronting a combat vet??? Did you also know that sending in the SWAT team will trigger more PTSD symptoms than just having a former brother in arms that is now a police officer speak with the Vet???

This article is yellow journalism at its finest. It was written with the intent to sway an audience to automatically a.) presume that the Vet is dangerous b.) that his former service in combat makes him a threat to society. Yet he didn't grab his arsenal and start blowing people's heads off. That was done by those two lovely Jihadists in Florida.

 

[joeylittle]

First off, why is it relevant that he is an "Iraq War Veteran"?

Very good point - totally right, it's not relevant.

Secondly, he's considered a danger to society. FOR GRAFFITI???

To be fair, some of the graffiti was a threatening message to the individuals he was targeting. Now, 'danger to society' is a big sloppy phrase for that, they could have used 'posed a threat to the community'.

Wouldn't it be better treatment to put him in the VA psych ward than in jail?

Is he really dangerous or does the authorities PRESUME he is because he's been in combat???

Yeah, there might be some of this going on. But you're also presuming it's PTSD. I don't doubt that there's a good reason to assume PTSD - but they certainly aren't coming right out and identifying what the mental issue is. It might be more complicated.

And he does pose a threat to the people he threatened.

Did you know that the standard protocol in most local governments is to send in the SWAT team when confronting a Combat vet???

No, I didn't. Confronting under what circumstances? Anyway - I can understand how that is a kind of targeting all it's own, and it's upsetting to me the same way I think it's wrong that they send police to deal with the severely mentally ill, instead of people who are trained to work with someone in the middle of a psychotic episode.

But you are talking like this guy didn't do anything wrong, and he did. Last I checked, it was not cool to threaten the Jews for existing, or to call people out by name by spray-painting that so-and-so is a "dumb n----", multiple times on different locations, naming different individuals.

I agree - there was no need to call him a vet in the lede line. That's a kind of click-bait. But it's also good that they are protecting whatever his mental health status is, because I don't see the connection between PTSD and ethnic intimidation. Anger issues, yes. Taken out in this specific way, I don't know, honestly, if that's PTSD-related or something else. I suppose it could be.

 

[Sweetpea76]

My vet has had the SWAT team out for him. It was because he had weapons in the house and he was in an active dissociative state. He didn't have a weapon out or on him, but he thought he was back in Iraq and could have easily. He had other gear on. If one of his weapons had been out, things would have been ugly.

He needed the SWAT team out, they're the unit trained for situations like that. A "brother in arms" speaking to him wouldn't have done shit. He was gone. That was when he had his first psych hold.

Just because he served doesn't mean he deserves special treatment when it comes to the safety of the rest of the population. Or gets to endanger officers.

 

[dulcia]

I agree with @joeylittle and @Sweetpea76. Although I can completely understand where your anger is coming from, @PartTimeWarriorLover. It's hard not to get defensive of our vets sometimes but, honestly, my vet has the potential to be the most dangerous person I know. (Not that he is, and not that the man in the news story was aggressively "dangerous", but in my own experience, I know that the potential is there.)