In light of the recent human-on-human cannibalistic “mauling,” when does Miami-Dade County consider banning African American males who also have beards and neck tattoos?

I’m obviously COMPLETELY KIDDING, but since this is currently in the news, I thought it could be used to show how ridiculously absurd it is to take 1 horrific event and blame an entire group of anything (people, animals) for the actions of an individual, or a few.

Before I go any further… I’m totally sorry if anyone takes this as an insensitive post. That’s not my intention, but I do want to acknowledge how it may be perceived that way by some… I also wanted to state that I have no idea why or how Rudy Eugene did what he did. I don’t know if he was a bad guy, I don’t know if he was on some crazy drug, and I don’t mean to imply to the people that actually did know him what he was or what he wasn’t. I can comment on his actions though… He ate someone’s face practically off, and that is clearly disturbing and abhorrent. Back to my intention with this post: All I’m doing is noting a well-publicized incident that happened and trying to draw a parallel with how a group of dogs (Pit Bulls) get demonized as a whole when some scumbag treats his dog like shit, chains it in the yard, doesn’t socialize it or show it any kind of love, and then it eventually “bites” someone or (using a go-to of the media) “mauls” someone. Well, now Rudy Eugene has legitimately “mauled” someone. The homeless man that was attacked “had his face eaten down to his goatee.” So yes, my initial question was sarcastic. It was satire. It’s intended to show the sheer hypocrisy and ignorance of such a potential action. An action that is actually playing out in the dog world. An action that has, coincidentally enough, already played out in Miami. Lastly, this absolutely has nothing to do with me trying to minimize black people, as Rudy Eugene just as easily could have been white or Hispanic, and I would have used the exact same example.

All that being said, I maintain that people and animals alike should be treated as individuals and judged by their specific actions. You cannot demonize anything for the actions of a few. You cannot honesty attempt to ban or cull a group of anything for the actions of a few. People are ultimately responsible for themselves. People, owners, guardians are ultimately responsible for their animals. If someone commits a crime, they should be tried in front of a jury of their peers, and if proven guilty, suffer the consequences of their actions. If any animal legitimately mauls or kills a person, that animal should be dealt with appropriately and the owner of said animal, as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident, should be thoroughly examined… If unsavory treatment is found (which is always the case) then that person should be effectively charged so that he/she is held accountable, made clear of the improper treatment, and if they infract again then the punishments should escalate. What SHOULDN’T happen when someone commits a crime is then seeing everyone else who falls under some sort of comparable category to the perpetrator (race, ethnicity, type, creed, similar look, similar interests, similar characteristics) suffering the broad-brushing and unjustified consequences. That’s tyranny folks. That’s ignorance folks. That’s hate folks.

*Update*
In an odd turn of events, Maryland, a state which just recently introduced statewide legislation meant to negatively typecast all Pit Bulls as “inherently dangerous,” just had a similar cannibalistic event come to light today… Apparently Maryland resident, Alexander Kinyua, admitted to murdering his college roommate and then “devouring his brain and heart.”

I now ask: Is the asinine state of Maryland, bent on discrimination, now considering enacting a statewide ban on all African American males who also have shaved heads? You know, since they all must be cannibalizing murderers and all…

And the insanity strikes yet again,
London apparently has an animal-torturing, cannibalizing murderer of their own, and who they’ve yet to catch… What’s the tie in? You guessed it, the United Kingdom has a countrywide ban on anything that remotely resembles a Pit Bull. Furthermore, under the “Dangerous Dog Act of 1991,” any dog that even “intimidates” another person can be seized and destroyed. “Intimidation” is a very open-ended phrase, very subjective and could mean essentially anything to anyone. For example, if a friendly dog were to run up to someone who was claiming to be scared of that dog, that would then qualify and your friendly dog could be deemed “dangerous,” seized and destroyed.

So again, and hopefully for the last time, I ask: In light of these recent events, is the United Kingdom now considering a ban on all white males who are also bisexual and enjoy partaking in gay porn? Because someone that fits that exact description is out there chopping people’s bodies up, eating them, and feeding live kittens to a yellow Burmese python for a video audience!