Question of the Day: Is It OK to Shoot The President, “Artistically” Speaking?

As you may know, Snoop Dog released a YouTube video (below) where he shot the president — with a joke gun. Clearly, Mr. Dog (a.k.a., Cordozar Calvin Broadus, Jr.) felt the need to get right with the left-leaning Hollywood types upon which his career depends.

Not to say that the rapper/MC hasn’t revealed his anti-gun right animus in the past. Wikipedia.org:

In his keynote address at the 2015 South by Southwest music festival, he blamed Los Angeles’ explosion of gang violence in the 1980s on the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, and insinuated that his administration shipped guns and drugs into the area.

His Trump shooting vid has certainly inflamed a lot of people. You? More to the point, are you OK with it in light of the artist’s right to free speech? Do you think the Secret Service should pay Mr. Dog a visit?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Legally, he’s in a grey area. His video includes calls to action which, it could be argued given the nature of the genre, are likely to cause said illegal action. While I think this retard is a clown, he hasn’t actually broken the law and as such the USSS has much bigger fish to fry. Other celebrities have done much worse and SHOULD be arrested and tried.

    1. Is it OK to shoot the president “artistically” speaking?
      Is it OK? No.
      Is it legal? Unfortunately yes.
      While I’m a huge fan of freedom of speech, this is just perpetuating violence against authority and may encourage some stupid star struck moron to act on it, knowing the media would make him famous for it.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        Would your opinion on this be different had Hillary won?

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          Idea! Get all the primary candidates and print cartoony targets of all of them. The ones that sell the worst are allowed to run in the election.

    2. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      “Legally, he’s in a grey area”

      He literally is not. Watts vs United States.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Go read the lyrics again and put them in the context of inner city cop assassinations.

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Cute, you move goalposts then cite subjective context to make your point.

          Firstly, Watts vs United States settles the presidential non-threat issue. Case closed.

          Secondly, the anti-cop lyric issue has been beaten to death two decades earlier and despite the shrill shrieking of the pigster unions, artistic expression is protected. Your context was found to be baseless by multiple higher courts. Deal with it.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Incorrect. Watts v US protects you against a conviction not the underlying fact being used for probable cause in an investigation.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pro Tip: Do not get your legal education from the back of a cereal box.

        4. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          So, people can be investigated for actions which are definitively not criminal? How do you have probable cause when the action in question is plainly legal?

          Sounds like you are making a case for extrajudicial harassment. 🙂

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sounds like you don’t understand what is a matter of black letter law and what is a matter of fact for the jury. His utterances in these case constitute threatening behavior. That threatening behavior gives me reasonable suspicion to open an investigation. The investigation discovering that he is a convicted violent felon gives me probable cause to search his residences to investigate the nature of these threats and if they would be covered under Watts vs US.

          The fact that I fully expect to find illegal weapons and narcotics in his possession is irrelevant to the case. Though since my warrant would include any such items, they would be admissible when I add charges of felon in possession and possession of a controlled substance, and, depending on quantity, an “intent to distribute” charge as well.

          The mutt may not be going down for threatening the president, but he just gave any AUSA with an axe to grind all the justification they need to nail his balls to the wall.

        6. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Goalposts now in solar orbit. True threats vs artistic expression is settled, therefore there is no probable cause to “investigate” something that is obviously legal. His prior legal history has absolutely zero relevance to this.

          “what is a matter of black letter law and what is a matter of fact for the jury.”

          Utter garbage, an entirely worthless statement.

          “The fact that I fully expect to find illegal weapons and narcotics in his possession is irrelevant to the case.”

          If it is irrelevant, why do you bother talking about it for whole paragraph?

          And as you also admit, your argument to advocate a non-existent legal pathway for some government lawyer to administer punishment based on a personal grudge. No more blindfold for Lady Justice, eh?

          By the way, drug possession convictions are not considered violent by any reasonable person… oh wait, I see the issue now. 🙂

        7. avatar rick grant says:

          maybe people don’t remember ice t metal band body count song “cop killer” how old home boy had back off as told by the record company

      2. avatar tmm says:

        Off point, but…

        Literally, he may or may not be standing in a circle painted grey, or in a space filled with grey fog, or standing on green grass or crowded beach. But I think the area in question is figurative.

  2. avatar Swilson says:

    I think there is no serious intent by Mr. Dogg to actually do anything to Trump. However, any time that you advocate something like that, it is your right to do so, but you need to be prepared for any fallout that results. I think it is a bad road to go down when we let the .gov dictate what is acceptable regarding speech, music, “art” etc.

    Snoop is no different from anyone else though. When most peasants begin to murmur these types of things, they are interviewed by the Secret Service. So let them call on Snoop, if nothing else to remind him and Hollywood that they are just people. However part of me thinks that will only boost his ego and be a feather in his cap concerning the Hollywood establishment.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I’d be much more interested in executing a search warrant on his residence and places of business. Betcha we’ll find at least one firearm which he, as a convicted felon, is not allowed to own. Then the point becomes moot and Mr. Dog is going to club fed for a dime.

      1. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

        I’ll bet he has a non-felon living with him in his entourage, under whose name any firearms are registered, to protect against such exigencies.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Given that he has already plead to felon in possession at least one, I doubt he’s quite that smart.

        2. avatar No one of consequence says:

          In that case, if mister Dogg has access to said weapon, the “owner” can go to jail too, as I understand the law.

      2. avatar JAlan says:

        Guess you forgot about that pesky fourth amendment.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Given his public outburst about wanting to kill the president. That gives me probable cause to search his residence for any means he would have of doing so.

        2. avatar JAlan says:

          I don’t recall him saying he wanted to kill the president. Or would you mind pointing out where he said that? The fact of the matter is that it’s free speech, and even though I personally find it distasteful, it’s his right to do so. The funny thing about actually being for freedom is that my answer wouldn’t change if it was Obama, Clinton, or Trump portrayed in a video like that.

        3. avatar Pwrserge says:

          His video has calls to action. I don’t need to convict him to get a search warrant, just probable cause. He’ll scate on the incitement charge, but I can nail his balls to the wall on felon in possession and narcotics charges stemming from a legally executed search warrant.

        4. avatar JAlan says:

          >His video has calls to action.
          Where? Where in the video do you hear or see a specific call to kill the president? Because I don’t see it. Why I’m starting to think you only care about the constitution when it’s to your benefit. One might even say you’re a hypocrite.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          The part where he told his listeners to go shoot cops. Or did you not read the lyrics?

        6. avatar JAlan says:

          So now he said to shoot cops? But earlier you were saying that this was a threat to the president, and you still haven’t posted the relevant lyrics. Could it be that you’re just being dishonest? It’s okay to dislike Snoop and his music. I do, but to hide behind a veil of legality is dishonest at best and hypocritical at worst, especially when we’re on a site that is supposed to be filled with constitutionalists. After all, you’re advocating a fishing expedition just to see if you can get him on drug charges, something that shouldn’t even be illegal in the first place. Hell, I’m willing to bet that if we looked through your comment history, we could find something much worse there. Let’s see:
          >Purveyor of free helicopter rides for commies.
          Didn’t even have to look at your comment history. Of course, you might argue it’s a joke, but if you can make that claim, why can’t Snoop Dogg? Hell, maybe the government should go for a fishing expedition at your place just to make sure you don’t have any illegally modified weapons or other charges that both you and I think shouldn’t be crimes. Your hypocrisy is astounding, and I’m often left wondering if you know this or if you think everyone is dumb enough to buy your brand of bullshit.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Keep up with the ad hominems it’s really helping your position. While Mr. Deranged Mutt may be found not guilty in a court of law, there is sufficient difference between this case and existing precedent to re-argue the point. I would argue that the wider impact of his statements and the inherent nature of the medium used make it far more reasonable to assume a resulting unlawful act than a single person talking at a political rally. Given the nature of his chosen medium, he can’t use the cover of “inflamed political rhetoric” which was used to cover the case some idiots on this page are citing as precedent. Mr. Mangy knew exactly what he was saying and made the effort to CHOREOGRAPH it. Betcha I could get a circuit court to agree with me and take it right back to the SCotUS. (I’d also bet that I could get it to split on the issue.)

          As I said, being a convicted felon, he’s an idiot doing something like this. Even if he wins on the primary charge (I would actually charge him with inciting terrorism and material support there-of), I will still nail him to the wall on dozens of ancillary federal charges I could tack on after only a single search warrant was executed.

          If you think that going after scumbags who support ganbanger garbage and make terroristic incitements against both the PotUS and our law enforcement agencies is somehow a bad thing under the CotUS, you need to read some American history.

        8. avatar Ebby123 says:

          LOL Pswerge… No. Just no.

          You don’t like the guy, so you want to “get him”. That’s all it is.
          This is because you don’t understand Liberty, as you’ve demonstrated numerous times before.

          People can do things you disagree with, AND THAT’S OK.
          It does not mean you need to change them.
          It does not mean you need to arrest them.
          It does not mean they are threatening you.

          Liberty means being OK with people doing things you disagree with.
          No one in this conversation believes this moron actually has any intentions to kill President Trump, but because the media has a huge double standard on this type of thing, you don’t like the guy.

          Well I hate to break it to you, but Freedom doesn’t care what you don’t like.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Whatever you say junior legal eagle. “Liberty” does not give you the right to incite terrorism. Sorry bro.

        10. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “junior legal eagle”

          Oh the irony.

      3. avatar Swilson says:

        Well there is something else that Snoop Dogg probably has in his possession. Something he is known to promote and indulge in.

      4. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Snoop has been a federal informant for decades. He aint doin no time.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          New sheriff in town. Betcha Trump’s DOJ will be a bit less lenient than Obama’s.

  3. avatar Ralph says:

    Free speech — it is a b!tch. Then again, so is Calvin Broadus, a member of the Rollin’ 20 Crips of Long Beach, CA and a convicted felon.

    Let him say what he wants to say.

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      Well said Ralph. I’m all for free speech. Should the secret service pay him a visit? Nope. His ego is big enough already.
      Is it sad to anyone else that this election has had this kind of effect on people? I’ve lost friends over it.
      Although had killary won, and someone famous posted a video like this of her….. well that would have been shtf day.
      Just sayin.

  4. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

    Can I answer yes to both questions?

    I think it probably wasn’t an incitement to violence, and probably counts as protected speech.

    However, I think that the Secret Service should definitely take it into consideration, when considering things like who is allowed into WhiteHouse events, and maybe should interview him to ensure that it was not, in fact, intended as an incitement of violence.

    At the very least, I’d like for an intellectually honest reporter to ask “Hey, we sprayed our nonsense all over the place when Sarah Palin made a poster with a crosshairs on Gabby Giffords and then she got shot, is this shit OK now?”

  5. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Would it be OK for me to do a video of Obama dressed as a clown and me pretending to shoot him? Or a “funny” video of me convicting SnoopDog of an assination attempt, and executing him? Or would that be racist? Funny how the 1st Amendment only applies to leftist speech.

    1. avatar JAlan says:

      Pretty sure Ted Nugent said things like that, to the point where he got a visit from the Secret Service. His words were: “If Barack Obama becomes the next president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

      Now, that’s far more credible a threat than a clown president and a gun that only shoots that sign “Bang” from it. There are other groups that have done stuff like this. I’d say this one is much more “edgy” than what the current fuss is.

      https://youtu.be/GceUUcXP7yE?t=3m46s

  6. avatar Ironhead says:

    I definitely think he should be added to the “watch” list.

  7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    A threat, to be real or of any honest concern to anyone must include a viable ability and proximity to actually carry it out. Otherwise, it is simply nonsense. The president has plenty of body guards. He’s in far more danger from people who wouldn’t waste their breath or time on a Utube “threat.”

    I don’t give a damn what this idiot says or does. Any REAL threat to the president, or anyone else, should be met with defensive force. Period.

  8. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

    Remember when libtards were freaking out because years ago some guy was shooting paper targets with Obama’s picture on them? Yeah, just because you can do it, doesn’t mean it’s not in bad taste. Should have used Justin Bieber instead.

  9. avatar pod says:

    I don’t think he should be the subject of federal attention because of it. It’s a tempest in a teapot.

    However, I can guarantee if Mr D-o double G did this to an Obama caricature actor, or an HRC parody actress, the response from the media would have been swift, vicious, and scathing. Along with an obligatory USSS visit.

    The double standard concerns me more than the specific act itself.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Snoopy should have spent time in the joint(get it?) for murder in the 90’s. How this idiot got off is one of the mysterious of the universe. As a certain St. Donald would say “imagine if someone did this about Obama?” I seem to remember assassinating W too. I am not amused?

    1. avatar Jimmy Chimichanga says:

      Artist was Paris, song called Bushkilla. I would liken this to flag burning. You have every right to do so, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        You have every right to do so… and the Secret Service has every right to treat your actions as probable cause for an investigation and search of your home.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      It’s not a mystery. If you have a group of people, and they all get busted for something, and just one guy isn’t hit, over and over again, that’s your informant. Snoop’s been on the take for a long time.

  11. avatar Dave Marland says:

    As long as it is not a Democrat it’s perfectly acceptable.

    1. avatar pod says:

      Exactly. If it were Obama, Schumer, HRC, or whomever, there’d be door-kickers on point in about five minutes.

  12. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Remember this in 2006?

    “The left’s hypocrisy: Remember ‘Death of a President,’ a movie about assassinating George W. Bush?”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/10/lefts-hypocrisy-remember-movie-assassination-bush/

  13. avatar Stoney Man says:

    Pretty sure he should be careful with what he wishes for.

    If Trump is whacked, the left isn’t going to be able to worm its way out from the blowblack. Too many of their “spokespeople” have openly calling for Trumps removal by any means necessary.

    What comes after a Trump assassination, attempted or successful is going to make Kristallnacht look like a kids party.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      To be clear, Kristallnacht was an unjustifiable atrocity. What will happen to the American left will be a perfectly justifiable house cleaning. Free helicopter rides all around. A nasty part of my Cossack heart almost wishes somebody on the left had those sorts of balls. A small part, but getting larger every time I see the left blatantly break the law and ignore the CotUS. At some point, the gloves will come off, I don’t think the looney left will like it much when they do.

  14. avatar Soylent Green says:

    Hmmm…if snoop can get away with this can I make a bunch of youtube videos (monetized of course) with pictures of all the “famous” anti-gunners (Hollywood types, politicians, and leaders of the various anti-gun .orgs) taped to gallon jugs of red colored water and pop the jugs from various distances in spectacular fashion? Might even tape them same pictures to containers of tannerite for follow on videos.

  15. avatar Alex says:

    I have watched GWAR murder presidents and celebrities on stage for at least a decade. I don’t think this is any worse than that. Snoop might be a bit more popular though.

  16. avatar Jack says:

    Was it OK to shot Obama, artistically speaking?
    How many people did it?
    What was the public’s reaction?

  17. avatar John Fritz, HMFIC says:

    Well it was OK to shoot Dubbya in a movie in 2006 so… sure! Have at it Snoop.

    Hey, here’s a fun idea; go buy some of those life-size paper cop targets, head to the public range early one Saturday just before hunting season opens and start banging at those artistically. I’m sure there’ll be many around you who admire and respect your creative insights and vision.

  18. avatar S.Crock says:

    I think his symbolic shooting is tolerable but disgusting. It is when he talks about spraying cops where I think he is no longer covered by the 1A because that clearly seemed to incite violence.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      Tell me, does it also incite violence when people of the gun say we have the ballot box, jury box, and ammo box to restore freedom?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        #notanargument The former is a direct call to action, the latter is a reminder of the logical escalation of resistance to tyranny.

  19. avatar doublepar says:

    18 U.S.C. 871

  20. avatar kevin says:

    Classic freedom of speech. The fact that it is offensive makes it an effective delivery of his message.

  21. avatar Swarf says:

    Uh, it was certainly ok with all the guys who made, sold and shot Obama targets for 8 years.

    It was also ok to lynch Obama, tar-and-feather him and burn him in effigy, but suddenly you guys give a shit about what happens to the President’s likeness? Okay, sure thing.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      Shhhhh, the neo-cons on this website hate being made aware of their own hypocrisy.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Bingo. This is no more–and probably less than–buring the President in effigy or burning the flag. It is classic political speech.

      Granted, I am assuming things from what others have said about the video. I couldn’t understand a word he was speaking (it wasn’t singing , was it?), got bored and quit watching before I got to the end. I think there was some kind of a protest about police shootings, but again, I couldn’t understand what he was mumbo-jumboing to give a crap.

  22. avatar mark s. says:

    My answer is a question . Who is an artist and who is a deranged threat ? Can I make a YouTube vid or post a self made threat on Facebook or other Social Media forum that points a toy gun towards an effigy of the president , what about a past president who is still alive , and make remarks that seem threatening or at best antagonistic towards them or their families and claim artistic expression ?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Have you been putting out albums since 1993, the first of which hit the Billboard Top Ten? Do you literally have not only your own wikipedia page but a wikipedia page just to list your performer awards?

      If not, maybe hold off.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        So some animals are more equal than others? Really?

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      There is a difference in criminal law between direct threats and contingent threats. “When I see him, I’m gonna cap his ass,” is a direct threat. By contrast, “If I ever see him doing that again I’m gonna cap his ass” is contingent and not a direct threat. The former is a crime, the latter is not. Dawg didn’t directly threaten to harm the President; had he, he would be getting a visit from the Secret Service (which we really should rename since is has an unfortunate acronym).

  23. avatar Adam says:

    All the Neo-Cons in this discussion getting triggered need to go to college and sit in time out with the 20 something cry babies.

    Free speech is free speech. You all know you’d be hitting up Hillary targets at the range had she won. Don’t pretend that you’re all so high and mighty just cause your guy won the election.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… Your right to free speech ends at the point where you incite an unlawful act. Try again.

    2. avatar VillarPerosa says:

      wrong. once we make a video and make it PUBLIC, we are inciting violence against the POTUS. which is illegal. pick up a book dude.

  24. avatar Hannibal says:

    Definitely on the list of things I can’t muster much care about.

  25. avatar VillarPerosa says:

    as we have just seen, its ok as long as you are not white, male, and/or straight. if you are a black, homo, or woman its A-OK. must be nice to be outside the law.

  26. avatar bobo says:

    yep free speech –on the edge!

    but I do know this!

    never met dogg in person? But was working one of the LA motion pic studios in the day and walked by his ‘trailer’ when the door opened up…
    IT WAS A FOG BANK of pot smoke that rolled out of the door! I swear I heard a ships fog horn warning me!
    had to pay real attention on my drive on the way home that night–contact high! anyone!

  27. avatar Ed says:

    Typical shine…talking out both sides of his mouth. This is why Chicago can’t have nice things.

  28. avatar michael says:

    Does anyone remember snoopdog on comedy centrals roast of trump just a couple years ago? All buddy buddy, practically suckin trumps w-balls, w-balls, w-balls. (Remember that snoop hit?!?)

  29. avatar JW says:

    Is it OK to shoot *any* real human being, artistically speaking, without their permission? (Given that the depiction does not create a direct and credible incitement to, or threat of, violence).

    morally, no – I wouldn’t do it, and I have little respect for those who do

    legally, hell yes, and long live free speech

    Speech is dangerous and so is carrying a firearm. In both cases using force is only appropriate when the speaker (or the bearer) is directly causing harm to another. If you want to suppress a provocative video because it might inspire a crime by someone, somewhere, at some later time, then you will soon be justifying banning my guns because they might be used in a crime by someone, somewhere, at some later time.

  30. avatar rt66paul says:

    The stuff many written about, even on this blog, about Obama is at least as bad. It is personal expression. None of us have to like it, but we do have freedom of speech and replicating a fantasy someone had about these acts on video, in rap, or even song is protected.
    It goes both ways, we all can have our opinions. That is what makes our country somewhat free. If you fully believe our government would better off on its own as communist, an ancharcy, Nazi, a direct democracy, or a republic, you have the right to your opinion and to usa a loudspeaker downtown on a soapbox if that is what you desire. If you can legally draw a picture of Trump being taken off the cross, or with a Hitler mustache, that is your art.

  31. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    America has a long history of unpleasant political demonstrations including such things as burning effigies. This is apparently acceptable because it is deemed not to constitute a clear and present threat of any particular action (even burning) against the clearly discernible target (although the person whose image is being burned may feel dramatically differently).

    On the other hand, burnings of some symbols such as the cross or racially-tied images can be deemed hate crimes and are not deemed to be political or free speech because their subject matter involves intimidation, coercion and fear against a protected class.

    Frankly, in today’s society, I think burning of anything causes fear and increases chances of property damage or mishap and nothing ought to be burned. Even images of politicians, although they’re not a class in much need of protection. They spring like weeds in a field of manure.

    Why am I talking about all of that when the image was one of a shooting? The left has dramatized shootings and spent enormous amounts of time and effort layering on emotionalism and fear to “gun violence” and the alleged “epidemic” in connection therewith. I believe there is now far more emotionalism attached to images of shooting than there ever was to burning effigies and the practice should not be allowed as “political” speech. It is an incitement to direct violence against a specific person and should be treated as such.

    Doesn’t anyone remember how the left screamed bloody murder when crosshairs were put on a map of vulnerable Democrat positions? They alleged that simple act was encouragement to assassinate those figures. How can they now claim that a video depicting a specific shooting is somehow more acceptable?

  32. avatar pwrserge says:

    Damn… there sure are a lot of would-be legal eagles out here who probably haven’t seen the inside of a law school their entire lives. The cereal box law degree business must be booming.

  33. avatar bigskydoc says:

    To all the folks saying the Secret Service wouldn’t or shouldn’t pay a visit, recall that, anti-Obama street artist, Sabo was paid a visit by the Secret Service for Tweeting

    “IT REALLY WOULD BE A CRYING SHAME IF SOMEONE CALLED TO REPORT A MAN WITH A RIFLE IN THE AREA ON THIS NIGHT”
    and
    “DEAR GOD! I PRAY YOU MAKE ZOMBIES REAL AND THE FIRST ONE I HOPE REANIMATES IS OSWALD. 🙂 – THANK YOU GOD.”

    Shortly before a Obama fundraiser at Gwyneth Paltrow’s house.

    The agents had the following to say to him

    “When your language starts getting into areas where you’re advocating violence, that’s where we start to get into a gray area. The First Amendment doesn’t cover that…”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/secret-service-questions-right-wing-744914

  34. avatar Mister Fister says:

    Anybody who considers this a serious threat against the Clown in Chief is a fool.

    It’s not smart, but it’s also artistic expression and clearly satire.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Anybody who doesn’t understand that the words of a popular artist immortalized in a music video have greater reach and thus a greater ability to incite imminent violence is an idiot.

  35. avatar Martin B says:

    Lots of panties being twisted into a bunch here. Plenty of divisions too. Folks who don’t like black people, folks who don’t like black culture, folks who just don’t like Snoop. I get it. Everyone has their own refinements in taste. For me, there was one thing I needed to enjoy this video. If it was funny, all is good. It is funny. Snoop is hilarious. That’s good enough for me. Art is all about making a point. Whether you agree with it is moot. Having a discussion is what civilized people do. Feel free to have a raised blood pressure hissy fit, but I won’t join in. It is what it is.

  36. avatar Hank ehnert says:

    If a white artist did a vidieo of killing Martin Luther king there would be a different naritive going on here!!! But let’s stick to the letter of the vidieo and not race! There is no place in this country we’re anyone can make terroristic threats or threaten to kill someone without going to jail!! I love our president and I enjoy the dogg and being entertained by him! People with reasonably thinking minds have to realize he is the commander and chief! It’s time to pray and support president trump for he is our leader in this great country under God!! Yes it’s true our president said things about women!!! Horrible remarks!! But every man in this country has said things he wouldn’t want his mother, sister, or wife to know he’s said!!! I would be ashamed if the horrible things I’ve uttered if called out on it. Making a vidieo of shooting the leader of the free world is not artistic at all, it breeds hatred and murder, contempt. I will never understand how a group of people protest a dozen killings by law enforcement and not the thousands of murders they commit everyday in there own neighborhoods!!! That’s why the BLM movement has died and not relevant anymore! My heart breaks for anyone murdered by someone who’s to protect us. I’ve seen many of the vidieos and have my own objective opionion! First when a officer stops you,your suppose to listen and follow instructions and not to tell the officer how it’s going down. You don’t reach for stuff until told!! Your not to have unlicensed weapons!. So let’s make a vidieo of gang banging and shooting our beautiful innocent children that are in the way, let’s make a vidieo of killing people every day while we are selling drugs stealing cars and rapping women!!! Then we can complain about a few cops killing people! Yes I’m a white male and readers will say you don’t live in our shoes and deal with what we deal with! Yes that may be true but we all have a sense of right and wrong that is put in all of us by our creator. I pray that we all will start praying for our leader to make true on the promise to make America great again. I pray for all people to find the love of God and pride in our country!! Snoop wether your a felon or drug dealer or just a guy trying to make a point! There’s a lot of us white boys that know you are better then this and hope you use your fantastic platform to make a difference a better way

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email