Content last edited 10/25/23 .::. This is regarding a topic that's a bit old (but still relevant). Please visit my main advocacy website: holypsych.org

Note: I often set links to external websites to open in a new tab or window.

This website is intended to be informative (mainly), meaning that it is not about an active organization to ban pit bulls. I've had my share of death threats from owners for merely sharing the history of the ban that the City of Denver enacted in 1989. The measure was sponsored by Councilwoman Mary DeGroot and Councilwoman Ramona Martinez.

I have to admit to the irony here that the motivation behind launching this site wasn't because of any recent incident where I was outright threatened or chased by an aggressive dog (which has happened to me three times in about the same amount of years). The incident that did occur that motivated me to publish this was an encounter with a rather docile large dog that was off-leash (on 23 Oct 23). Of course I couldn't know that the dog was so docile until it was right up near me (which was immediately after I walked out of the apartment complex door so there was no way I could avoid it), and also the owner said "don't worry the dog won't bite".

There's another point too that could seem anthropomorphic (to someone like me) but a large dog being docile is not necessarily evidence that it would be always that way and not attack an innocent person. (Of course the owners figure that the dog is a "good judge of character" because the people are Satanists, but aside from that...) Smaller dogs are more "excitable" and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out why ... everything else is larger than them, just about. A small dog is more fearful and so can be quicker to be "aggressive" in their way, but they're defensive and bark a lot when threatened (or being "protective", whatever). A large dog would have more confidence, but the problem is that other unexpected stimuli can arise at anytime in a public area and the dog might not be too discerning of who it attacks. The dog is "sociable"..., cute! I've actually witnessed a pack of stray dogs in Tecate, Mexico (in 1986) and it was frightening. The locals took off after them in vehicles to try to kill some since the dogs can maul or kill small children. (There is another section of the mixed-use apartment building where this occurred that contains a medical clinic business and there may be some people from areas like that who go there that shouldn't have to see a large dog running around off-leash. It's dehumanizing!)

A better way of putting it is that a dog's temperament can be associated with it's size and a larger dog, while having a more overall calm demeanor, is still capable of mauling or killing a person. A large dog's mellow behavior can be deceptive and people become accustomed to ..., well, "everybody getting along (it's only you, hehe)" but then some spontaneous stimuli that is discernable as innocent to a person (another dog appearing that's on a leash help by somebody who falls, perhaps) and whatever else that may simutaneously happen that can surprise a dog, and the dog attacks whoever is closest who isn't known. Other residents are not supposed to be subjected to such risk. The fact that there is disabled people in the building is apparently of no concern for the building managerment or owners. They're evil.

The dog being docile is not the main issue, however, since it still startled me and came so close to me that it touched me. It is obvious to me that the owner is one of those people who enjoy the reaction of the people he threatens. He enjoys scaring innocent people. I know that there is this trend now where people like to frighten people with some unexpected aggression toward them and video record the victim's reaction. The action is really a physical assault on the victim and I will explain how.

Both hearing and vision are processed by humans on a physical level, meaning that the sights and sounds actually encroach (the word that I will use here) on our physical body. Sound waves vibrate tiny bones in our ears and for vision, the shapes and other attributes of what humans see is unavoidably processed in a person's brain. Animals have only dichromatic sight. Humans have trichromatic vision and briefly, to make my point here, this article states "Vision involves the nearly simultaneous interaction of the two eyes and the brain through a network of neurons, receptors, and other specialized cells.". It should be obvious that shapes and any movement of what humans see is inevitably processed (thought about) in our brains. The point is that a human has no choice but to think about what is seen by them. That understanding bolsters the validity of bias motivated crimes (hate crimes) that are not direct physical assaults but are more considered as threats. Burning a cross on a person's front lawn, for instance, is more of an indirect physical assault on the homeowner/resident of the house but still a physical assault (by my definition here) and so it would make rational sense to any reasonable person that that action would affect people on a physical level. Furthermore, the victims really have no other choice but to allow the act to affect them physically. Threats of that magnitude are intended to do that very thing or why else would they be conducted?

I realized that I could utilize this website, or the incident that occurred to motivate me to publish it, to cover another point. Similar to the trend of deliberately frightening people and video recording their reaction is just another form of the boorish, age-old behavior of abusive people using some subtle threat or ostensibly innocent physical contact (patting a stranger on their shoulder who is working in some job that requires them to interact with the public, for example) to intimidate, belittle, etc. another person and if there's any reaction or objection then the perpetrator (or their ally) can coerce the victim into discussing their feelings about the event and then be further demeaned and degraded. The victimizer has the specious goal of educating their victim or comforting them, etc. but it all is really just ridicule.

Now I can bring up the concept of metacognition which basically means thinking about why we are thinking about something, or our thinking process itself. It also would incorporate our thinking about what another person's ulterior motive is, not if they have one, but rather what it is since, like the incident with the unavoidable contact with an off-leash large dog while egressing my apartment building that spurred me to work on this website, there was obviously a motive to intimidate me since it was a clear lease violation on the owner's part and no apology to me. If the owner fails to intimidate me (maybe I just go ahead report him to management or whatever) then the owner will be motivated (in order to save face) to escalate the violation against me so that I would fear his reproval or unacceptance of me. He wants me to be subservient to him, subdued, so he can feel powerful. He can do whatever he wants with absolute impunity and the hostile, inept (the word the HUD representative used) management will always be supportative of him since the manager takes her (little) dog outside without a leash too. They're a little "Wiccan" (as in, we can) cult and their dogs take precedence over any human being that they don't have any emotional ties to, even in the course of their employment where they interact with complete strangers. To me the entire attitude is frightening since they have to continue with their behavior or else admit to wrongdoing. (It's about their pride, in other words.)

I was bitten a couple times when I was young too & no, it wasn't my fault. Both times a dog was able to reach over a four-foot fence & the second time I was working, mowing a lawn to earn extra money; and no, those weren't the worst things that ever happened to me. So because of my past experiences with other dogs and also the degrading treatment that I've experienced, and am continuing to receive from the apartment manager (and building owners) that's entirely unfounded (they've out-right stigmatized and ridiculed me, etc.), my thought process upon hearing the owner say that "things have changed 'old-school', this is a new era" was that he is demanding that I allow myself to be degraded and dehumanized by him and his dog (and whoever else in the building that wants to) or not live in my apartment. Simple as that. There is threat of escalated violence from him and it is apparent to me that if I react/respond with any behavior to regain my human dignity then I will be accused of being the aggressor. I will be the one "violating the lease" and their little cult has the narrative to tell other residents, and whoever else who will listen, that this old disgruntled veteran is not a man of honor (basically). They can tell people that I'm unappreciative and disruptive and aggressive and voltile and that it's due to my feelings of entitlement (and whatever other slander that they can derive from their rotton little minds).

It will be dangerous for me to use the elevator and if I refuse to take one with other people then I could be labeled as racist which is the ultimate cultural reward for these kind of people, like the owner of the large off-leash dog that brushed up against me, and his landlady friend. I am still being threatened with a hundred dollar "fine" everytime I take my trash out to the trash-chute room. They all want to set me up to be extorted because it is just too tempting for them. If they can commit some evil against me then that means that I must deserve it, right? (If I don't like my city or state charging minors as adults for crimes then that means I must be some sort of horrible or stupid person too, right?) I do work at advocating for "the people" in general ... I've defended vulnerable people, etc. but of course I am treated as just the opposite by people who are clearly prejudice.

They're obviously the kind of people who like to be able to make a three digit phone call & have some innocent person killed since it's something that they are capable of doing and it's just way too tempting for them. Laws are to protect them from retaliation by their victims. They're so gangsta that they are tight with the police (it makes sense to them, anyway). With a big dog at his side, a little twig of a young man can scare an older gentleman and feel tough & powerful & stupid people will see him as a Saint (little twig of a young man). They all have me to bully now, and they have their common enemy. I've risked my life for my country & have worked hard in my life & have helped good people & have even saved a couple lives (seriously!) and I am treated like I am a monster by these people... maybe I am to them since they're evil.

Oh! I need to cover the motivation of abusive people who goad others into communicating their feelings about an offense committed against them that is purported to be only a slight inconvenience that was unintentional, or at least not serious enough to garner the resulting reaction. I used the example earlier of patting someone on the back or shoulder who is working and a similar action would be somebody doing that to a neighbor in an apartment building while (confined) in an elevator. One of my counselors (who has a masters degree and is a state licensed counselor who had about twenty years experience in the field at that time) posed the question to me regarding those sort of actions by others if that is something that I would do to someone in similar situation. The answer is "no" and in the latter example it would be violating the terms of the lease, and (as with the large off-leash dog effectively impeding my egress of my apartment building) the audacity of the action would frighten me since it is aggression and aggression can esculate if the perpetrator is not satisfied with the results. It all creates a hostile living environment for me and I am a veteran on disability so there is no limit to what violence could be committed against me since there isn't anything preventing people from physically contacting me (by proxy at this point, using their dog).

If I can be incited into attempting to explain my thoughts about some unprovoked offensive action against me then the opportunity presented to the person to criticize, ridicule and ultimately, discombobulate me would be too tempting for them to pass up. I've had unprovoked violent crimes committed against me when I was a young man. My counselor once said that if it wasn't for the trauma that I experienced I would have succeeded in my life, meaning that I would or could be that homeowning, career orientated man with high earning potential due to my intelligence and ambition. Some people would rather mock me and degrade me so as to get me to sound idiotic and whatever advocacy I do for the people in my demographic of "mentally impaired" (is the Americans with Disability Act designation terminology) would be rendered pointless and worthless. It has been discovered that trauma can interfere with a person's ability to articulate their thoughts. This article by Bob Johnson, MD covers the phenomenon: "Trauma Blocks the Frontal Lobes – 'Verbal Physiotherapy' Can Unblock Them - Mad In America". When I was a young man there were people that I associated with in the course of employment, etc. that would escalate in that aspect by forcing me to repeat myself or pretend that they didn't understand what I said and get me to explain in different wording. They would then insinuate that I was being vulgar or expressing a "parapraxis" (or commonly called "Freudian slip") by innuendo, & euphemism, etc. and it was intended to frustrate me. I would attempt to address their ulterior motive that (in my metacognition) I could perceive and I ould become discombobulated by their out-right denial and I'd become irritated and frustrated and so they effectively suppress my ability to communicate. Their point was that they were a better class of human being than I was, etc. and any misfortune that I experienced in my life was justified.

I could also point out here that one of the philosophy books I've read is Aristotle's "Ethics" and in it he discusses "extremes" and exaggeration and whatnot, as opposed to "reasonable", but he stated that laws are general in their very nature as to cover as large a group of the general public as possible.† He went on to include that there will inevitability be cases that have extraordinary circumstances so that is not reason to consider the laws as not valid. That is important here since there are the people (as I mentioned) that will want to distract their victim and use their violation of the person's (human) rights to educate, usually associating whatever incident with racism and "turning the tables", so to speak, by implying that I must be part of the overall problem. Why, because I am a white (looking) man who lives in low income housing and alone? Seriously? The idea is that other white people were always good to me unless I deserved otherwise. That's insane! (†You can do Ctrl+F to search for "general" and the second instance is included in the statement: "It is all-important to remember that practical or moral rules are only general and always admit of exceptions, and that they arise not from the mere complexity of the facts, but from the liability of the facts to a certain unpredictable variation.".)

But, alas! By pure serendipity I actually have the relatable evidence with the many times forms of the word "racism" were brought up im the comments about the proposed repeal of the ban (that passed). I was trying to do my best to get through to these (white) people all arguing with me on nextdoor.com that there was a Latina councilwoman that was one of the people to sponsor the original ban legislation. They didn't care. The woman didn't even exist as far as they were concerned. Their whole point is to be as dehumanizing as possible. The cult of attrition. Their dogs have right to freedom (liberty) but a disabled veteran does not as far as they're concerned. ... & Yeah, for the curious inclined, my military discharge paperwork does include "physical disability" since I had a honorable medical discharge, but I do not technically have that designation by the VA so I usually don't express it that way. I am on disability through the federal gov't, though. See, I didn't merely drop out of the sky, a lot has happened in my life.

The following is from my original webpage on this subject...

Note: I had originally published this page under a different domain (realnextdoor.org) in response to being abused and harrassed on the "nextdoor.com" social media platform in a discussion about the repeal of the city's ban on pit bulls. Below is the screencaptures and text of the comments in the thread. This article on denverite.com Surprise, surprise. Denver’s pit bull ban has always been controversial was one of my sources.