I hope the driver gets fined for that illegal U-turn.

Obviously there would still be trials and investigations. Circumstances like self-defense and accidents would still be considered and evidence would still be a necessity. But instead of a slap on the wrist or pointless prison sentences (keeping people in prison is a colossal waste of money), the sentence for convicted criminals would always be death. This would be a pretty effective deterrent for people posting death threats on Facebook or Twitter.

This isn't an all or nothing situation. Adopting death sentences doesn't mean that we have to abolish the entire judicial system and become a fascist state that persecutes people without reasonable justification. Truth is, fear of death is a pretty compelling reason not to break the law and people who pose a physical threat to others should be punished accordingly.

As for custodians, I'm sorry if I offended you but it doesn't change the fact that the occupation is seen as undesirable by the vast majority of people. Nobody says "I want to be a janitor when I grow up!" It may pay relatively well and have flexible hours but the work itself is tedious and unpleasant. Granted, there are a lot of jobs that are tedious and unpleasant but when given the choice between being a janitor or an office worker, 99.99% of the population would choose the office job. Janitors are a necessity but nobody would ever want to be one if other options with equivalent pay were available.

I think you're missing the point. I propose that we execute anyone that poses a threat to the general public. That means anyone who commits a violent crime (or threatens to commit a violent crime) regardless of their mental state. People who are mentally ill tend to be less predictable (making them a greater threat in general) but the punishment should be the same regardless. You stab someone, you are executed. You threaten to stab someone, you are executed. You attempt to stab someone, you are executed.

As for being a janitor, most people don't want to clean toilets or mop floors even if they get paid to do so. It's a last resort when nothing better is available. If you took a survey of janitors and asked how many would rather have a different job even if it paid the same, I'm pretty sure most say that they want a different job. Janitors are definitely a necessity and I appreciate their work but I would never want to actually be one myself.

I'm not suggesting we kill all mentally ill people. Just the ones that pose a threat to others. Swinging a machete at cops qualifies as posing a threat to others. It's all about risk vs reward. The risks of attempting to cure a violent psychotic outweigh the potential rewards.

The raving lunatic with a machete is a clear threat to everyone in the area. Incapacitating him with tasers is far quicker and safer (to the cops and civilians) than trying to contain him with riot shields. Is there a chance that the taser could kill him? Sure. However, the chance is far lower than if you shoot him with a gun. And again, it isn't just the life of one man at stake. The suspect was obviously deranged, violent and unpredictable. At any point, he could have made a beeline for one of the cops or some random pedestrian and done serious damage. That's 30 minutes of putting lives at risk vs 1 minute of relatively safe tasering.

As for the possible positive outcomes... what, he recovers and leads a mediocre life working as a janitor because nobody wants to hire someone with a history of violent psychosis? How many years would it take to reach that point? How much taxpayer money would be spent? Is a single lost cause worth all that time, money and risk? If humanity were on the verge of extinction and every life really mattered then sure, he might be worth it. However, there's no shortage of perfectly sane and productive members of society that don't run around swinging machetes and howling like animals. Society already puts down animals that pose a threat to humans. Why not extend that policy to the most dangerous animal of all?

This seems woefully inefficient. A few tazers would have incapacitated him a lot quicker and more safely and woudn't have required 30 cops with riot shields. This guy was a threat and the longer the cops waited to subdue him, the more likely he was to hurt someone.

And now the guy's in a mental hospital (probably on taxpayer money), receiving treatment that probably won't work. If he is ever released or escapes, there's a fair chance that he'll hurt someone or do something dangerous. If he is never cleared for release, he'll continue to be a drain on resources while contributing nothing to society or the economy.

I'm guessing she/her parents provided the animals used for the performance?

It's racist because the criminals are black. Black criminals always have a good reason to break the law. They suffer from discrimination, police abuse and marginalization in a society that treats them with disdain. If a black man breaks into your house and steals your TV and Playstation, you are not allowed to criticize him because without that TV and Playstation, he would not survive. Desperation justifies any crime (except when the criminal is white, in which case he's just an asshole) and there is no shame in doing what you need to do to survive (unless you're white, in which case you should stop being lazy and just get a job).

That's pretty stupid. Complete footage of the incident from the cameras of all the officers involved should have been released, unedited and uncensored. Police shouldn't get to pick and choose what gets shared.

That said, the councilman didn't really handle the situation well. If a cop tells you to step back, you should probably step back even if you aren't legally obligated to. Ignoring a cop or arguing with him/her is one of the worst things you can do. Physically resisting when they're trying to cuff you is the also a bad idea. If you feel that a cop's actions are unjustified and/or illegal, report him/her after you're inevitably freed and call a lawyer if necessary.

It's important to remember that cops are just humans with guns (and tazers and pepper spray). As such, you should treat them with the same caution that you'd treat any human armed with weapons.

All cops on duty need to wear video cameras with audio. Surveillance is an effective deterrent to criminal activity and that applies equally to corrupt cops.

I'm sure banning guns will be just as effective as banning drugs or alcohol or cigarettes or anything else that is in high demand. There's no way people would continue to obtain them illegally or find ways to circumvent the law if they desired them strongly enough. Nope, bans have been completely effective throughout the history of the U.S.

I like how these videos make me feel superior.

Yeah, he eventually stated that he didn't smoke, after a few minutes of being a confrontational jackass. And yes, the cop did claim that she saw him smoking, but again, after a few minutes of him being a confrontational jackass. And of course, there is the distinct possibility that he was in fact smoking and just lied about it so he could make yet another sensationalistic anti-cop video.

The latter can't be proven based on the video alone but what can be proven is that he handled the situation badly. Only way he could have handled it worse is if he punched the cop. It's important to remember that cops are human. If you antagonize them, they'll probably find some way to get back at you. Should they? No, but until we replace human cops with robot cops, emotions will always be a factor. As with any human interaction, it is usually in your best interest to remain civil and cooperative.

As usual, the "victim" escalated things for no good reason. First by ignoring the cop, then by refusing to cooperate and being confrontational. And then he becomes frustrated when they start ignoring his questions.

The entire situation could have been avoided if he had simply and politely stated that he wasn't smoking when first asked. It's amazing what a little bit of courtesy and common sense can achieve. Just because you have the legal right to act like a douche doesn't mean you should act like a douche.

Like almost all of these situations, things would have gone a lot more smoothly if the guy had just given him the can. If complying with a quick, simple and relatively benign request can avoid escalation, why not do it?