Citibank statement -- “A large amount of protesters entered our branch at 555 La Guardia Place around 2:00 PM today. They were very disruptive and refused to leave after being repeatedly asked, causing our staff to call 911. The Police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed. Only one person asked to close an account and was accommodated.”


From what I read only two of the protesters went to close accounts. The other 28 stood there chanting and shouting stuff about student loans. They didn't leave for about 5 mins when the bank then locked some of them in that didn't leave.

What is shocking is, how can you arrest someone OUTSIDE the bank for trespass? and then forcibly drag them inside. Also, didn't CITI violate illegal imprisonment laws? I mean how can someone be trespassing if you lock them inside? So you call 911 because you are ?scared and then lock them inside with you?

If multiple people attack me I'm going to grab a weapon. Once said weapon is involved in the fight I know that said weapon can be used against me. So when I use the weapon against my assailants I'm going to be sure they cannot get back up and use the weapon against me.

I've seen enough of "Humanity" to know that most people if they see ME getting MY ASS kicked won't do anything. So I better be prepared to defend myself. You all know this because you are on the same website as I am. How many videos do we see where people are being assaulted left on the street bleeding/seizing/whatever and nobody calls the cops?

Okay so you'd rather be in THAT situation where you're getting your ass beaten and everyone around you is watching? Allow yourself to be murderlized by some assholes because you thought they were going to stay down but then they got back up and they had a knife or some other weapon or managed to over power you with sheer numbers. Personally I'd rather go to jail for beating the shit out of 2 people with a metal pipe then end up paralyzed or dead because I was concerned about what "Everyone else" would think about my actions.

If being desensitized to violence makes me an "e-thug" or some sort of "racist" then I'm proud to be adorned with those labels. Because it would have enabled me to have the courage to walk up to the pipe wielding person and say "Please stop hitting them" in a calm and RATIONAL tone rather than SCREAMING at someone whose already fueled with Adrenaline and in "Fight for Flight" mode which will only make things worse and makes you perceived as a threat.

Calmly disabling someone who is only trying to defend themselves is the only solution to this problem aside from calling 911. Screaming constantly does nothing but agitate the situation and make it worse.

@EMPIRE & @petpeeved ..ugh

You're both arguing strawmen. Darkhand's observation was very succint & accurate.

@EMPIRE apparently didn't read the bit when Darkhand said:
I'm not saying he should have kept whacking them with a pipe while they were down..

Also, whatthefuck does them being women have to do with it? Would it be okay to bludgeon two helpless MEN on the floor?

@petpeeved

Whining at an enraged convict in the middle of an assault is about as useful as screaming "STOP! STOP RAPING ME!!" to a serial rapist.

Darkhand never called for violence on that whiny bitch's part.

But A.) Turning to a bystander. Asking "May I use your phone to call 911".
Or B.) Jumping behind the counter to shield the women

..would've been much more useful then just standing and yelling like a jackass.

lol, CALL 911!!! Soooo sick of the stupid words before a drop, soo played out. EVERY song is waay too samey. Embarrassingly stupid and tryhard this is.

I was curious about the "Never call 911" note on the fridge, so googled and found this:
http://hunterthompsonfilms.com/vodcast/2009/08/14/never-call-911/

Now I'm off to re-watch Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas again.

The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias.

>>> The youtube goofus who originally posted this is a crackpot with the usual chemtrails/truther crap on his/er youtube page. I fully support his/er right to free speech, but it's obvious s/he has an axe to grind with police and other authority figures. If anyone is at fault for the original dumb title it's him (or her) and now has a slightly improved title on the sift.

Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it.

>>> The fact remains: she was acting the fool. As I wrote once before (and now have to again, apparently) the use of force was excessive. The officer in question is no longer an officer and is being brought up on charges. What more do you want?

>>> What's the real beef here? Are you simply upset that I don't share your EXACT level of outrage?









>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^quantumushroom:
How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."




The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^burdturgler:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Stupid-Kid-Calls-911-for-his-Math-Homework

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Stupid-Kid-Calls-911-for-his-Math-Homework

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by burdturgler. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."





The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

Well look at it the other way. What if he filmed it and the accident never occurred? The guy never hit the guard and never crossed back over to strike a vehicle or whatever else. He went on about his day and all there was to prove it ever happened was a phone call to police about a erratic driver and a few drivers who could have said that they did see a car over the line temporarily as they passed it.

Police don't give tickets based on other people's observations alone, if they did...all those people who call in about a car going too fast in their neighborhood with a license plate number attached would have tickets mailed to them.

So......this video would be the only thing that is "proof" that this guy was doing some very dangerous shit. And to top it off, what if someone else wrecked trying to avoid him? How do you prove the guy was trying to play chicken with you and that's why you swerved and wrecked?

I think the guy filming was too close to the guy driving erratically, but otherwise I find no fault in what he did. He wasn't all over the road filming the guy. Honking and flashing his lights ain't going to make a guy stop what he's doing...especially when he had a couple near head-on collisions and didn't stop.

Frustrates me when Im on the road and a semi truck is driving erratic and I am not sure if Im wasting my time calling 911 because he might be long gone by the time they arrive or might have hit a patch of slow traffic and got himself under control. Or "dangerous" campers dragging another long ass vehicle behind them....it's not against the law, but when they can't seem to keep it within the lines during high winds...video proof is about the only thing you could use to prove the guys are unsafe as hell.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.
One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.

It's a possibility. And I can't prove one way or another as I could never find any specific information on what I'm about to repeat from others.


The state I am in requires people to work for their food stamps, medical coverage for their kids, any cash they may receive towards rent and other costs. They are called "Work Experience Program" (WEP) workers. When they are categorized into that program, they are basically required to work a fixed amount of hours each month or they get cut off to some extent. For single women these hours are drastically less (I would guess half or more) if they have kids because they would rather them be with their kids than have to pay for daycare. For instance some guy told me he was laid off from a job working for the county, they refused to pay unemployment and they could do so by law. So he didn't have any unemployment to buffer him while he looked for work and he had to go on welfare. Since he was married and had 2 kids, he was eligible for medical coverage on the kids, food stamps, and cash to help cover costs. For that he had to work something like 150 hours each month at Goodwill as a "WEP worker". So basically he was working a full time job and he told me it worked out to under 4 dollars an hour if his kids didn't need any medical stuff...which I will admit medical coverage could be a huge cost if his kids had something bad happen. So there's incentive to find work if you're a man because you're basically getting screwed hard for your time, but you're also required to work so many hours it's hard to find time to look for work unless you do it at night. He said they scheduled hours for him and he could miss hours and make them up on the weekends and sometimes in the evenings, but only if they had work for him and only if he got permission. Otherwise he fell short on his hours and would be potentially booted.

So for a single mother, these hours are cut down to half maybe more because they are expected to work only if they have someone to take care of their kid or while they are in school allowing for time for them to be there when they leave and be there when they get home. Which if they are forced to ride the bus, their hours are going to be even shorter of actual "work". But they would still get the same benefits as the married man from above. Now......there's another program I've heard about from my parents where one of their renter's claimed to be in it after she alluded otherwise. And it was semi-confirmed by a friend of my dad whose mother gets a home health care provider provided to her by the state.

I don't know the name of the program, but it basically puts single women receiving welfare into the role of home health care provider to some degree. Where they go to the senior citizens houses and stay there some portion of the day for some period of each week. Where they do some picking up, organizing, make sure the senior citizen is generally OK as far as they are able to determine and help them with tasks they might be able to do. The friend of my dad...his mom's home health care provider overdosed on pills while she was at his mom's house. Died on the couch. She called him up and told her the lady was dead on her couch and called 911 to tell them...then went to bed. There are suspicions of mine and my parents that these ladies steal drugs from the old folks and use em or sell em....they had problems with a lot of "visitors" at their rental when a lady there claiming to be a "home health care provider" on her application but then later admitted it was a government program...no idea what it's called. I have never heard of a man being in or being asked to be in this program.

So...they have programs which seemed to be tailored to women. I am more likely to believe that they also give preference to women in hiring. I will tell you one thing I did see while I was at those offices though. Young women especially if they are in fairly attractive get treated poorly by a lot of the women there. They also never once had any sort of training program, employment hunting assistance (beyond searching on their system yourself), or anything else to offer or suggest to me when I asked. But I heard them repeatedly tell women they offer programs to help find part-time work....if they are successful or not, I have no idea. I don't know if preference is given to people who have kids or not....didn't go around asking everyone if they had kids.

SAME PROBLEM HERE!

Submitting http://www.dorkly.com/video/8558/dorkly-bits-mortal-kombat-friendship's embedded code thinks it is a duplicate of http://videosift.com/video/4-year-old-calls-911-for-math-help ... This needs to be fixed!

*quality

Changing the subject is not an answer.

In a democracy, regulations prevent crime. The United States government ended American slavery in 1862 and enforces legal consequences for theft, murder and sexual abuse, thus detering would be criminals and imprisoning actual criminals. These regulations prevent crime.

Without regulation, what is to prevent one person from enslaving another? or robbing another? or killing another? or raping another? or molesting a child? or destroying the environment? or exploiting labor? or exploiting the poor?

Belief without evidence is faith. Belief derived from evidence is wisdom.

Quantify your magical thinking.

>> ^blankfist:

You want an answer. Okay. We have those things you listed now under your perfect big government system. Let's go through SOME of this list.

1. "Slavery". We have slavery or servitude thanks to compulsory taxation (aka theft), so I guess your system hasn't proved capable of stopping that.
2. "Robbing another". What does your system do to prevent robbery? Strict penalties if the assailant is caught is not preventative.
3. "Killing another". Same as robbery above. Your ideal system does nothing to prevent murder. Your ideal utopia would make killing easier as people are stripped of their rights to self defense (gun laws). They'd instead have to call 911 and hope the cops show before they were murdered.
4. "Rape" and "Child molestation". Again. Same as robbery. Your system is not preventative.