I knew someone would think that. I notice that can be knee jerk reactions to certain points of view expressed on the Sift.

My intent was to add background to the video. Timbrwulf did us a service by finding a news link. I knew that some portion of Sifters wouldn't take the time to read it.

So I summarized the salient points, so that the discussion could include some additional facts.

I worked very hard to not editorialize. I listed facts from the article.

Oh, but look. Someone in the Sift Community had a knee jerk reaction to a list of facts, as if facts were negotiable and indicated a point of view.

Your "sense" wasn't completely wrong. What you were sensing was someone who doesn't look at the world through black and white glasses, who as soon as the word Cop shows up thinks that they immediately know what is going on.

For the record, I hope this guy loses his badge. NordlichReicher has a great post above, reasoned and reasonable. Look at the facts and then conclude.

>> ^blankfist:

I sense an apologist in our midst.

@Shepppard I don't hate anyone who wears a badge, I have a great amount of disdain for the system which trains cop to manipulate citizens out of whatever rights they deem a hindrance to them discovering crimes.

I have a grandmother with Alzheimers, she wanders occasionally. My mom, foolishly, called the police on one such occasion. I found my grandmother snd brought her home, the cops show up again after she's home and want to see her. They asked if they could come in, I chuckled a bit because I thought it was presumptuous of them to come inside my home, being the strangers that they are. I tell them no, they can't, but I'll go get grandma if you'd like to speak to her.

Then I try and close my door only to realize this cop put his boots on my door frame making me unable to close my door, it was a bit of a mindfuck tbh, as I was nervous, I was just like, wtf door won't close. I guess I was too intimidated to push the issue far enough to ask the cop to remove his boot. So whatever, I go get my grandmother and when I return they're right inside my house, imposing and uninvited. Probably having used some "door is ajar" rule letting them enter. What a joke.

So whatever they talk to my grandmother, all is well. I couldn't shut my mouth though, I had to ask don't I have the right to refuse you to enter my house? And they said, yes you do but it usually means you have something to hide(the, like, 25 y/o chick cop tells me). Which is bullshit. Exercising your rights doesn't mean you have something to hide, it means you know your rights, appreciate them and wish to make use of them.

This anecdotal evidence is worthless, though, in the grand scheme of things. The videos speak much louder. Using your figure of 250 videos a year, how many abusive interactions with police officers go unrecorded? Given how strongly opposed the police are to being recorded, probably a lot more. Why are they fighting the right to record them? What do they have to hide?

I worked as a drug deliveryman for about a year, good times, at least back then when my interactions with police were adversarial, it was justified. Funny thing, never had any problems with police while driving on the street with a dashboard full of weed. Was stopped multiple times, was fun/intense. Had to keep my cool and jump through their hoops.

As for your story of being let go while driving without a license, pretty surprising, was this in a big city or small town? Also, it's not the best example because honestly, you should've been given a ticket at the minimum. Normally, they tow your car and impound for 30 days which is pretty expensive. Letting someone come take the car is really nice of a cop, but I wouldn't have a problem taking a ticket for driving w/o a license. That's never been my problem, I've always been respectful of cops when stopped for a traffic violation where I'm actually in the wrong.

Anyhow, tl;dr cops aren't serving the citizenry, they're serving the government who's orders are to control the citizenry by any means necessary.

This is a long post, but I wanted to add that the lack of accountability for a cops actions are just disgusting. Cops have murdered citizens with barely a slap on the wrist.

I think it works fine as a parody, but I don't think cop shows should be about the protagonists struggling with technological hurdles. Scripted TV shouldn't try to be accurate, it should just avoid places where the inaccuracy is obvious.

I am not disagreeing with you. The video shows 1 guy being scanned before she was lined up to go through and refused. I think she was behind the blocks arguing with them at the start of the video or close enough to the start. We can say she was just in her own little world and didn't care that other people were being picked as long as she wasn't, which is a pretty common trait in all things lately.

She's young and she might even be on the coddled side. But I've personally seen women and especially "enforcement" women being harder on other women than anyone else in the vicinity, especially if the women are roughly the same age or a few years younger. It looked to me that the girl with her hair pulled back was demonstrating this, she seemed more agitated than any other person there aside from the girl being surrounded by however many people "against" her.

It doesn't even have to be her being attractive or not, but to me the whole thing seemed off. They can tell her scan or pat down or she needs to leave. If they thought she was trying to smuggle something onto a plane roping her off a few feet away from other passengers is doing nothing to contain the situation. It's an attraction, if you don't comply we'll rope you off and try to embarrass you and yammer at you instead of making our point and expelling you from the airport. Again if she was that much of a nuisance, they could no-fly list her. The video tape release being split and non-time stamped doesn't exactly eliminate all of my doubts. That they screen more often than the girl noticed (after she had already balked) is apparent, but no idea if they were doing this prior to the the beginning of the situation...one guy was scanned at the beginning. I'll say that for professionals to not be consistent would be doubtful, but professionals wouldn't consider a roped off area sufficient either or showing emotion toward a possible threat.

Most people being surrounded by a lot of unfriendly people after a disagreement would have a different perception than an onlooking, especially if they are young and sheltered. I think it was a lot of over-reaction on both sides part, except the TSA is supposed to a free pass because she might be packing a bomb as underwear......yet they leave her around the rest of the public and in the airport for 20+ minutes as shown in the video instead of isolating or removing.

>> ^nanrod:

You make some good points but I have to disagree with your conclusions. All the missing video in the world won't entirely validate her story. Why? Because the video we do see clearly contradicts her story. One of her main claims was that she was singled out ostensibly because she was a "hot chick". In the 13 minutes of footage where we see her in the screening area I counted 21 people going through of whom 12 were scanned. She certainly wasn't singled out period and while each to his own I didn't see her as being the "hot chick" in the group. She also stated that she was screamed at. What I saw was TSA staff who appeared to be speaking relatively calmly with her including a woman who appeared to be senior personnel who was handing her paper towels to dry her eyes. While at some times some of them looked annoyed with her I didn't see any evidence of screaming.
Bottom line; she was selected for scanning, was uncomfortable with that so had to go for more intensive pat down. She had heard horror stories of breasts being twisted painfully and was concerned about that and asked questions. Whether or not she got satisfactory answers she must have ultimately refused the pat down. No pat down , no scan, no fly. Now was she mistreated at any point along the way? Your absolutely right that without audio and any missing video we'll never know.>> ^Porksandwich:
>> ^ReverendTed:
Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.
The camera angles kinda suck.
The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.
So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.

A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.
At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

You make some good points but I have to disagree with your conclusions. All the missing video in the world won't entirely validate her story. Why? Because the video we do see clearly contradicts her story. One of her main claims was that she was singled out ostensibly because she was a "hot chick". In the 13 minutes of footage where we see her in the screening area I counted 21 people going through of whom 12 were scanned. She certainly wasn't singled out period and while each to his own I didn't see her as being the "hot chick" in the group. She also stated that she was screamed at. What I saw was TSA staff who appeared to be speaking relatively calmly with her including a woman who appeared to be senior personnel who was handing her paper towels to dry her eyes. While at some times some of them looked annoyed with her I didn't see any evidence of screaming.

Bottom line; she was selected for scanning, was uncomfortable with that so had to go for more intensive pat down. She had heard horror stories of breasts being twisted painfully and was concerned about that and asked questions. Whether or not she got satisfactory answers she must have ultimately refused the pat down. No pat down , no scan, no fly. Now was she mistreated at any point along the way? Your absolutely right that without audio and any missing video we'll never know.>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^ReverendTed:
Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?

She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.
The camera angles kinda suck.
The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.
So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.

A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.
At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

>> ^ReverendTed:

Politics aside, what's the verdict now that we've seen the raw security camera video?


She said there were a dozen cops that showed up, that she was cuffed to a chair and that they ripped up the ticket. And I think she said it took an hour at least. That's only 12 minutes or so of video in one section and 10 in another. So I am not sure if that's the entirety of the video or if they bring her back to the chair when the cops show up..or take her to another section at that point.

The camera angles kinda suck.

The second video which is hard to tell how far apart they are...shows her with 3-4 people in white shirts who appear to have sheriff/police badges on their arms. Which holds with her story. It is extremely hard to tell what is going on in these videos, she's kind of hard to see with everyone being taller than her.

So I think there's about 10-20 minutes of missing video showing the cops arriving. And that could entirely validate her story.


A few things are clear, she was crying, one of the TSA agents was clearly angry at her, and the police did escort her out of the airport. Not enough video to disprove her story, but enough to make it look like she lied if you assume these two videos have nothing in between them.

At this point I side with the McLain because I think they are withholding portions of the video. And I would think video like this would have time stamps....being security footage and all.

Here's a script that I just came up with, for when you are digging on a beach and the cops show up.

"Can you show me the specific statute that says a member of the media cannot dig on a public beach?"

"Can you show me the specific statute that says a citizen cannot dig on a public beach, for that matter?"

Then when he can't or won't produce it ask him if he will take you to a supervisor so that you can ask them.

Don't be belligerent about it, but don't let them push you around. Remember I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, just as a concerned citizen I think it's bullshit.

By the by, I still cannot find the statute on google that says you cant dig. Any google-fu masters out there?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/building-sand-castles-floridas-beaches-illegal-feds-oilhunting-reporter/

I realize I will probably be flamed for this but... A couple of points:

1) There is one type of person which is the most dangerous you can come across. It is people who suffer from White Knight Syndrome. Most if not all cops suffer from it; they seem to have a pathological need to do "what is right"(tm) no matter the cost for anyone else or themselves. As they have "right" on their side they can do no "evil" (That's what Black Knights and evil people do). That is also why they are the most dangerous people you can come across. All their actions are justified. They are the type who will shoot you with a smile on their lips because they are "vanquishing evil". Living in a black and white world is great... isn't it?

2) The guy is not resisting he is simply talking, as in being a civilized human being and not a barbarian, and therefore there is no justification at all for using violence. Instead of throwing the guy face first into asphalt the cop should have just asked him to sit down. But I guess that doesn't look as cool on those cop shows.

3) I have no respect for people who drink and drive but that is not a good enough reason to physically injure the guy as he is not physically combative. Be polite, tell him to sit down, explain why he is being arrested and then arrest him. Problem solved. Imagine a world where police are not militarized and actually behave like police should and not like mob enforcers. Do as we say or we will bash your face in, taze you, mace you and add resisting arrest to your crimes as you writhe in pain...

Non-gamers won't get this.

But that's a nice M4. I wonder how many cops showed up when people reported seeing numerous people carrying assault rifles.

>> ^jmzero:

Few men can kick as well as females... damn your additional space in the hip joints and extra oestrogen.

I think you have a very odd definition of the quality of a kick in martial arts. To me, something like this is what a high kick should look like. To me, "kicking well" is proportional to the speed and accuracy with which a kick can be executed, the power that can be brought to bear, and the ability to recover or transition quickly after the kick.
I'm not trying to rain on this parade really, and certainly some of what's going on there is impressive... it's just I don't understand why they're doing this as a "martial arts" thing when clearly what they're doing is gymnastics. There is nothing wrong with gymnastics (or parkour or lots of other things). And some of this stuff would be a good precursor to martial arts skills - but it's hard to think of this kind of thing as martial arts.


There are kicks and then there are kicks. If you can kick that high in slow motion and/or repeatedly like these women can, then you can kick fast and hard at those heights once. If you have that much active dynamic flexibility the sky is the limit. Just because they only showcase a portion of their skill doesn't mean that they can't kick faster, harder and better than cro cop... "Show kicks" are much harder to perform than "fight kicks" as they demand so much more from your balance and skill. In the same way that a proper cross punch demands a lot more from the puncher than a haymaker does.

There is a big difference between kicking for effect and kicking to show technique. However, if you don't have good technique you can't get good effect as you lose too much power fighting your own body.

^
Come on, I know what you're doing but really? I won't say I'm 100% convinced, but I'd be happy saying I'm 99% convinced. The way they edged toward the cops when they realised they weren't going to get away with it say it all.

Let's say they aren't cops. They're either very anti police or very anti the protesters and don't give a shit about the police. I don't see any other way for this to fall. Their silence when caught doesn't seem to fit either of these scenarios at all, the same with the way they move toward the police when found out.

If they're there with rocks to throw they're after violence. The way they moved toward the cops shows they don't mind arrest. If this really was the case then what you'd have seen on the video is violence. At no point does their demeanor suggest these things at all. They just don't fit.

Unless they're cops, when everything adds up and everything makes sense.

The fact that all of them were wearing the same issue boots as the cops just adds to this.

And as for the cops near you being OK, that's great. I'm betting these aren't local guys...

not fake at all... nop. As we all know security cameras all have microphones.

And then the cops show up at the nick of time as they're leaving? please.....

I thought the cop showed reasonable but not perfect professionalism. Should have identified himself with a badge but he showed good muzzle control (wait, did he off safety with the other hand?). @NordlichReiter has a point though because even knowing that the guys was a cop before watching the video I had the impulse to hit the throttle when seeing a guy get out of a very uncoplike car with a pistol. I probably would have slammed right into him in my panic.

And @Shepppard you're right about him making all the rest of us look bad for being on bikes and this is no place to F around, but at the same time I gotta say a wheelie is not as remarkable event as a non-rider would think. All in all I agree with @choggie "All is as it should be".

^
etymology of anarchy:

1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon). Anarchism is attested from 1642. Anarch (n.) "leader of leaderlessness," a deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Anarchism at its root is about rejecting authority. Capitalism creates its own ideas of authority with property rights, and the accumulation and control of capital.

That's why they trash businesses, and then yell "Fuck the police" when the cops show up.

From what I can find out,

They arrested him for Resisting Arrest and "Wandering with the intent to buy drugs".
Since the police aren't talking, we will have to wait on the "intent" charges. The Resisting arrest charges appear to be the same old bullshit charges that cops file after they assault somebody.
Can we all agree that the police always charge somebody they have assaulted, with Resisting arrest, its an automatic charge, probably an order from the lawyers from the police departments?
The other charge is to cover their butts on why they needed to beat him to begin with. Can't have a Reisting arrest charge without a Reason for arrest in the first place. Its pretty amazing that his original crime is a "thought crime".

Also please note: when the other cops show up, they just seperate the bully cop and the victim, Fight over! No more need to beat the "resisting guy who is thinking of buying drugs".

I bet the asshole cop was trying to impress his female parner, even though it looks like she wanted to intervene, but didn't.