Hive, I would do the same, but this is far from what happened in this particular case.>> ^Hive13:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Hive13:
This happened over four years ago. Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in 2008. Both men were shot on Joe Horn's property and by Texas law he is within his state rights to defend his property.
Now, I am not saying that what he did was right or justified in any way, but, if two men ran onto my property after I personally witnessed them robbing my neighbor, I'd be reaching for a gun. I wouldn't be looking for a fight like this guy was, but I'd sure a shit defend my property.

No ones attacking property...they're taking it. If they had guns and were firing on your property then I'd understand. However taking your bullshit TV and knick knacks just doesn't mean a fucking thing which it comes to peoples lives period.
Now if you were say in a position where all you had was some food to live and they were stealing your food then I'd say you'd have the right to defend your life with deadly force. But this scenario would most likely have to play out in Africa or some post apocalyptic wasteland that people seem to wish would come around so they could shoot people on a whim.

So, I should just let convicted felon illegal immigrants with a vast criminal history just walk into my house and take whatever they want, in the presence of my wife and four children? What fucking planet do you live on? There are many people out there that would kill you and anyone in your house for $50.
The right to defend your property is an American right from the very beginning of this country. It isn't about property in the material sense....who cares about that? It is property in the sense that my wife and kids needs to feel safe and secure in their own home in their own beds.
In this case, I would have watched them from inside my home, called 911 and waited. If they headed toward my house, you had better believe that there would be one of my several guns in my hand ready to stop them from entering my house. If they did actually enter, they would get one warning and then they would get shot. Period.
If you don't live in America, I don't expect you to understand, but we have a lot of bad people here with bigger guns and no issue at all with murdering an entire family, kids and all, for an Xbox.

>> ^Hive13:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Hive13:
This happened over four years ago. Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in 2008. Both men were shot on Joe Horn's property and by Texas law he is within his state rights to defend his property.
Now, I am not saying that what he did was right or justified in any way, but, if two men ran onto my property after I personally witnessed them robbing my neighbor, I'd be reaching for a gun. I wouldn't be looking for a fight like this guy was, but I'd sure a shit defend my property.

No ones attacking property...they're taking it. If they had guns and were firing on your property then I'd understand. However taking your bullshit TV and knick knacks just doesn't mean a fucking thing which it comes to peoples lives period.
Now if you were say in a position where all you had was some food to live and they were stealing your food then I'd say you'd have the right to defend your life with deadly force. But this scenario would most likely have to play out in Africa or some post apocalyptic wasteland that people seem to wish would come around so they could shoot people on a whim.

So, I should just let convicted felon illegal immigrants with a vast criminal history just walk into my house and take whatever they want, in the presence of my wife and four children? What fucking planet do you live on? There are many people out there that would kill you and anyone in your house for $50.
The right to defend your property is an American right from the very beginning of this country. It isn't about property in the material sense....who cares about that? It is property in the sense that my wife and kids needs to feel safe and secure in their own home in their own beds.
In this case, I would have watched them from inside my home, called 911 and waited. If they headed toward my house, you had better believe that there would be one of my several guns in my hand ready to stop them from entering my house. If they did actually enter, they would get one warning and then they would get shot. Period.
If you don't live in America, I don't expect you to understand, but we have a lot of bad people here with bigger guns and no issue at all with murdering an entire family, kids and all, for an Xbox.


WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!? It wasn't his home...his neighbors weren't fucking there. They were absolutely NO THREAT. Are you just making shit up to get mad about or something?

Also yes I live in America, I've lived in some of the worst areas of Southern California. Never had a problem because this epidemic of bad people coming into your home and murdering you doesn't exist.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Hive13:
This happened over four years ago. Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in 2008. Both men were shot on Joe Horn's property and by Texas law he is within his state rights to defend his property.
Now, I am not saying that what he did was right or justified in any way, but, if two men ran onto my property after I personally witnessed them robbing my neighbor, I'd be reaching for a gun. I wouldn't be looking for a fight like this guy was, but I'd sure a shit defend my property.

No ones attacking property...they're taking it. If they had guns and were firing on your property then I'd understand. However taking your bullshit TV and knick knacks just doesn't mean a fucking thing which it comes to peoples lives period.
Now if you were say in a position where all you had was some food to live and they were stealing your food then I'd say you'd have the right to defend your life with deadly force. But this scenario would most likely have to play out in Africa or some post apocalyptic wasteland that people seem to wish would come around so they could shoot people on a whim.


So, I should just let convicted felon illegal immigrants with a vast criminal history just walk into my house and take whatever they want, in the presence of my wife and four children? What fucking planet do you live on? There are many people out there that would kill you and anyone in your house for $50.

The right to defend your property is an American right from the very beginning of this country. It isn't about property in the material sense....who cares about that? It is property in the sense that my wife and kids needs to feel safe and secure in their own home in their own beds.

In this case, I would have watched them from inside my home, called 911 and waited. If they headed toward my house, you had better believe that there would be one of my several guns in my hand ready to stop them from entering my house. If they did actually enter, they would get one warning and then they would get shot. Period.

If you don't live in America, I don't expect you to understand, but we have a lot of bad people here with bigger guns and no issue at all with murdering an entire family, kids and all, for an Xbox.

>> ^Hive13:

This happened over four years ago. Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in 2008. Both men were shot on Joe Horn's property and by Texas law he is within his state rights to defend his property.
Now, I am not saying that what he did was right or justified in any way, but, if two men ran onto my property after I personally witnessed them robbing my neighbor, I'd be reaching for a gun. I wouldn't be looking for a fight like this guy was, but I'd sure a shit defend my property.


No ones attacking property...they're taking it. If they had guns and were firing on your property then I'd understand. However taking your bullshit TV and knick knacks just doesn't mean a fucking thing which it comes to peoples lives period.

Now if you were say in a position where all you had was some food to live and they were stealing your food then I'd say you'd have the right to defend your life with deadly force. But this scenario would most likely have to play out in Africa or some post apocalyptic wasteland that people seem to wish would come around so they could shoot people on a whim.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^ghark:
@bcglorf - It's called news - if specific elements of what he says are untrue then feel free to disprove them - all you've done is used his involvement in a 9/11 movement as your 'proof' which is circumstantial at best. Marbles didn't make the video, he posted it, this site is called "Videosift" - a place where, you know, video's can be sifted. If you disagree with the message then attack the facts not the guy who added to the value of the site with an informative video. Unlike journalists where you seem to get your news from, Tarpley has (apparently) visited the country and talked to the people, there would be very few journalists that could give his perspective if this is true.
PS Was wondering when I'd see you next bcglorf, I missed you.

Al Jazeera has multiple journalists in Syria, all of whom are well agreed that the protests all started peacefully and were met with deadly force from the regime. The Arab league, who's member nations each have embassies in Syria with multiple diplomats living in the country, are also well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads. The Syrian refugees that fled to Turkey are all well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads.
The ONLY source that in any way corroborates Tarpley's story here is Assad's own media. I do believe that in itself calls into question Tarpley's veracity. When his sole evidence is basically his own word, trust him, I think it worth noting his past record of trustworthiness.
As for contributing, I don't consider propaganda bought and paid for by the Syrian regime a positive contribution to the plight of the Syrian people.



You do realise that people willing to spend 10 seconds on a Google search can verify whether your statements are true or not right?

Back in April alone:
(links available from http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html)

The Al-Alam News Network reports that Saudi/CIA snipers are on rooftops firing at both protesters and Syrian forces

CNN reported that an unknown armed group had been firing on both protesters and Syrian forces alike (they go on to presume that it was Syrian forces that apparently opened fire on themselves which I find odd).

China's XinhuaNet reported that armed gangs had clashed with protesters and Syrian forces, killing members of both sides.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported equipment from these armed forces had been recovered, there were non-Syrian SMS cards and other tools to spread fake repression of protesters.

Ynet also reported a similar story, finding fake bottles of blood and other items - they reported that "the phones and cameras were carried by members of an armed criminal group that attacked a military location in Rakhem al-Hirak area in Daraa countryside"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059951,00.html

The assistant US secretary of state for human rights and labor (Michael Posner) in an AFP report said that the US had budgeted $50 million in the past 2 years to help 'activists' evade authoritarian Governments.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/us-trains-activists-to-evade-security.html

In terms of who the actual gunmen are, there is only circumstantial evidence from what I've seen - some of it is discussed here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/video-reporting-possible-ciasaudi.html

There appears to be links with a group called Gen-next, and there is a precedent to this type of interference with local uprising - that link talks about armed units killing both Thai military and protesters alike in 2010.

And more information on them (with working vids of the Thai attacks) here:
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/color-revolutions-mystery-gunmen.html

Anyway, it's the same old story with you, your comments are abrasive towards those opposed to your abhorrent ideology and your 'facts' are verifiably untrue. It's a shame because you seem more intelligent than some of the other trolls so you have potential to improve, you simply decide not to.

The real story is that these gunmen are a mystery to almost everyone, they appear to be showing up frequently, they appear to be corporate backed, they don't appear to be part of the local armed forces because they routinely attack them. Making a bold statement about their intentions seems difficult due to the circumstantial evidence against them, however the fact that they are operating in multiple countries and the US is pouring millions of dollars into these kinds of efforts (and has done over and over again in the past) indicates that it is likely not of Syrian origin.

>> ^ghark:

@bcglorf - It's called news - if specific elements of what he says are untrue then feel free to disprove them - all you've done is used his involvement in a 9/11 movement as your 'proof' which is circumstantial at best. Marbles didn't make the video, he posted it, this site is called "Videosift" - a place where, you know, video's can be sifted. If you disagree with the message then attack the facts not the guy who added to the value of the site with an informative video. Unlike journalists where you seem to get your news from, Tarpley has (apparently) visited the country and talked to the people, there would be very few journalists that could give his perspective if this is true.
PS Was wondering when I'd see you next bcglorf, I missed you.


Al Jazeera has multiple journalists in Syria, all of whom are well agreed that the protests all started peacefully and were met with deadly force from the regime. The Arab league, who's member nations each have embassies in Syria with multiple diplomats living in the country, are also well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads. The Syrian refugees that fled to Turkey are all well agreed that the protesters were the victims of regime death squads.

The ONLY source that in any way corroborates Tarpley's story here is Assad's own media. I do believe that in itself calls into question Tarpley's veracity. When his sole evidence is basically his own word, trust him, I think it worth noting his past record of trustworthiness.

As for contributing, I don't consider propaganda bought and paid for by the Syrian regime a positive contribution to the plight of the Syrian people.

If two black men jumped the counter and chased a white girl into the corner of the cooking area and she defended herself with deadly force she would be praised and made a hero. She would get a book deal, have a movie about her story and become the new role model for all women to look up to. Free this man. Get him back on the job. And for criss sake give him a raise.

Things are rarely ever this black and white when it comes to cops using deadly force.

Officer or not. That person was luuuuuuc-KEY.

Facts? Okay, 1 out of four go bad for cops as opposed. K. But there are 1000 or more citizens than cops. So, individual cops get the bad end of the stick most often than individuals by and large--thanks for the stat you just provided.And the death ratio is far high for cops too. (I am not saying abuse doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter as much as death...)

So when you say, "Clearly the individual should have more to fear" you are, clearly incorrect (By your own stat.)

Additionally, "Fear" and "blind power" can never go together. It has to be one or the other.


I agree some cops act either-or, which makes them thugs. They should be prosecuted. Did you also know who the more likely applicant for suicide is? Cops... Why? Who knows. Probably the same psychological reason that more commit crimes.



>> ^swedishfriend:

Reality!!!
Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?
Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.
Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.
Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.
Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).
The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.
The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

Reality!!!

Tazing is supposed to be used instead of deadly force (it is very dangerous to taze someone). At what point would any of this man's behavior constitute a reason to use deadly force?

Traffic stops end badly for the one being pulled over far more often than for the cop (4 to 1 as I recall). Clearly the cop should feel 4 times less worried than the man. The cop is the one being offensive both statistically and by being the more aggressive in this situation.

Cops are 2-10 times more likely to be a criminal than the general population depending on the type of crime you look at the statistics for (percentage of cops who are convicted of rape is double of that of the general male population. Statistics for murder was 4 times the general population). And that is despite the difficulty in prosecuting a cop for any crime.

Clearly, the general population has far more to fear from a police officer than a police officer has to fear from the general population in a situation like this so I don't find it reasonable for anyone to just blindly do what an officer asks them to do since the balance of danger is so greatly skewed against the private citizen. Nor do I find it reasonable for an officer to assume they are in all kinds of danger and act as if they are when they clearly are not in any danger and are being more aggressive than the suspected person.

Considering we live in the USA the police should be very careful around other people not the other way around. The public servant should not be in a position of power over the general population. Considering the protections of the constitution and the bill of rights not much could be considered a lawful order by a police officer. The officer would need good evidence of a crime just to even ask the suspect a question (reasonable cause).

The cops and their training is why the city had to pay out a settlement. The man acted quite reasonably if you believe in a free society and right to privacy. The cop acted out of fear and blind power.

The man gets out of car to talk to cop. Cop yells at man. man does not get into a more vulnerable position after being attacked like that (that would be suicidal in an evolutionary sense). Man continues to try to calmly resolve the situation while the cop continues to attack. At what point is it reasonable to turn your back on an attacker, to get into a more vulnerable position? It never is! At all points the man was more calm and less threatening than the cop was!

I don't know why, but I read the comments before watching the video.

I don't see how anybody can defend the driver. Clearly he was either on drugs or has a mental disorder. He showed absolutely no respect for the cop, which is understandable. Lots of people hate cops, always have. What is NOT understandable is how he showed absolutely no fear of a man pointing a gun and shouting at him. That is not normal. I'm not using hyperbole when I say that the guy might be a psychopath. He recognizes that the guy with the gun might hurt him, but it doesn't trigger the fear response.

A normal person might accidentally get out of the car due to lack of experience with police procedure, but once they saw the gun drawn they would have trouble not soiling themselves. A normal person falls over themselves to comply when a gun is pointed at them.

So you have here either 1) a man on drugs, 2) a psychopath, or 3) a criminal who is so hardened that they no longer react normally to the immediate threat of deadly force. Possible all three.

And some of you have the balls to say he isn't presenting a threat to the officer? That's bullshit.

Am I the only one that sees this as sad, but understandable and justifiable outcome given the circumstances? Raising a deadly weapon at the SWAT team was met with deadly force.

@NetRunner, All media is propaganda, because every media source comes from a unique regional, economic, cultural and political perspective. Bias is perspective, and there is nothing wrong with perspective, so long as it is presented in an honest straight forward manner, and we know where that perspective is coming from. I think a larger diversity of media perspectives would be a positive.

I don't think RT's sole purpose in reporting is to make us look bad. We are the most powerful and deadly force on the planet. Our actions negatively impact people outside our borders just as much (if not more) as they impact those of us within. Russia has a stake in our actions and vested interest in highlighting our problems.

I do think that they would be better served with a less derisive, more professional tone.

Speaking to the Law, respectfully, there is no Law.

In the states with Castle Doctrine laws, it is indeed varied. In Texas, deadly force maybe used against one having forced entry into or using force to attempt to enter a dwelling or place of business. Refer to the video. Here, it could have been tragically different in outcome. In fact, my response was to the gentleman poster's representation of similar activities as great fun.

In Texas, one may use deadly force, at night, in instances of vandalism and theft as well.

Other jurisdictions have eschewed Castle Doctrine so as not to limit the scope of actions that one may take to protect themselves and their properties. Others, otherwise. I am not seeking to enter into a philosophical discussion about such, but merely to address the inherent dangers of certain perceived fun.

Personally speaking, I live in a nice neighborhood with largely retired professionals and upper middle class with young professionals moving in. That said, I can stand on my front porch and see the site of a home invasion that nearly cost the life of an ex-judge, a house broken into three times with the occupant home each time and assaulted(elderly female), a daylight armed robbery of an individual watering a lawn, I could continue.... I witnessed three teens kicking a door of and elderly neighbor, pursued and detained them three weeks ago. I managed to get their home address and escorted them there and confronted their parents without having to call the police. The neighbor was approaching the door when I scared them off and would have opened fire if they had been successful. Her neighbor's house was burgled Sunday afternoon the following week.

I apologize if too much.

I don't have any answers on a better way to deal with cops. I was just commenting on what I felt as I watched this video.I know its best just do as you are told by the police. I also know that doesnt always make it right. I have had some bad dealings with the police, never any major trouble, but enough to know that they can be liars and power tripping dickheads who know they can getaway with almost anything. I think its sad that we all know that cops are bad news, and are instructed to learn how to deal with it.
"we know that if you run, cops will shoot you" is a good example, running is now a capitol offense that requires deadly force? Running is a bad idea, curling up in the fetal posistion and pissing youself is the safest action when the police approach. (and No, i dont really reccomend it). >> ^longde:
Except we know that if you run, the cops will shoot you.
I see the disconnect here. Let me explain. The people in this video trust the cops and the legal system much less than you. Their objective is to leave any police encounter alive, with limbs intact, and without some arbitrary felony thrown at them.
So, they're not hoping for the best, they are trying to prevent the worst.
For all your cynicism, I haven't heard any better ways from you to deal with cops. What advice would you give these people.>> ^csnel3:
I think we all watched the same video. I admit I question things more than normal.
This rang of a video that the authorities would like to play for all the children everyday at the beginning of school. They tell you you have rights, this is comforting, then they tell you the proper way to be arrested and or released, depending on what the police decide to do with you. Wrong or right, just follow these steps and the police will have an easier time with you, and maybe you will recieve some kind of repreve, or not.
I know that the police will lie to us, and do whatever they want, regardless of our rights. I also know they will lie to each other, the court system, and the media, to be able to do and say anything they want. For the most part, once they are in control of you, it doesnt matter what you say about your rights. The video even states that the cops hate people who say they have rights and be prepared for the shitstorm if you go down that road. It's better to shut-up and obey.
I always try to be polite and cooperate, even though I really dislike and distrust the police.
Sometimes I just feel, Rights or not, Run!! Serpintine!Serpintine!Serpintine! dont look back.go go go.
Or just do as this vid says and hope for the best.