search results matching tag: Instant Karma

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (40)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (23)     Comments (75)   

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, Angry pedestrian gets instant karma, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 103 Badge!

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Burger Flippers Beware! Robots Are Here To Take Your Jobs!

Just another day in Russia

Unarmed Man Laying On Ground With Hands in Air Shot

Barbar says...

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

newtboy said:

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

hazmat22 (Member Profile)

Kitty Has Had Enough of Your Sh*t

newtboy (Member Profile)

SDGundamX (Member Profile)

SDGundamX (Member Profile)

arborist finds giant bee hive

newtboy says...

I'm disappointed in him.
Bees are in trouble. We're in trouble without bees. Don't go killing bee hives because they're a minor inconvenience to you, please.

He saw there was a hive in the tree before he cut it, no way around that, the bees were flying in and out right in his face. I can't figure out why he didn't -1)put on a bee suit 2) use some smoke to calm them 3) wait for a cooler time of day when they're calm to do the cutting and/or 4) (best idea) call a local bee keeper to come remove them. You can almost always get one to come for free if it's really bees and not wasps or hornets, most extermination companies will know at least one.

Also, it seemed he cut right through the hive without any effort to keep it intact. That was a guarantee of an angry swarm (how would you react to a chain saw cutting your home in half?) and a likely hood that the entire colony will die. He really should have knocked on it to find the hollow part and made the cut lower and used rope to lower the entire hive.

My first bee hive was just such a hive that someone properly cut out of their tree in one piece, and it lasted me years before the chunk of wood rotted and they swarmed. I didn't even have a suit when I got it, so I just went at sunrise to collect it, and hardly lost a bee and didn't get stung moving it about 40 miles!

This hive could have been saved with minimal effort and way fewer stings, so in a way I'm glad he got the instant karma for destroying it, but I'm still sad that saving the bees is apparently not on most people's minds, not even arborists.

DON'T KILL BEES PEOPLE. Without them we'll starve.

Cat Owner Gets Owned By Instant Kharma.

Cat Owner Gets Owned By Instant Kharma.

Cat Owner Gets Owned By Instant Kharma.

newtboy (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon