Yes, and imo any reasonable person would have done exactly that instead of intentionally causing an incident he could film and maybe profit from, or at least get some world star views.

She's married to a black dude, so I'll go out on a limb and say she isn't afraid of black men more than other men.

Of course, there's the possibility that she's actually a captive of her husband, forced against her will to marry and live with someone she feared and didn't respect because of their skin color just to torture her because she's really a racist bitch, but I seriously doubt it.

If the answer is yes, she's done this before to white guys they just didn't film it to publicly shame her and instead just used their fob again like a reasonable neighbor, would you change your position?

No, he has no obligation beyond the building's written rules to engage her at all, but that's exactly why she was suspicious, he violated building rules and stupidly refused to be reasonable....whatever his reason might have been, likely a mistaken assumption she was racially motivated and not just a good neighbor looking out for the safety of her building as the management had repeatedly requested everyone living there do.

What do you think he would do if a few 6'6" skinheads barged in when he opened the door, shoved past him, and rudely refused to prove they belonged there while filming him, snidely commenting about the dumb black boy who thinks he's security? Would you then excuse the hundreds of death threats he started getting from random racists for daring to confront white men? I hope not.

Because I admit when I'm wrong I'll tell you that the news is now reporting he was in the shooters car, not the other car like they said earlier. The video shows he wasn't the shooter, but if reports are now correct it seems he was involved.

While that is a legitimate reason for the police to be on high alert, it's still not enough to require/excuse deadly force against a fleeing suspect according to their rules of engagement or the law, but is likely enough for an acquittal on what they now say are murder charges.

You Tube Chanel: Kavi Sammelan and Mushaira
Unfortunately, Video Sift is not a site for Self Promotion.
@mustafamnr
The site makes this quite clear when joining.

Unfortunately I need to nominate your account to be *banned for knowingly breaking the Sift rules of engagement.

This nomination has no bearing on the quality of of your video.
Join us again, engage in the community, vote on videos, comment, make some friends and if you have a personal video, then have someone post it for you.

Cheers and have a great day.

Pakistan, yes. I think we have at least a small force there. Not at all sure about the others, but likely we've got some there.
Those are not the only places we've droned, not even the places we've droned the most. Try Afghanistan and Iraq. You just hear about it more when we do it in places we aren't technically 'at war' with.

It makes little difference what the delivery system of the explosive is, that's why I always wondered what the big deal is about suicide bombers. They're just another delivery system, a low tech, radar cloaked delivery system. It's the bombing/indiscriminate killing that matters. Right? Not the delivery system.

Drones have their proper uses, and improper uses. Bombing someone you can see is setting up a booby trap to kill you or allies is appropriate. Bombing people based on their height is an improper use. This has little to do with the drone, and more to do with the leadership and their 'rules' for who's a target. For me, it's not about 'drone vs manned aircraft' though, it's 'giant bomb vs precision assassination'.

Do you think Obama is watching a little screen deciding 'bomb that guy, and that building'? He is not involved at that level, and you know it. I don't trust a disinterested tech thousands of miles removed from their actions to do the right thing, they've proven they can't be trusted, and they're the one's that matter in this instance. That said, if there were much better rules for engagement and they were draconically enforced, I would have little problem with keeping expensive planes and pilots out of danger.

There is no statute of limitations in the offense of the First degree (premeditated) murder by Federal agents of Randy Weaver's wife and son in 1992. Justice has not been served yet.
I sent the following message to Idaho Governor Butch Otter via both is Facebook page and via a direct link to his state website. I'd like to challenge all of you to do the same. Just copy & paste everything below the line. His contact information is at the bottom.
---------------------------------------------------
Remembering the Real Story of Ruby Ridge Idaho - August 21 1992
From >> [url redacted]
Uncovering government corruption at Ruby Ridge
According to FBI Grand Jury Testimony, US Marshals were involved in the cover up, the media, and the story from the Weaver's perspective...

Today, you are considered an "extremist" by the ADL and SPLC if you think the actions taken here by the Federal Government were out of hand. For the first time in US history, the FBI was given permission from cabinet members of the George HW Bush administration to change their Rules of Engagement to, "can and should shoot to kill" effectively rendering the US Constitution useless. A young boy was shot in the back and killed by US Marshals, and FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi later shot and killed Vicky Weaver while she was unarmed and holding her 10 month old baby in her arms. This incident serves as an educational tool to all Americans on just how useless our coveted Constitution is to the Federal Government when you cross them. I do not endorse violence towards the Federal Government. This is simply the closest I could come to the real truth without media/Government disinformation.

You have to ask yourself, even in this age of information, why is it so hard to find the truth about Ruby Ridge?

See the following links for more information:
[url redacted]

The Preliminary Hearings of Weaver and Harris -
[url redacted]

New York Times Propaganda -
[url redacted]

DOJ Whitewashing and Final Report on FBI wrongdoing -[url redacted]

Idaho vs Randy Weaver
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. IDAHO
[url redacted]

No. 98-30149. - IDAHO v. HORIUCHI - US 9th Circuit United States US 9th Cir. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.IDAHO
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2001 5, 2001 No. 99-71081. IDAHO v. HORIUCHI June 5, 2001 No. 98 30163. SILVER SAGE PARTNERS LTD
[url redacted]

US 9th Circuit - Court Decisions - June 2000 No. 96-50297. IDAHO v.
HORIUCHI June 14, 2000
No. 98-70772. VAN GERWEN v. GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY ERISA
[url redacted]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF SHOOTINGS AT RUBY RIDGE, IDAHO DURING ARREST OF RANDY WEAVER
[url redacted]

SPLC and Spokesman Review Propaganda 20 years later
[url redacted]

I have a friend who was a Deputy United States Marshall at that time. He wasn't involved with Ruby Ridge, but he knew 2 agents who were. He told me:

"I knew two of the guys in the woods that weaver's son engaged. It was a mess from the start. If the dog would not have smelled the surveillance team nothing would have happened that day. It all ended badly. Stupid ATF case was bad from the start. Weaver would have been acquitted if he would have just gone back to court. Travesty of bad decisions all around."

The fact remains that it wasn't Randy Weaver's fault he didn't make it to the court appearance. It was all due to an intended snafu on the part of the Feds. They set him up to murder him and his family with extreme prejudice!

At the Nuremberg trials: Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders".

In my opinion, the officers involved should be charged with first degree murder, and those who assisted the operation should be charged and tried as accessories to first degree murder. Until this happens, we will never again be "One nation under God." This travesty screams for justice!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video and this blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law

If we are ever going to get anyone to open the case again and get these murderers charged and tried for their crimes against Americans, we need to raise public awareness of the facts involved. The best way to do it is to get as many people as possible to share the link below or copy & paste it and post it in as many places as possible. I would also suggest you copy and paste the link and send it to every state legislator and the current governor of Idaho.

[url redacted]

To send Idaho Governor Butch Otter a link to this story, click on the link below:
[url redacted]

Governor Otter's Facebook "Page"
[url redacted]

Look MilkmanDan, it was not the intention to offend you in particular, we merely leapt like a robot at an opportunity to snub a nose at rules-of-engagement relative to rules in-general and some of the more didactic pet-peeves some but not all have with regards to what we personally regard as insignificant, but that some folks seem to get bent-sideways about and begin these tiresome pedantic, didactic dull-ass comment threads.

Who cares if it's tagged incorrectly, who cares if it's marked long when it's really short? Who cares obviously some folks do and it bothers the shit outta them. There is no 'why', simply the questions of how what, when and who had a part in creating these inconsequential concerns in some people that it matters at all?

That you wanted to down-vote a comment suggests perhaps someone thought someone else was crude, mean, rude, or too direct or forward in their protest. We can live with that, as well as the supercilious reasoning for your not voting this video up, in our LTHO.

At the end of the day, you got yer cute kitty dragging someone's be-bootied -with-shoe-cover foot being dragged up close-in to a mischievous, playful cat's clawing with head-banging glee, and it's AS cute, as that slammin' chick's back-side in the screen-shot, unless you are from some other planet where rippin' asses don't stir your loins a bit, be you male or female, gay, straight or otherwise.

Glad you dug the misdirection as much as myself an we thank you for your sincere feedback.

Personally, I vote shit up based on the fact that the original submitter enjoyed the video enough to embed it, and at the end of the day it makes folks happy about contributing to the site and therefore the entire sift community benefits.

What really IS an affirmative vote anyway, but a gesture of goodwill and kindness directed outward from the wealth of consideration one has for oneself?

Do unto others, then run away as fast as you can...to paraphrase the rule.

Oh and the ass-wiping analogy was meant for all the OCD retentive types, the kind of people where everything has to be just-so or their fucking heads will explode....perhaps I should check a mirror??

According to hermeneuticians, economics is apparently a matter of popular opinion. Ostriches. Like someone shot in the belly but continuing to work, ignoring the fact that he's bleeding out does not obviate the fact.

Collectivist anarchy cannot exist, unless what you mean by "anarchy" is chaos, for reasons already stated. But in the abstract, yes, you can advocate some sort of incoherence like anarcho-syndcalism and still call it anarchy. That's why some like to specify and call the (in my opinion) more coherent and desirable anarchism, libertarian anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism, or voluntaryism. Any type of communalism or syndicate requires rulers to administer the "communal," which, unless unanimously selected, is in direct contrast with the purpose of anarchism (which means "without rulers"). And then you have the problem of coming up with and enforcing the "communal" rules without engaging in aggression.

Perhaps "we are getting snagged on definitions." I am not clear on your position so it could be the disagreements have to do with definitions. If you redefine socialism in a non-Marxist way, maybe you can make libertarian socialism coherent.

If you can come up with a social organization that involves zero initiation of violence against persons or their property, then whatever you want to call it, it agrees with libertarian anarchy.

Let me define the basic principle of the anarchism that I favor, to avoid semantic problems: non-aggression means never initiating violence against any individual or their property.
Property can only be a scarce resource. Non-scarce resources cannot be property or owned. You acquire property through homesteading, first appropriation, voluntary trade, or inheritance.
Legally, you can enforce contracts/voluntary agreements, and punish any violations of a person's "self" or property, meaning you can enforce non-aggression.
This view I call anarchy-capitalism, libertarian anarchy, or voluntaryism.
Or free market anarchy.

C-Engines' right, a war wouldn't do anything unless you're talking about the systematic elimination of individuals behind an empire that's designed to instill a lasting, generational fear in those who would continue the push for ultimate power and control. The only changes that will come will be more total control unless a dialog manifests with meaning and purpose directed at the control mechanism's infrastructure by a majority of regular peeps unsullied by the indoctro-education of so-called knowledge of the the way the world works.

Until people stop trying to work within the framework of rules and engagement that has been created by the same perpetrators of our enslavement, the majority of our sentient, big-brained species may as well get used to the idea that the few freedoms you imagine yourselves to have now are illusion and your children will not enjoy one one-hundredth of that same illusion in 30 years.

Guerrilla-tactics with a broadband and well-coordinated take-down is the only way to end the paradigm that has been in place for thousands of years. That or some unifying world-wide catastrophic necessity for the survival of the species....like a frikkin' meteor storm some other worldwide natural disaster or some influence from without.

@Yogi-my_design is talking about the "immediate trauma care" emergency room scenario, of which the United States is top-notch at handing-out for free-no insurance...all fucking day long 24/7 365, black, white, red, etc. , regardless of government fucking shutdown, yer "OBVIOOUSLY" full of shit in that regard.

Taking the side of the police because you assume they obey reasonable or legitimate rules of engagement, is also a fool's fucking errand, moreso every minute that passes.

Police will eventually, regardless of what ever morality or ethics they began their career in law enforcement with, WITNESS A FELONY AND COVER FOR ANOTHER SHIT HEAL COP.

PERIOD

Systemic Institutional Putrefaction=law enforcement in the United States

He used "rules of engagement" when dealing with that cop and in contacting the media. This guy is my hero.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video WACO: The Rules of Engagement. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

>> ^Sarzy:

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??
I'm done.>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.



You're done? what, apologizing for murderous thugs?
Good call!

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??

I'm done.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).


Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

I listened as a friend of mine, who is a Pastor at a local church, tell about how he does not believe in religion, at all, in any shape, or form. He does believe in His god though. He described it as a personal relationship between him and God.

We have to remember that a person that believes in God has a believe you can't take away or sway. They can evolve their own opinions but it's "Their" belief - regardless of what it is.

Most of the negativity that comes between atheism and faith is the "Religion" that operates like an outer shell and tries to overpower and control the personal beliefs of the individual.

A person's belief system doesn't affect me or the person beside them in church. A person will believe what they want. It's the religion that starts to dictate the rules of engagement and control. Not everyone believes the exact same thing, which is why the Catholic church has spun off into so many variations. From there, people just jump from church to church until they find the one that closest resembles their beliefs.

Those who just don't believe, and there are far more than they realize or want us to believe (I like to believe it's 50/50), are just the ones at the far end of the spectrum, the farthest from the Fundamentalist establishments.