Well, she reminds me of my wife. See, I told my wife to stop distracting me while I drove, and then I almost plowed into a state trooper. I literally warned her like two minutes before.

Yup. That's a state trooper, alright. I've seen them enough in my rear-view to recognize 'em anywhere. >> ^aaronfr:

The blue sedan that pulls up at around the :36 second mark is police. He stops in the intersection and gets out of the car. And there must have been a lead car as well since the truck is driving on the wrong side of the road. Also, the cars on the opposite side of the intersection are sitting there waiting for it to pass so someone must have stopped them. Police escorts, just no flashing lights.
>> ^Porksandwich:
No police escort that I could see. They usually make trucks hauling oversized loads or especially long loads hire police escorts or at least have follow vehicles ahead and behind to make sure it'll fit under all the bridges and places coming up and one to follow to make it really visible that this truck can't avoid things and other reasons I assume (visual problems with load, etc).

Not a Texas Ranger but a Tx State Trooper.

...less than 150 Rangers and not much into traffic stops.

One riot...one Ranger.

>> ^Payback:

Find out the details of someone you hate and give that to the cops, claiming you don't have your licence on you.


I don't know about New York cops, but NC State Troopers have a computer in their car and can pull up the photo ID from the info given to them.

@WKB

True, but when the Columbine school shooting was perpetrated, conservatives were quick to point the finger at Marilyn Manson's lyrics. I'm not saying they were right, and I'm not saying that Fox deserves all of the blame here either.

I do think though, that the people pumping that kind of rhetoric onto the airwaves deserve SOME responsibility for atrocities like this. Allow me to compare the Woodstock of 1970 to the Woodstock of '99 for an example.

-------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1970 Woodstock (billed as "3 days of Peace and Music") resulted in reports like this:

"The New York Times covered the prelude to the festival and the move from Wallkill to Bethel.[13] Barnard Collier, who reported from the event for the Times, asserts that he was pressured by on-duty editors at the paper to write a misleadingly negative article about the event. According to Collier, this led to acrimonious discussions and his threat to refuse to write the article until the paper's executive editor, James Reston, agreed to let him write the article as he saw fit. The eventual article dealt with issues of traffic jams and minor lawbreaking, but went on to emphasize cooperation, generosity, and the good nature of the festival goers.

When the festival was over, Collier wrote another article about the exodus of fans from the festival site and the lack of violence at the event. The chief medical officer for the event and several local residents were quoted as praising the festival goers."

--------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>>>The 1999 version of the event (featuring bands like Metallica, Rage Against the Machine, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Kid Rock and the Red Hot Chili Peppers who are all, dare I say, a bit angrier [lyrically speaking] than the likes of Arlo Guthrie or Joan Baez) is painted in a much different color:

"Some crowd violence and looting was reported during the Saturday night performance by Limp Bizkit, including a rendition of the song "Break Stuff". Reviewers of the concert criticized Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst as "irresponsible" for encouraging the crowd to destructive behavior.

Violence escalated the next night during the final hours of the concert as Red Hot Chili Peppers performed. A group of peace promoters led by an independent group called Pax had distributed candles to those stopping at their booth during the day, intending them for a candlelight vigil to be held during the Red Hot Chili Peppers' performance of the song "Under the Bridge". During the band's set, the crowd began to light the candles, some also using them to start bonfires. The hundreds of empty plastic water bottles that littered the lawn/dance area were used as fuel for the fire.

After the Red Hot Chili Peppers were finished with their main set, the audience was informed about "a bit of a problem." An audio tower caught fire, and the fire department was called in to extinguish it.

Back onstage for an encore, the Chili Peppers' lead singer Anthony Kiedis remarked how amazing the fires looked from the stage, comparing them to a scene in the film Apocalypse Now.[12] The band proceeded to play "Sir Psycho Sexy", followed by their rendition of Jimi Hendrix's "Fire". Kiedis later stated in his autobiography, Scar Tissue that Jimi Hendrix's sister had asked the Chili Peppers to play "Fire" in honor of Jimi and his performance at the original Woodstock festival, and that they were not playing it to encourage the crowd.

Many large bonfires were burning high before the band left the stage for the last time. Participants danced in circles around the fires. Looking for more fuel, some tore off panels of plywood from the supposedly inviolable security perimeter fence. ATMs were tipped over and broken into, trailers full of merchandise and equipment were forced open and burglarized, and abandoned vendor booths were turned over, and set afire.[13]

MTV, which had been providing live coverage, removed its entire crew. MTV host Kurt Loder described the scene in the July 27, 1999 issue of USA Today:

"It was dangerous to be around. The whole scene was scary. There were just waves of hatred bouncing around the place, (...) It was clear we had to get out of there.... It was like a concentration camp. To get in, you get frisked to make sure you're not bringing in any water or food that would prevent you from buying from their outrageously priced booths. You wallow around in garbage and human waste. There was a palpable mood of anger."

After some time, a large force of New York State Troopers, local police, and various other law enforcement arrived. Most had crowd control gear and proceeded to form a riot-line that flushed the crowd to the northwest, away from the stage located at the eastern end of the airfield. Few of the crowd offered strong resistance and they dispersed quickly back toward the campground and out the main entrance."

>>>>>>See also, this poignant response from a person in the crowd: http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/08/17/woodstock-legacy/ (crowdmember comments @ 2:20)

----------------------------------------

Now now easy there big fella, before you start telling me about how correlation does not imply causation consider this: an article recently published by the American Journal of Psychiatry concluded that:

"Childhood exposure to parental verbal aggression was associated, by itself, with moderate to large effects on measures of dissociation, limbic irritability, depression, and anger-hostility." Furthermore, "Combined exposure to verbal abuse and witnessing of domestic violence was associated with extraordinarily large adverse effects, particularly on dissociation. This finding is consonant with studies that suggest that emotional abuse may be a more important precursor of dissociation than is sexual abuse."
See: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/6/993

Maybe not the best example I could have found but I've already spent WAY too much time on this post. The point is, WORDS carry a lot of power. Even if the pundits (right OR left) never came out and said it, the implication of violence was certainly there at times.

I KNOW Fox has lead the charge of fear mongering in the name of ratings but anyone else who subscribed to that level of attack should share some of the blame as well. Again, not saying that they should take all or even a lot of the blame, but they should be responsible for the violent laced rhetoric they spout.

I say STOP THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS and we'll see less violence against PEOPLE and (hopefully) more enthralling arguments where the IDEAS are being attacked (which I'm all for) :-)

p.s. sry for the huge post but i was on a roll

I disagree. I'm sure one of the gazillion freaked out people called police about car going wrong way on I-95.

It makes you wonder why no f-ing state troopers ever intercepted this lady. That means for about 10 miles or more there are no police cruisers in that lane?? And that the dispatch never sent anyone to deal with this.



>> ^Stingray:

I guess hindsight is 20/20, but it probably would have been more useful for the guy to use his camera phone to dial 911 rather than video the escapade.

from the cops accent, this was in the southern usa. not sure which state exactly, but they don't really care about speeding that much, so I'm not surprised that he didn't give him a ticket (excuse the double negative). Also a lot more paperwork with international drivers licenses.

in the north and western usa, state troopers give tickets to everyone they pull over. if they are "having a bad day" you could get a ticket for doing 5mph over the limit...

and any US interstate highway is certainly capable of supporting 100 mph speeds. It's just the other drivers that make it dangerous.

Stormsinger, aside from Blankfist's apparent passion, when a government has the majority of jobs it becomes a monster. It has to pay it's workers, ergo you can come to the conclusion that the proposed Hegemony could exist. While it may not exist in your eyes, I can see it clearly.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iran, and the list goes on and on.

This: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html, about how Union Members now work for the government.

And this, http://www.silentmajority09.com/2010/03/unemployment-could-be-stalled-by.html, while quiet dubious the Labor Quote on the page could suggest that the Federal Workforce is growing.

I don't know if you live in the states, but in one of those states there are so many "Law Enforcement Officers" you never know who you will have to deal with. There's the Sheriff of a city, City Police, Police of a County, the parks and recreation officers, the federal parks officers, US Customs, Department Of Homeland Security, Department of Public Safety (State Troopers), and the wonderful Special Security Officer.

I probably missed a few, but I only see the need for the Sheriff, Police, and State Troopers. The rest? Well they happen to exist because of a growing government, while not itself suspicious it could become a problem.

The fact that no one else seems to care, or have the means to care is what worries me.

For those that can't make out what he said, it's that Obama "couldn't sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

Anyway, he prefaced the comment with "The Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument." So.. keep that in mind, I guess. He seems to be stumbling over his own words here anyway.

I have read recently of the possible mandatory vaccinations in several states, so I'm not doubting that part of his story. I still don't know why people are so up in arms over being vaccinated. Hasn't there been enough press recently about the safety of these current vaccinations compared to the ones they were putting out 30 years ago? Or are people only watching the 24hr news channels where they either question the safety of the vaccinations or whether we have enough of them and never give a real answer either way?

I'd love to see the evidence for these plans to implement roadblocks and busing to military prisons to enforce vaccinations, not just hearsay from a former state trooper and his buddies. Just because he was a cop doesn't mean he can never be wrong or completely misguided or paranoid and possibly insane.

This sounds like so much panicky, conspiracy theory bullshit.

I wanted to see if I could find the real court finding, to see on what basis they decided in his favor.

I had some trouble with that. It would be an understatement to say that this man has spent a lot of time in court over the last decade. Here's a decent summary from Mother Jones; it's Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan.

So, I found the opinions of him being laughed out of court for claiming that his property taxes are unconstitutional pretty much every year for as far back as the court has records. He's tried to get cases up to the SCOTUS on illegal passage of the 16th amendment (that's the one that permits income taxes), he's trying to make a case that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake. He also tried to sue that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were illegal because they were undeclared.

All that said, I haven't found any record of him winning a court case about a "right to drive" except this Youtube video, and it's accompanying article on the local TV station (which is basically a transcript of this video), and a blog entry by Donald Sullivan telling a story about how his son got arrested for refusing to answer an officer's questions when pulled over. He did this because the officer first read him his Miranda rights and then asked for license and proof of insurance (at which point the son exercised his right to remain silent).

Regardless, I think all rights have limits. You are free to speak, but you may not incite people to violence. You are free to "bear arms" but I'm pretty sure land mines are not permissible. You are guaranteed the right to a trial, but you do not have the right to infinite appeal.

People should indeed be able to move about without restriction. This does not mean I may use a 3000 lbs. device to convey myself without limits on how that device is used and operated.

Personally, I think if you want to take a "right to free movement" to some sort of extreme, the real meaning would be that trespassing shouldn't be a crime, and things like locks and fences should be illegal since they restrict people's freedom of movement.

After all, if you cause no damage to the person's property, it's a victimless crime...

The flat screen thing is actually pretty clever, with the added bonus of easy access to the wiring in the back.

The Montana State Trooper is hilarious. Issy and I are actually in Montana at the moment, and concur that the police officers are indeed pretty chill.

From Youtube:
"OHP says before the home video was recording, the paramedic assaulted the state trooper.
Witness Diana Walkup says the paramedic never touched anyone until the patrolman grabbed his arm."

There is a lot more info there, but I still have no idea why the ambulance was pulled over in the first place...

I have a close friend who is a state trooper. If I have learned one thing from conversations with him its this: as an officer you treat every situation as potentually life threatening where there is cause to believe it is.

The man was believed to have stabbed someone? Take him down fast, and stay on him to unsure the safety of myself and others. The officer in my opinion did the right thing. He knocked the guy down fast ans immediately moved in to put the guy in cuffs. Its unfortunate that the officer misjudged his body check, but from the video I'm not inclined to believe that brutality was the intent.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.