yes, if you ever get on a jury, always believe the defendant
lol
don't believe the judge, either, he's just a lawyer, and we all know that a lawyer will say anything if he's paid to do so
also, don't believe the subpoena to appear, that's just some document put out by the court
and don't believe the sign that says if you part illegally your car will be towed

but seriously, newtboy, cops are trained to tell the truth in court...on the street, there is a lot of bluff going on and the courts have said that is legal
I've been through police academy and we were not taught to lie. What is your experience from when you attended police academy?

Does american police training consist of 3 months of reading judge dredd comics? It's been a while since i've seen police academy, so i've forgotten what their training is really like.

You need to stop people in your custody from trying to hurt you or others, but you have a duty of care to the person you have restrained whether you like that person or not. This isn't judge dredd, and the first person to apprehend someone doesn't get to decide who deserves what punishment.

Yay!

My first time for SOTW.


I'd like to thank the academy, my mom and dad, and all the lazy non-unionized, cement layers living under military dictatorships the world over!

I was happy to read that this isn't 100% comedy. Doctors are actually refusing to serve patients that won't vaccinate.

From Quartz:
If you don’t believe in vaccinations, then your doctor might not accept your child as a patient.

Some practitioners want to protect patients who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons. Others feel it’s their responsibility to mark parents’ opposition to vaccination as unacceptable.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) provides guidelines and documents to help pediatricians deal with parents who refuse to immunize their children. The guidelines include a sample letter a practice refusing to accept unvaccinated kids may share with their parents, which include very direct statements:

By not vaccinating your child you are taking selfish advantage of thousands of others who do vaccinate their children, which decreases the likelihood that your child will contract one of these diseases. We feel such an attitude to be self-centered and unacceptable.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, that is correct.

I wonder how those cops decide who to pull over, considering they come into contact with hundreds of people driving by, walking by, etc.

But I suspect this video tells the WHOLE story, nothing else to know.

COPS ARE BAD! All cops are bullies!

But you lefties want more gov't, and this, in one sense, is more gov't. Cops are representatives of gov't. Are they perfect? No. But if you want to know what cops do, go down to your local police dept and ask for a ride-along, or attend the citizen academy.

Or you could ask to read the daily 'incident reports' and enjoy all the barking dog complaints, auto accident reports, theft offenses, heroin addicts with needles sticking out of their arms, domestic disputes, child abuses, white collar crime, illegal immigrant hit and runs with no insurance, prisoner transports, summonses served, etc.

Or you could just do what newtboy does...troll for 'bad cop' videos because it confirms your deepest prejudices.

I did some research and it looks like there was a rebuttal by the gas industry which was then rebutted by the film makers. This article... http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/24/24greenwire-groundtruthing-academy-award-nominee-gasland-33228.html?pagewanted=all explores the main points of contention which to me doesn't prove the gas companies case. They like to say that it's not the fracking process that creates problems, but the well drilling as if they are separate which they are not. The methane in the water they light on fire is said to come from a 50 year old well where the casing failed. The desire to frack is creating the need for more well drilling and increases the number of points where a problem can occur. All of these wells will eventually become 50 years old so there's not much difference in my mind. I agree, we don't have enough data to know how safe it is, but already it doesn't look safe enough to me.

Another problem with NDTs words in this video, he tells us that 50% of scientists believe in god/are religious, and this is somehow proof there is no contradiction, or that science does not lead to non-belief. But this is a laughable failure of statistical analysis by NDT. I think the 50% number seems quite high, like he has been using a really bad sift on who qualifies as scientist (is it anyone with a science degree on any level?) But fine, lets make it 50% of scientists in the US. The takeaway from that is that the number of religous is MUCH LOWER than in the general population.
T
he general population is like 85% religious. That means that if 100 people go get a science degree, 85 will be religious, and 35 of them will lose their faith on the way to becoming a scientist. That means that if you study science, and you are religious, theres a 40%
chance youll lose your faith along the way. (This doesnt take into account that many of the 15% non-religious are probably already scientists, so the general population number is probably even higher.)

If you make it all the way to the National Academy of Sciences, a whooping 78 out of the 85 will have lost their faith. Thats about as damning for the no-contradiction/conflict-hypothesis as you can get.

Its like arguing that most drunk drivers never actually crash, therefore alcohol-intake does not influence your driving skills.

I'm not an expert, but I have watched the Olympics.
Her shooting position appears to be typical for a competitive shooter firing from the standing position.
Check out the "Shooting Position" section of this page:
http://www.issf-sports.org/theissf/academy/e_learning/rifle.ashx

Your "refutations" are, for the most part, self-defeating, so I will allow others to do their own research and come to their own conclusions rather than addressing each one. Suffice it to say that gun-control, in the U.S. at least, starts as an anti-minority measure (not unlike the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty") and spurs on a "dark economy" (or "underground economy"), not unlike what (eventually) felled the Soviet Union. It's not dissimilar to what's going on in Puerto Rico and, to some extent, the Bay Area (except NorCal doesn't have the feds all over them like Puerto Rico does, so violent crime is high in PR and low in Mendocino).

Is it purely a "coincidence" that Puerto Rico has a higher murder rate than almost anywhere else in the U.S, while citing as many as 50%+ of the people on "public assistance," is an epicenter on the "war on drugs" and has about the strictest gun control laws of anywhere in the U.S.?

But don't worry! Here's some good news!
"They found that a country like Luxembourg, which bans all guns has a murder rate that is 9 times higher than Germany, where there are 30,000 guns per 100,000 people. They also cited a study by the U.S.National Academy of Sciences, which studied 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and it failed to find one gun control initiative that worked. . . . The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, conceded that the results they found in their report was not what they expected to find."

I guess they didn't account for the fact that outlaws don't really care about laws! The nerve of some people...

*quality
Purina Dance Academy..-WTF??

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Whether he had one or not is irrelevant. The studies that were done on those who actually did have them later in life showed that it usually had either no effect on sex or actually improved it unless complications developed from the procedure (see the American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Technical Report on Circumcision).

The benefits of newborn circumcisions are well-documented at this point (see for example the Mayo clinic's most recent report on the topic.) We know it also can reduce the risk of HIV infection in at risk populations.

Basically, if it does no harm and can actually have benefits, it's a valid medical procedure regardless of whether parents are choosing to do it for religious reasons or not.

Of course, should future research actually prove the risks outweigh the benefits then it should be stopped. We need to base these decisions on the medical evidence and not on our cultural prejudices.

*promote Meshuggah 25th Anniversary TOUR!!



Meshuggah announce 25th anniversary tour around Bonnaroo, asking fans to vote on their setlists (dates)
by Doug Moore
Meshuggah at the Roseland Ballroom, 2013 (more by Fred Pessaro)
Meshuggah
Few metal bands survive for 25 consecutive years, and even fewer retain a reputation for consistency over such a long period the way Meshuggah have. We already knew that the Swedish djent progenitors were slotted to play this year's edition of Bonnaroo in June, filling the bad-trip-inducement slot that Swans occupied last year. Unsurprisingly, they've also announced a short North American tour built around that date and their ensuing appearance at Quebec's Amnesia Rock Fest. The tour is being billed as a 25th-anniversary celebration for the band, and it also includes Between the Buried & Me on its non-festival dates. Meshuggah are also holding a poll in which fans can help the band decide what their set list will include by voting for one song from each album in their catalog.
The tour will hit NYC on 6/21 at Best Buy Theater. Tickets for that show haven't gone on sale yet, but keep an eye out. In the meantime, enjoy a live video (of mosh action, natch) from Meshuggah's last NYC appearance and check out the full set of dates below...
---

Meshuggah -- 2014 Tour Dates
06/06/14 The Wiltern - Los Angeles, CA
06/07/14 The Regency Ballroom - San Francisco, CA
06/09/14 Ogden Theater - Denver, CO
06/11/14 House of Blues - Dallas, TX
06/13/14 Bonnaroo Music Festival - Manchester, TN
06/14/14 Pop's - Sauget, IL
06/15/14 Vic Theatre - Chicago, IL
06/17/14 The Fillmore - Silver Spring, MD
06/18/18 House of Blues - Boston, MA
06/19/14 Sound Academy - Toronto, ON - CANADA
06/20/14 Amnesia Rock Fest - Montebello, QC - CANADA
06/21/14 Best Buy Theater - New York, NY

We watched a movie in police academy about two young girls who were murdered in Mansfield Ohio. Profilers had determined that the killer was a sexual deviant. The police knew that homosexuals frequented a public bathroom near the city center, so they installed hidden cameras in the men's restroom. We got to watch the results. Men fucking each other in the ass, sucking other men's cocks, it went on all day long. No foreplay, just bend over like you're gettting a drink of water. Quite disturbing. The police then FIR'd (field interrogation report) each of the gay men until the killer was caught. I have no desire to visit Mansfield, Ohio.

Here is a link to the story:
http://filmbunnies.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/the-child-molester-1964-the-highway-safety-foundation-beyond-the-road/

Your video, TDS 3/13/14 - Fox News Welfare Academy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 5 Badge!