You're my new favorite person. Great comment. Thanks.

In reply to this comment by dapper:
I really enjoyed this article. What interests me about some of the comments in here is this apparent need for some of us to brandish this guy as evil or whatever. I get the feeling that we often cling to these concepts when we see people doing things that we find so abhorent; and by considering them in these terms, we are able to see them as "other", as different from us; and therefore we are able to feel righteous in our judgement of them. For me who takes this article at face value, I see a guy who was obviously caught doing some ridiculously amoral or even immoral acts, but in his mind, he was doing some right things. It doesn't justify his acts, just as nothing can justify the acts of the Oakland or NYPDs in recent weeks. But it does make me reflect on the idea that perhaps too simply we create "others" out of people who hold differing views than us, and this seems to be just one step away from considering them as enemies. Certainly the consequences of his actions are ongoing and causing the pain of many, and for that, his 3 year sentence seems somewhat trivial...

What I take away from thinking about this, is that this man's story absolutely stresses the need for all of us to actively participate in our democracies,and to have in place, the systems to hold our elected representatives responsible for their decisions on our behalf. We clearly have a long way to go in all democracies across the world. I wish us well.

I really enjoyed this article. What interests me about some of the comments in here is this apparent need for some of us to brandish this guy as evil or whatever. I get the feeling that we often cling to these concepts when we see people doing things that we find so abhorent; and by considering them in these terms, we are able to see them as "other", as different from us; and therefore we are able to feel righteous in our judgement of them. For me who takes this article at face value, I see a guy who was obviously caught doing some ridiculously amoral or even immoral acts, but in his mind, he was doing some right things. It doesn't justify his acts, just as nothing can justify the acts of the Oakland or NYPDs in recent weeks. But it does make me reflect on the idea that perhaps too simply we create "others" out of people who hold differing views than us, and this seems to be just one step away from considering them as enemies. Certainly the consequences of his actions are ongoing and causing the pain of many, and for that, his 3 year sentence seems somewhat trivial...

What I take away from thinking about this, is that this man's story absolutely stresses the need for all of us to actively participate in our democracies,and to have in place, the systems to hold our elected representatives responsible for their decisions on our behalf. We clearly have a long way to go in all democracies across the world. I wish us well.

You do realise, I hope, that sharia law is almost entirely copy-pasted from jewish law as found in the Torah/Old Testament (i.e. what this sh1thead's brandishing), right? Just a reminder in case you were one of those "judeo-christian values are better than those of islam" kind of people.

>> ^quantumushroom:

An unpleasant and/or misguided character, yes. But it's his right, both to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Say, doesn't that wacky islam condemn homosexuals to death as well as a host of brutal 'corrections' for women who defy muslim law?

This argument is so terrible. The primary purpose of cars and steak knives is not to kill people. Yes, they CAN be used as weapons, but by and large they are not, and the benefits we get from them outweigh the risks. The assertion that the benefits of brandishing a gun in public outweigh the risks is pretty easily contested.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^blankfist:
Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

No? No idea? How about fear of death? I live in Canada and if me or anyone I knew saw a civilian walking around with a gun we would call the police immediately. Doesn't really matter if they have no 'ill intent', they're walking around with a weapon that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. There's no use for a gun other than killing. Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.

I don't think this guy lives in Canada. He lives in the US and in a place where open carry is legal. Some of us don't give in to fear. Sure a gun can kill someone in a blink of an eye, but so can a car or a steak knife. Should we ban roads and steak restaurants?

You'll be hard pressed to find a guy more supportive of gun-rights than myself. However, Jeremy is an idiot. Walking around with a weapon openly displayed on a public easement is just poor gun ownership. Yes, you have the right to do it. However, with that right comes the responsibility to be a wise, cautious, courteous citizen. Openly carrying around a gun is not wise, cautious, or courteous.

When in a public area, keep the weapon concealed for both your own safety and the safety of others. There are plenty of holsters that can carry a weapon in a concealed manner. Use them. My favorite is the classic boot holster. I like Tony Llamas, and cowboy boots are plenty roomy to hold a small firearm. Takes all of 1 second to draw, and when it is in the holster it is completely undetectable. I'm armed, and I'm not freaking people out by publicly brandishing a weapon. Duh.

Nowadays with the advent of Ipads and other tablet computers, the "murse" is making a dreadful comeback. Women can keep a gun in a purse easily. Men - if you don't like cowboy boots then get a murse and keep the gun in there. It's just common sense guys.

no you just walk slow and steady and if you for some reason change speed you will probably die
>> ^Payback:

There's probably some sort of code you're supposed to use to stop traffic there.

...like brandishing an AK47 in everyone's face.

There's probably some sort of code you're supposed to use to stop traffic there.


...like brandishing an AK47 in everyone's face.

OMG OMG OMG OMG!

Dude. God had nothing to do with it. The spaghetti monster was brandishing righteous vengeance upon driving heathen texters.

Not to be one of those guys but....

I have totally been on the wrong end of a FELONY search warrant and if you are doing anything but putting your fucking hands up and getting on the ground, then you are putting yourself at risk.

This dude brandished what looks to be a sword, so as a cop, what would you do?

Guns are drawn prior to for a reason. People seem to forget that warrants are called warrants because something like (insert felony charge) WARRANTED their need for a forced entry after the suspect refuses to turn himself in. It's not like this guy had no idea this was coming.

Oh, and the police are still yelling "Get on the ground" after the shooting because the don't know who else is in the house.

Krauthammer - no lockstep conservative - nails it this way...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html

Basically the only people trying to claim the blockade is 'illegal' are the Turks - who sponsored the flotilla. Everyone else recognizes that Hamas (Gaza) and Isreal are in a state of armed conflict (kind of hard to deny with 4000+ rocket attacks) and that the blockade is a legal effort by Isreal to prevent the re-arming of Hamas. Ships flying neutral flags in international waters can be legally stopped, searched, diverted, and even attacked if there is reasonable cause.

In this case, the cause was far more than reasonable for many many reasons. Isreal offered to have the goods unloaded at Ashdod, but the offer was refused. Very suspicious if the 'intent' is to provide relief... Greta Berlin (flotilla doyanne) plainly stated the flotilla was not about delivering aid... Videos of the flotilla participants as they left port showed them brandishing weapons and shouting anti-semitic death threats. Radio communications and warnings were ignored or got responses of arabic curses & threats.

I know that the far-left really Really REALLY wanted this to be all Isreal's fault - but those darn pesky facts just keep cutting the legs out from under the lies. The facts are clear. The deaths were primarily the fault of (in order of culpability...)

#1: The flotilla sponsors for deliberately putting their people in danger when they had numerous other options...
#2: The boatniks for behaving like a bunch of stupid moron idiots...
#3: The IDF for not going in with a lot more force so as to cow an obviously hostile mob... Dropping those guys in 1 at a time by helicopter was just not smart & this would have all gone down different if they'd just shot the propeller out and towed the thing to Ashdod.

The sponsors of this so-called 'aid flotilla' freely admit the whole thing was a political effort designed to provoke a response. They may not have expected the severity of the Isreali response. But after having viewed the videos, it must be said that they had it coming. When you are brandishing knives and charging at soliders you have no right to whine when you get shot at.

The 'aid convoy' was filled with bunches of known militants and other activists with histories of anti-Isreali sentiment. And many of them were armed. They KNEW they were going to be boarded. They also refused several offers to deliver their so-called 'humanitarian aid' at a port to be trucked to the supposed destination. They deliberately refused any offer of a solution that would have resulted in a safe outcome.

This outcome was more than likely. It went down as designed, and somewhere there are a bunch of these smug bastards who are secretly GLAD their own people were killed so as to generate a strongly negative story and get more PR. There's a special circle of Hades reserved for sleazeballs that sponsored the flotilla. The blood is on their hands as much or more than on Isreal's.

This is old news, this happened right after the video itself took place.

I recommend everybody watching this video follows the link Here and reading the comments.

Most of your rabbling about the officer being a bad cop has already been addressed.

As for the video being pulled, it's most likely to protect the actual officers identity. Believe it or not, cops DO infiltrate things like biker gangs, or criminal outfits, and having his face plastered over the internet is potentially lethal to the officer, should his cover be blown.

The police DON'T have anything to hide, watch the video in the link above. The stop was completed perfectly. The biker can say what he wants.. read burds comments in the link above, he knew there was a cop behind him, he even looks right at the cruiser before he's forced to stop.

The plain clothes officer gets out of his car, never raises his gun towards the biker, once he's off the bike, he puts the gun back away, still having never pointed it at the biker, and actually guides him off the side of the road.

Edit: One final note, and a recap of a comment I posted in the link above.

Unmarked cars have lights built into the grill, and the dashboard in front of the passenger seat of their car. You don't get a chance to see the grill or passenger dash in this video.

Outrageous and shameful. Why the hell would it be against the law to film police, let alone anyone in a public place? How does that protect anyone besides police who have something to hide?

That stupid-ass cop is lucky that nothing happened to him in the 5 seconds before he identified himself while brandishing a gun.

^Not a dupe, as far as I can tell. Schmawy posted this video a month ago:

Thanks. I thought I was asking the right guy.

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_Police

The Maryland State Police are currently issued a Beretta PX4 Storm, but the officer in the video seems to be carrying something of the Beretta type, but I cannot tell. It definetly does not look like a glock which usually have a square slide.

When he holsters the weapon his thumb appears to come up to hit a decocker, which on a Beretta is on the back of the slide and ambidextrous.

I don't know if its standard protocol to have the hammer in ready position, most pistols are double action. However it does appear that he is placing the gun on safe when he holsters the weapon, he is defiantly doing something.

In this case I don't think he needed to draw his weapon. Some will say that's protocol; I say if the perpetrator was not armed then there was no need to present a weapon. In my mind the situation did not scale on the force continuum to have need for a weapon. Maybe soft physical force; the officer jumped straight to lethal force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Heh, thanks Nordy. You seem to know a lot about handgun training, so if I may ask a question? Does he appear to take the safety off with his left hand immediately after drawing the weapon? Is that procedure, or is the decision to saftey off a separate event?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
>> ^schmawy:

Nope. It's not changing.


TELL EM SERIOUS CAT!
GET 'EM!