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 definitely 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 definitely 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!

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!

>> ^schmawy:

Nope. It's not changing.


TELL EM SERIOUS CAT!
GET 'EM!

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I don't give a shit what the biker was doing. That cop should be fired, and here's why. Pull a weapon with no identification, and just say you are State Police? Given different circumstances that cop could have been killed for that break in protocol, or put innocent lives of motorists in danger. In my state the unmarked cars have lights and sirens.
What would he have done if the biker had fled? Shot him? I'm sure that would have been all well in court, as he was subduing a dangerous criminal. Felony speeding is not assault with a deadly weapon.
I'm all for the biker being arrested but I'm also pretty fucking pissed about the weapon with no identification. Shit makes me irate.
I'm also a bit pissed they took all his shit for a faulty wiretapping law. Schmawy thanks for the context, I was under the impression that the cop was being a dip-shit.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

The (marked) state police car was directly behind him. They were chasing the guy down. Watch the end of the longer video. The guy on the bike knew he was being pulled over .. watch him look behind himself at 3:00 before he finally has to stop. This guy was fleeing. The cop was totally in his rights to draw his weapon, which he immediately holstered after he had the situation under control.
Weird how there's no audio (sirens) in the longer version isn't it?


I saw no lights on that vehicle, no way to signal to other motorists the danger of an emergency situation.

That's "marked" car? Where are the lights? I don't see the red and blue.

In other words! Freeze! Enhance!

http://videosift.com/video/Hollywood-s-favourite-meme-Zoom-Enhance

>> ^NordlichReiter:

I don't give a shit what the biker was doing. That cop should be fired, and here's why. Pull a weapon with no identification, and just say you are State Police? Given different circumstances that cop could have been killed for that break in protocol, or put innocent lives of motorists in danger. In my state the unmarked cars have lights and sirens.
What would he have done if the biker had fled? Shot him? I'm sure that would have been all well in court, as he was subduing a dangerous criminal. Felony speeding is not assault with a deadly weapon.
I'm all for the biker being arrested but I'm also pretty fucking pissed about the weapon with no identification. Shit makes me irate.
I'm also a bit pissed they took all his shit for a faulty wiretapping law. Schmawy thanks for the context, I was under the impression that the cop was being a dip-shit.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!


The (marked) state police car was directly behind him. They were chasing the guy down. Watch the end of the longer video. The guy on the bike knew he was being pulled over .. watch him look behind himself at 3:00 before he finally has to stop. This guy was fleeing. The cop was totally in his rights to draw his weapon, which he immediately holstered after he had the situation under control.

Weird how there's no audio (sirens) in the longer version isn't it?

Quite right Bones my man. Changed from "Motorcyclist Arrested For Recording Cop Brandishing Gun ". Probably plenty of votes in that one too. Pardon my lazy copypasta from the article. >> ^BoneRemake:

The title should be changed , its completely inaccurate once one know the entire truth of the situation. why the hell would someone cut it down like that ? showing a scene without proper context.

Maybe Obama likes basketball and wanted to hang out and shoot hoops with Clark Kellogg? And why waste his presidential time when he could plop some cameras and mics down and get some work done.

It's a bit redundant to point out that it's "staged" of course it's staged, he's the fucking president. Every minute in his day is "staged".>> ^blankfist:

What's fake? He likes basketball. Good for him.
But this wasn't just an impromptu game of horse with Clark Kellogg. It was staged. And that's fine, but when I asked a question the fucking Democrat army crawled from their huddles brandishing insults.
Look, there are multiple cameras. Some cams are on jibs or cranes. Everyone is mic'ed with a lav. If you ever worked in film or tv production, you'd understand all of that takes time and money and planning to put together, so there's certainly something more to this than just a silly game of horse to show Obama is a man of the people who likes basketball. Is it an Alex Jones conspiracy? Obviously not.

What's fake? He likes basketball. Good for him.

But this wasn't just an impromptu game of horse with Clark Kellogg. It was staged. And that's fine, but when I asked a question the fucking Democrat army crawled from their huddles brandishing insults.

Look, there are multiple cameras. Some cams are on jibs or cranes. Everyone is mic'ed with a lav. If you ever worked in film or tv production, you'd understand all of that takes time and money and planning to put together, so there's certainly something more to this than just a silly game of horse to show Obama is a man of the people who likes basketball. Is it an Alex Jones conspiracy? Obviously not.

As you well know New Mexico is a Gold Open Carry State.

If you would like to look at states and their carry laws please see.
http://www.opencarry.org/
Ignore the pretty woman, it's an appeal to beauty and is deplorable, I think.

Presenting a handgun is the act of placing the handgun in your hands, and scanning for targets. "Present Arms!" Which is separate from brandishing, because at that point you are no longer brandishing (misdemeanor) you have intent, and that could be assault with a deadly weapon (felony). Brandishing is the act of having a handgun on your person that causes someone else to feel as though their life is in danger. This is commonly counteracted by the open carry law, which means you would need to present the handgun in a threatening manner. So in open carry states if you would place a handgun in your hand at any time that would be brandishing.

From one lawful carrier to another; It is always ill advised to openly carry a weapon in a metropolitan district simply because of the fuss that can be caused. In short; don't

I am not a lawyer, my statements are opinion only.

Good stuff, though I still think they're engaging in revisionism when they put up pictures of modern-day neocons, and say things like "they were actually former socialists who moved right".

Political terminology and party ideologies in this country have had a long and tumultuous history that brought them to the near perfect ideological sorting we see today.

The Democratic party started out as the small-government Republican party, later become a conservative, southern-based Democratic party, then a new liberal Republican party was formed out of the old anti-Republican party known as the Whigs, and then they fought the civil war against the conservative Democratic south that championed property and state rights.

After the civil war, Republicans became corporatists, Democrats became liberals (or if you want to be picky, the definition of "liberal Democrat" came to mean something new), while still largely being the party of racism and xenophobia. After the 60's, or more specifically the civil rights movement, a big realignment happened, and conservatives who called themselves Democrats changed to be Republicans, and liberals who called themselves Republicans became Democrats.

Somewhere in the 30's and 40's you saw a concerted effort to groom and promote intellectuals who weren't socialists (most were, back then). Over the unfolding decades, they offered a plausible, intellectual cover for southern racists who were still mad about being told they had to treat black people like humans, and pitched it as a return to America's traditional values. This attracted social conservatives to libertarian ideology, and it dovetailed nicely with the corporatist Republican party's desire to cut taxes for the wealthy, and roll back the worker protections the left had recently installed.

Thus was the genesis of the modern day Republican party, and its brand of conservatism that takes libertarian ideology, and twists it to appeal to racists, religious dominionists, corporate interests, then brandishes the supposedly righteous moral arguments of libertarians against people who point out the real purpose of the movement.

It's good to see that libertarians are becoming cognizant of what's being done in the name of their philosophical heroes, but it's not like they're going to be able to disengage themselves from it now, and they certainly can't get away with trying to pin all the racists, corporatists, and dominionists they've empowered on America's political left, and certainly not by simply branding the likes of Dick Cheney a "socialist".

But I'm rant prone. I did like the clip, and agreed with most of it. Just stop trying to foist Dick Cheney on the left. He hates us, and would murder us all in our sleep if he thought he could get away with it.

(Obligatory preface that I'm 99% a Microsoft person, its my job and what I live)

I don't see the point about open/closed/multitasking/no-multitasking/cooks-my-breakfast since I can still buy a $300 netbook that does more than this thing for what I need. It would only be a problem if the iPad was the ONLY device on the market. Jobs is also pretty high by thinking this competes with netbooks. (Hey, was he even paying attention in 2002 with the rush of tablet PCs at the time or when his own company made the Newton?)

As a company Apple does not bother me, just their users. Why the users? Well at least here, the resident Apple users whenever a new iPhone comes out they storm into my office and brandish it while verbally masturbating how great it is. I'm serious. Granted this is an extreme example, but it seriously turns me off to the whole Apple thing. I don't bug Apple users IRL, so stop bugging me.

As far as Linux goes, its doing a fine job of killing itself If you want to see a real squabble over who is better than the other, read some distro forums sometimes.

>> ^greatgooglymoogly:
The guy obviously didn't want to partake in the snowball fight. If people are throwing snowballs at him, he'd be correct in interpreting that as assault. Pulling his gun was probably his best option to get them to stop short of physical restraint. If he'd pointed it at anyone, that would have been stupid. But a person should be able to walk around in public unmolested, with a gun to back that right up. I don't think it was brandishing, and if any of those idiots sue him they should get slapped with a fine for assault. What a mob mentality.


are you kidding me? it was a snowball fight! what kind of retard calls a snowball fight assault? the only reason the dumbass cop got out of his unmarked hummer was because it got hit by a snowball. a SNOWBALL! how fucking miserable do you have to be get mad about that? i feel sorry for that stupid fucking pig. he probably beats his wife and kids when he gets home and sees that they built a snowman. what a sad, sad excuse for a human being.

>> ^greatgooglymoogly:
The guy obviously didn't want to partake in the snowball fight. If people are throwing snowballs at him, he'd be correct in interpreting that as assault. Pulling his gun was probably his best option to get them to stop short of physical restraint. If he'd pointed it at anyone, that would have been stupid. But a person should be able to walk around in public unmolested, with a gun to back that right up. I don't think it was brandishing, and if any of those idiots sue him they should get slapped with a fine for assault. What a mob mentality.


Pulling a gun is a class 3 Misdemeanor and can be interpreted as intent to cause harm. Depending on what state you are in this can get you shot by another person with a gun. One state over, Virginia, is an Open Carry state as well as a conceal friendly state. Pulling a gun with out visible identification that you are an officer can lead to terrible things, and quiet possibly a shit bag.

Pulling a gun was not the first thing to be done. You are not familiar with the force continuum are you? Let me explain.


1 * Verbal command
2 * Handcuff suspect
3 * Use wrist/arm lock
4 * Use takedown
5 * Block/punch/kick
6 * Strike suspect
7 * Wrestle suspect
8 * Pepper spray
9 * Use baton
10 * Use firearm


Do you know why the use of a fire arm is the last straw? Because you should never have to use your fire arm. Going straight to the fire arm is a way for the untrained, and the power hungry to exercise their stupidity.

If a regular citizen cannot carry a weapon concealed in the district then neither should a cop.

Cops already get away with to much shit, so yea fuck that pig.

The guy obviously didn't want to partake in the snowball fight. If people are throwing snowballs at him, he'd be correct in interpreting that as assault. Pulling his gun was probably his best option to get them to stop short of physical restraint. If he'd pointed it at anyone, that would have been stupid. But a person should be able to walk around in public unmolested, with a gun to back that right up. I don't think it was brandishing, and if any of those idiots sue him they should get slapped with a fine for assault. What a mob mentality.

*promote the stupidity.

Man with a gun o my my.

Big bad man with a gun.

Fucker should be arrested for brandishing with intent to maim.