Don't forget this Tim Scott police reform bill Pence attacked her for denouncing was the proverbial nothing burger.
It made no effort at all to regulate or remove immunity from criminal police, instead shielding them from criminal or civil prosecution even when they break the law, it didn't outlaw deadly choke holds, it didn't ban criminal police from just moving to the next precinct, it did nothing of substance. That's why Democrats didn't vote for it, it was red herring legislation pretending to address a problem but really making it worse and walking away shouting "job done, nothing else needed."

Kamala, as a prosecutor, saw through the ploy and walked away, as she should.

Can you show me where in any police training manual it suggests choking should be used? Eric Garner died from a prohibited choke hold which was deemed a homicide but the officer involved still wasn't charged.

You have a good point about suspension while the investigation takes place and facing possible charges if found guilty but unfortunately police are rarely found at fault, even for blatant misconduct.

Respect. I live in Canada. So my perspective is probably warped or highly misinformed and ignorant of the USA's gun control, 2nd amendment argument. But my thought is, what's wrong with not being able to own anything that exists? Assault weapons shouldn't be made available to the public, it should be restricted to the military. Period. It's just incredible how these mass murdering weapons were even allowed to be owned in the first place. Even if the argument is that it's enshrined in the 2nd amendment, then the political discussion should be about changing/more narrowly define the amendment. How old is the 2nd amendment? How applicable is it to modern needs?

Even only allowing regulated shooting ranges to have these assault weapons just for on-site shooting is good thing. It allows gun lovers to hold them in hand, try them for target practice, have some fun but not allow anyone to take them out of the shooting range. Take the private ownership part out of the equation.

I love fighter jets, tanks, rockets & lots of high tech military stuff. Not crazy about guns, but I do appreciate their beauty. Still, I don't need to own them to appreciates them.

Society (not just the USA) really need to away from the assault weapon-ownership mentality... yes, that means asking gun owners to give up that particular rights. But there's virtue in doing it for the society...

Just can't believe the cowardice of those "nothing we can do about it" Republicans like Rubio. It's part of a big, sick symptom of government under the choke-hold of the NRA, Big Business, Big Banks, lobbyists instead of the constituents. Just feel sad for the People.

The problem I've had is that both in Ferguson and the New York case, the Grand Jury both seemed to vote on guilt/innocence, not if there is merit for a trail. Ferguson could have ended up with an innocent verdict had it actually gone to trial, if only because of massive conflicting testimony (people would still be upset, but at least if there was a trial it'd probably have been minimized). The New York choke hold is a bit harder to see how it didn't go to trial, there's a flipping camera recording it.

The Cleveland one that seems to be blowing up is a bit different, though the family wasn't treated with proper respect, I'm a bit more on the cop side there since the orange cap was off (and who can fully trust that if all you have to do is paint the tip of a real gun orange) and it looked real in the time they had. One could argue they shot too soon, but hard to tell how long to give. The problem in that case is they didn't call for medical care quick enough (not that it probably would have helped) and they blocked and arrested the family, treating them without any respect to a dead/dying child that by that point they knew had a toy gun. Let the mother get to her kid, let the sister go and don't make the mother choose to stay with her daughter or ride with her son... That's where the Cleveland one went south.

Medical Examiner rules Eric Garner death a homicide caused by police choke hold

In general I agree a person should [for their own sake at the very least] shut the fuck up and do as instructed by police.

However, that is secondary to the well-being of the [real or fictional] fetus in the suspect's womb.

Many people, regardless of race, gender, or station in life, have little control over their temper and go ape-shit nuts ignoring the authority of law enforcement. In 99% of the cases, I'd say the officer is right to tase or use force against the offender to achieve compliance, however this is the 1% where I feel someone has to be concerned with the safety of the unborn child.

Even if the mother is too dipshit crazy to be able to put her baby's safety ahead of her outrage, at least the sanity of an officer should come into play and beat her up in a way that they won't be jeopardizing the safety of the fetus.

Don't obey an officer's orders repeatedly and dare to resist? Get tased. Get wrestled to the ground. Get kneed in the back. Hell, even get into a choke hold.

But pregnant, unarmed, and presenting no physical threat? Break her arm and punch her in the face if you have to, officers. Just avoid the taser and physical trauma to the uterus region in general.

(I know; radicals will say the baby doesn't deserve to be born into the world with a mother who is too dipshit to obey officers, but I think it deserves a fair chance at life [or at least not to be potentially murdered for its mother's disobedience].)

>> ^shuac:

>> ^dannym3141:
...I would estimate that it is only within the lifespan of the oldest person on earth (less than, but whatever) that politics has become a dirty job...

Yes, because the senators of Rome were all squeaky clean.
And if you pull a "but that wasn't a democracy" shit on me, then I'll...I'll...I'll give you such a pinch!


For a given definition of dirty job. I think there's something particularly sinister about modern government as you might have gleaned

There's plenty of tyrants to speak of, but the modern way.. it's like being a tyrant without anyone knowing. They've managed to work their way up the system within the law and steal more money than they ever could outside of it. In the past, tyrants etc... it was a different world, harder to control. But i feel like they have a firm choke hold on everything now. Legally.

Unfortunately I'd have to agree with Sepacor, this is more of a PR event than real, effective training... I mean if they're going to train in uniform at least use the scarves for choke holds :-P

>> ^Jinx:

I did a little Ju Jitsu. I'd expect the throws would be completely useless in a confined space. The knowledge of how to escape a choke hold or how to effectively disarm an opponent would probably be quite useful though, as would arm locks etc. Even comprehensive martial arts training can only do so much and I imagine when you have no room to move then brute force and weight advantage matters more.
The fact they chose Wing Chun seems to me to have more to do with PR than safety. Its a elegant martial art and it fits the image, but I wonder if there are simple more effective techniques that would probably give them better self defence.


Maybe Krav Maga? Bruce Lee did ok with his take on Wing Chun.

I did a little Ju Jitsu. I'd expect the throws would be completely useless in a confined space. The knowledge of how to escape a choke hold or how to effectively disarm an opponent would probably be quite useful though, as would arm locks etc. Even comprehensive martial arts training can only do so much and I imagine when you have no room to move then brute force and weight advantage matters more.

The fact they chose Wing Chun seems to me to have more to do with PR than safety. Its a elegant martial art and it fits the image, but I wonder if there are simple more effective techniques that would probably give them better self defence.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You're dumb. That's a technique called a REAR naked choke.
There's no other way to do than from behind.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
..huh?
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
If it wasn't from behind I would upvote...ah hell, you didn't put it in equality so that's fine.


She started choking him out when his back was turned. Not what I call fair, even for a woman.



Yeah, and? Still a coward's choke hold so your point it moot.

In elementary school, I was bullied by a kid like this. Most of the time it was verbal abuse, but one day he jumped on my back and put me in a choke hold. I slammed him against the brick wall until he fell to the ground. He never bothered me again. Sometimes bullies will continue their bullying until you stand up for yourself. Although I will not cheer for what happened, the bully can't complain when their subject reaches their limit and strikes back.

I don't universally scorn Apple, but they have been systematically tarnishing their own image for the last several years. I think the "vs" ads were the last positive thing they did in that regard.

Historically, Mac's bread and butter were the creative industries and now they're stifling the creativity of their users. They're driving off their faithful user base and now they're primarily left with the "snobby douchebag" market who only buys their stuff as a status symbol.

Then there's the lawsuits. They shut down Think Secret, went after Psystar and BluWiki, and most recently they've threatened Xiph. They're behaving like the RIAA.

Speaking of which, there's the DRM. They eventually caved and went DRM-free on their music, but not video content.

They're doing all these things as the free and open mindset is taking hold. They're fighting trends which are good for consumers and they still have the audacity to act like their shit don't stink. The iPad probably wouldn't be such a huge joke if they hadn't hyped it up like the Segway.

Just a few years ago they launched the iPod. MP3 players had been around for a while and other companies even had far superior products, but they marketed the iPod well and managed to become ubiquitous. They were the epitome of "hip"; now they look out of touch. The iPad unveiling reminds me of McCain's green screen speech.

>> ^dag:

Look, there is one very big mistake that Apple has made. They are losing the culture war. VideoSift skews a bit younger than me - I think the median age is about 29 - and the dislike and mistrust of Apple seems to be pretty universal among you all. We can blame the closed nature of the iPhone OS, those douchy "Mac vs. PC" ads, or maybe just that Apple is no longer the beleaguered, scrappy underdog. For whatever reason, hearts and minds are not with Apple at the moment.
e>> ^xxovercastxx:
Yes, because selling independent games was never profitable until Apple offered to play morality police and charge you 30% for the privilege.
>> ^dag:
And for all the squealing about Jobs' choke-hold on the platform - it's good to remember that Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA. Good luck making a little game on other platforms - AND actually making dosh from it. The same kind of disruption-- upsetting the applecart of the big publishing companies-- appears to be in the works for self-published authors.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We can argue the economics all day- I would say that the scale of the Apple App environment dwarves any bright spots you find for particular independent game developers.

Look, there is one very big mistake that Apple has made. They are losing the culture war. VideoSift skews a bit younger than me - I think the median age is about 29 - and the dislike and mistrust of Apple seems to be pretty universal among you all. We can blame the closed nature of the iPhone OS, those douchy "Mac vs. PC" ads, or maybe just that Apple is no longer the beleaguered, scrappy underdog. For whatever reason, hearts and minds are not with Apple at the moment.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Yes, because selling independent games was never profitable until Apple offered to play morality police and charge you 30% for the privilege.
>> ^dag:
And for all the squealing about Jobs' choke-hold on the platform - it's good to remember that Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA. Good luck making a little game on other platforms - AND actually making dosh from it. The same kind of disruption-- upsetting the applecart of the big publishing companies-- appears to be in the works for self-published authors.

Yes, because selling independent games was never profitable until Apple offered to play morality police and charge you 30% for the privilege.

>> ^dag:

And for all the squealing about Jobs' choke-hold on the platform - it's good to remember that Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA. Good luck making a little game on other platforms - AND actually making dosh from it. The same kind of disruption-- upsetting the applecart of the big publishing companies-- appears to be in the works for self-published authors.