No problems at all. I used to hate vegans with a passion, I'd be the first person to shout them down in public even at the expense of dignity So I know what it's like to be on both sides of the concept.

There are also definitely a good number of dickhead vegans, who use it as a social status, and they are often the loudest, so I'm not surprised that people automatically take insult to anything with the vegan label attached to it.

That's bad enough, isn't it?
Does he really have to be Trump level awful to be properly called a dickhead? I don't think so.
I'm not saying he's a fascist, or the worst officer out there by far. Not being the worst is no excuse for being terrible, and it's a terrible officer who lies to kids, effectively dissolving any trust the children may have had for officers.
Lazy from law enforcement, especially lazy in their knowledge of the law they enforce, is terrible, and absolutely not worth the over $200000 per year he's paid.

Don't get me wrong, the kid could have been more restrained...but the kid is a kid, and so a childish celebration of his 'victory' is not unexpected or so out of line....it's childish. I expect adults in authority to be above that. I expect adults in authority to ignore childish taunts from children (which, to his credit, he mostly did). Mostly, I expect adults in authority to not be childish themselves, even to children. Apparently that's WAY too much to ask, even for >$200000 per year.

I disagree. He lied to attempt to control the kids...to me, "controlling dickhead" is apropos.
Note, he did not tell them to be careful, he told them they can't ride there. Had he said 'you need to be careful and slow when riding here, and now you're on notice so if you hurt someone it will be considered intentional and charged as a crime', I wouldn't argue. He didn't do that, he lied about the law, then got mouthy and dismissive when proven wrong.
I can't fault a 15 year old for getting excited that he won an argument with an adult in authority based on his having more factual knowledge about the law than the adult who's profession is LAW ENFORCEMENT, or for being a bit smarmy to the adult that started being dismissively smarmy FIRST.
When an adult acts like a child to a child, it's ridiculous to expect the child to respond like an adult. It would be great if it happened, but it's not reasonable to expect.

Unfortunately Newt, the ending proves the officer may be misinformed, but calling him a controlling dickhead is a bit much. There is a concept of "keeping the peace" that could be applied here. He mentions they were "doing tricks" which usually means skateboard-esque jumps and slides which could come into endangering the public.

Also, after the officer walks away, the kid tries to prod him into a real confrontation. The only reason I can see for that is YouTube views or he's just a mouthy little shit.

I find it insane that you are totally willing to ignore the adult officer STARTING the interaction by being a liar and a controlling dickhead by abusing his power by issuing illegal commands, but are going to continue to lambast the 15 year old kid who just won an argument with a douchebag liar because of his knowledge for being a bit excited about it.
Would it have been more adult and better if he took the high road the entire time, perhaps. Did he have a duty to be an exponentially better human being than the person who's ostensively trained and paid over $200000 a year to be a decent human being? Absolutely not. Lets start by encouraging those in authority that we pay to be civil to be civil, then we can move on to children who've been assaulted and insulted.

No, the presumption is that an officer that responds to complaints from people with lies and abuse (lying about your rights and the law is abuse when it comes from a law enforcement officer, so are illegal commands telling you to pass on the illegal command) is somehow wrong.
We have laws in place to balance the rights between all of us, and if officers can lie about them, ignore them, and make threats and insults when informed about them with impunity, we no longer have those rights. Period.
No, he's not being a jerk checking things out, he's being a jerk by telling them to leave and not ride when that's not the law and he has no right to tell them to do those things.
Yes, citizens who don't know better had every right to complain. The officer had a DUTY to know the law before trying to enforce it. He failed miserably. He's in the wrong.
He only backed off because the kid(s) obviously knew his rights, had he not known his rights, and appeared to know the exact statute they derived from, he would almost certainly have been removed illegally.
Once again, that's a failure of the officer, a failure to know the law he's trying to enforce. That's on him, not the children, it's his JOB to know the law, a job we pay him OVER $200000 a year to do incredibly poorly.

Adults are expected to be adults, not to act like younger, dumber children than the youngest and dumbest child they speak with. Police have a sworn DUTY to do so, and we pay them ridiculously well for it. 15 year old kids, they act like kids. The cop is the jerk, he started by lying, and illegally commanding, then when corrected becomes insulting and smarmy instantly. He should have simply asked them "what's that number again" and gone to his issued computer and looked it up, then returned and offered speeding tickets if they were still riding fast, and offered the correct number if they weren't, he should NOT have reacted as he did.

There are plenty of assholes and pricks. Most you sifters would lump me in with that demographic. But Assholes and pricks are not plotting and killing innocent people around the world.

Also just to keep up up to date the day after the Paris bombing/killings Our President Obama released 5 more Gitmo detainees.
What a dickhead president. Ass Clown in Cheif

Galileo was sentenced to house arrest because he was a dickhead...the official "reason" they used was null because the church was starting to come around to the idea of the science...however, coming around should not be implied to be "close to being accepted..." Worlds apart...

Very satisfying to see the twat fall over, but to be honest I'd happily see the dickhead on the bike fall off too.

The original incident was the car's fault, passing too close. The bike had every right to be there and wasn't doing anything wrong. But he went looking for trouble. If it's an offence, report it. He went after the other guy and deliberately wound him up.

Neither party comes out of this smelling of roses...

@Lawdeedaw are you trying to make a point? or just being a dickhead?

Should I list a bunch of names that have been changed for precisely those reasons?

You mentioned Russia.. as in USSR Eastern Bloc Russia.. so.. yeah.

Pointlessly snarky much?

First good Maher video in years....little dickhead finally got a good video out

Joyce is an ex farmer and one of the National party contributions to the Liberal/National coalition government at the moment. Blunt is probably a mild way to describe him. Another way would be remove the "bl" and replace with "c"... ; )

But yeah, this is another storm in a teacup caused by some dickhead saying something perfectly reasonable in the most creepy and unreasonable way possible.

A simple statement such as: "Mr Depp brought two dogs in without observing Australian quarantine regulations and has been notified that if he doesn't remove them within the next 50 hours, the dogs will be confiscated and unfortunately will need to be destroyed."

Taadaa, crisis fucking averted...

Joyce isn't sucking up to constituents, he's just being his usual charming self. The Nats are borderline irrelevant in this country now apart from making up the balance so the Liberals can actually manage to go toe to toe with Labor (the leftist party). Most Australian's saw this as Joyce being a colossal douche even while recognising that Depp did the wrong thing.

ps. Oliver is also completely wrong about the baby koala. You see those cold black eyes, dolls eyes? And you know how everything over here basically wants to murder the shit out of you in horrible ways? Tread warily lest you wake the sleeping giant...

you can't be a dickhead to a cat...its impossible

No, the car was in the wrong and acting like a dickhead.

It's happened to all of us and it's annoying as hell, but you suck it up, act like a grown up and realise that sometimes inconsiderate assholes get ahead in life.

What you don't do is go "fuck it, I'm in the right" and plough into them, as tempting as it is to teach them a lesson (especially when you're going to come out on top, like the truck).

The correct response is to tailgate the motherfucker until they realise what a terrible human being they are and bow to your moral superiority. Failing that, follow them home and explain to their family why they fail at life.

I think truck's fault because....
First, the truck should not be in the fast lane, it's being passed by traffic, not passing traffic. He's too impatient.
Second, the truck intentionally speeds up to block the car. When it started the lane change, there was room. When you change lanes, you look sideways to be sure there's room, then you move over while looking forward. If someone speeds into the space and hits you from behind after you start the lane change, it's THEIR fault unless you slam on your brakes to make them hit you.
Third, the truck, trying to block the car, moves WAY too close to the next car, tailgating insanely. Watch the black car speed away terrified.
Fourth, the truck passes the car on the shoulder, them moves back into the lane slightly squashing it. The truck knew the car was there the whole time but just refused to brake.
Fifth, the truck was speeding. The truck speed limit is 10mph below the car speed limit on freeways, and the truck was going faster than the speeding cars, so almost certainly speeding by over 10mph.
Sixth, and indisputable, the trucker was on the phone, making him at fault as much as if he was drunk, no matter what he did driving.

As I see it, the car was less than safe, but the truck was an intentional dickhead that STARTED the film by driving badly, and ended with an accident he'll pay for. It's on film, he saw the car changing lanes and sped up to block it refusing to let her merge, passed it on the shoulder after it had passed him and entered the lane, and hit the car on purpose because he refused to hit his brakes/didn't want to be passed again. If I was on the jury, I would put it (EDIT)98% on the truck. He had every opportunity to avoid the accident by hitting the middle pedal just a little, but instead stood on the little pedal and seemingly thought to himself "Ramming speed!".