Quick question I often pose to people that don't trust police. If there were a different legal attitude towards prohibition, especially of drugs, do people suppose their attitude towards officers would change? I find that most often distrust of police stems from discomfort with the validity of the laws they are enforcing. I suppose there is also this sense of abusive authority types, i.e. the guys attracted to the gig for the badge and gun. Still, I think most people's trust is undermined by the law, not the enforcement. I find that most cops are professional and polite if you show them the courtesy of treating them like polite professionals. This is a case where I have absolutely no problem with officers being a bit heavy handed in their enforcement. Given the severity of the allegations, a miss would be a more costly error than a false alarm. They could have done without the taser and the obstruction charges though. That was just retaliatory.

I agree with what you said here. I don't distrust the police, we are all working off of hypothetical situations here.

I'll just say if someone from INSIDE the house called 911 then the cops have the right to kick your door in.

Let me start out by saying I work for a county Sheriff’s Office and will give you some insight or an idea what goes on in an officers/deputies head with any situation (which could pertain to this one)

First, I am a big nerd and have been around computers all my life and the internet so I have seen many police videos online. So let me say first that I agree that there are bad officers out there. Are we all bad? No, but the few ruin it for the many and I’m sorry to see such hate and distrust because of it. The only thing I or any law enforcement can do about that is do our job correctly and wipe the stigma away one person at a time.

Second, when it comes to responding to a 911 call (A call for service), 9 times out of 10 you do not know what you are going to. Dispatch (radio or control whatever moniker you want to use) can only give you the info that the person calling 911 gives them. Say this video instance, that someone from inside the home or a neighbor called 911 because of possible domestic violence going on inside the home. This is usually all the info an officer will get before showing up on scene. Now if the officer approaches the house and tries to make contact and is confronted by a man who has locked his door and is shouting at you, this is going to cause alarm with the office. Not only can he not make contact inside the house to verify if someone is actually hurt or to clear the call as it was made on accident by a neighbor, he has a male subject who is disobeying his commands to answer the door. I’m assuming this officer made a few attempts to make contact before he called for backup (fill units). Now with multiple officers, they will attempt to make contact a few more times. These officers broke down the front door to make contact inside the house. The only reason they would do that is because they saw danger or possible harm to someone inside, or the call made to 911 dictated that there was someone inside the house who was injured or in fear of their life.

To be honest, there are many reasons why responding authorities would break down that door. Maybe the 911 call was from a family member inside the home stating that their brother etc… was off his medications and was threating to hurt himself or others. Maybe he was acting erratic because he was off his meds and police broke down the door due to this individual having a violent past when he stops taking his medications. Maybe there were no meds involved at all and this individual has a violent past so the officers chose to act based on past experiences with said individual.

See, that’s the problem with almost 98% of these videos, WE DON’T KNOW. There are so many possible scenarios that without full disclosure on what went on, what info did the police have, and what were they witnessing on scene. We cannot “Monday night quarterback” these videos. I know videos prior to this have shown officer’s acting in the wrong with all the info available, but that doesn’t give us the right to assume this or others videos are showing officers acting in the wrong. I do not go to work every day planning on hurting people or making false arrests. I have said this many times to people who I have arrested or deal with when they ask “why are you arresting me”, “are you taking that money out of my pocket and stealing it?”, “this is a false arrest!”, my response is your few dollars or property or the statistic of making one more arrest if false is not worth my job. I am not going to make false allegations or take someone’s property that would cause me to lose my job and most importantly my pension. My family relies on me to bring money home so I can provide food and shelter. I would like to think almost every officer/deputy thinks and believes the same. We do what is right, even if during the situation it may seem wrong to others (civilians), we do what we think is right so at the end of the day we can go home to our families and the city/county stays a little safer. That’s my whole day, trying to make the city a better place one call for service at a time, and then get home safe to my family.

I really wish we were appreciated like firemen or military but I know we never will be. Law enforcement only show up when things have gone bad to worse. Nobody ever wants to go to jail. Try having a job where everyone hates you no matter what good you do. Yet we still go to work and put our lives on the line everyday (many of us die each year) so people can sit at home or in there office cubicle and judge videos of our actions. So please try to remember we are not all bad.

Just my .02

I don't really buy much of this. Is paranoia really a genetic trait? The video seems to suggest that evolution favours paranoia, but here we all are for the most part not paranoid of everything. There is a price for false positives, that's energy wasted running from the wind in the trees or a distrust of others thats results in fewer mating opportunities for example. The truth just might save your life, but seems to me the paranoid as just as likely to miss the truth because they see patterns and assign meanng where there are none and they end up overlooking the simpler explanation. So yah. I'm calling bullshit.

There is no such thing as "human rights." Rights, by their very nature, are simply laws and laws are just words. These words only have meaning when people abide by them and there is nothing in nature that requires people to do so. The reality is that you are afforded rights by the government that rules over you. The government holds the position of authority and, as a citizen, you agree to this. If you do not like this, you should refuse government rule. To hate and distrust your ruler while accepting their rule is pointless. Leave the country, become an anarchist, start a revolution... arguing about semantics (i.e. laws) doesn't change the fact that people with power can exert that power in any way they see fit.

My "normal " and your "normal" or what the police say is "normal" could be worlds apart, and that is part of the problem. I'm trying to look down the road and the possible precedents it sets for these type of police actions in the future. Also I dont know why warrants couldnt have been obtained for the houses being searched. I assume under the circumstances it would have been easy to do.

I fear the police having discretion to make these type of calls as I am distrustful of law enforcement and would rather have the rules they operate under more well defined.

Perhaps they realize that the end of their earlier relationship was "tacky and pretentious". Maybe here they are saying "let's drop this bullshit"?
You don't have to be on the same trip they are on. If you don't dig it, that's cool... - don't need to knock 'em for it though.

When an artist uses themselves, and their own emotions in their work, it usually comes off as contrived and egocentric... because it is. Sure, if they focused on others we would be less likely to judge them for it. That said, life is subjective. The only authority with which they could imbue art focused on others stems from their own personal experience. That's just one step removed from the egocentric work that draws our distrust.
Perhaps love is sacred, and should not be examined or put on display. They obviously don't think so. I'm not going to tell them that they are wrong, and in the meantime I'm going to learn what I can from what they are doing.

Hey gwiz665, it's obvious that you have unwarranted distrust and perhaps even a gnawing disgust for firearms, IN GENERAL. Trolling all these videos to offer the "fucking America" two-cents comments becomes after a while, a redundant broken-record of feel-good/sound-good generic sound bites from the same broken record of non-facts, non-real-world, non-functional gibberish. It's patently offensive, and a fine example of retarded, sophomoric reasoning. Grow the fuck up PLEASE!??

@enoch why, is society so incapable of voluntary charity that, without government, people would simply have no concern for each other? Stating that it's a basic, fundamental role, doesn't make it so. Maybe you should question that.

@Yogi but you're not exactly giving money to an old widow or helping kids at school, you're just being forced into funding a corporation called "government", trusting that they won't steal that money for bailouts, corruption or sheer incompetence. Not wanting government involved doesn't imply lack of concern for the poor and needy or non-willingness to do charity by other means.

America is one of the most charitable countries in the world, more than $200 billion last year alone, most of the contributions coming from middle class individuals. Why are you so distrustful of the kindness of the human spirit, so sure that if government didn't make people do charity at the point of a gun, people would always let their neighbors starve and die?

Actually, that didn't make me distrust science, rather the CIA. =)

I think the video shows what happens when government sets the agenda of the research. Not sure if any of these would have happened (well, OK, Stanford would have) if it was just pure research based on scientific curiosity.

I'm curious if this video has an agenda. Certainly we all agree that experiments (particularly on human subjects) need to be carefully scrutinized. At this point we have agreed upon rules of proper conduct largely in response to some of these experiments and their global impact. It was a very different time.

Is the video meant to suggest that this sort of activity still persists in the west? It seems to be edited in the style of a modern propaganda film with its emotionally jarring hard cuts, eerie music, and so forth. It's fine to do a gentle "reminder piece," but this feels more like it's intended to encourage further distrust of science. Don't we have enough of that?

all i see is failure of the staff to inform the people of the issue... i don't see them actively seeking/promoting it



especially in the first case presented in the video

if anything i see a protocol issue, that could be solved by a 15min meeting
a vast, left-wing conspiracy? no evidence of that
any proof that this doesn't occur at all with Republican supporters? no evidence of that
any proof that this is any thing other than isolated incidents with staged actors (we know the first lady undercover is... why not any of the other examples?)

A major study by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 showed of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and of those few cases, most involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility.

because when elections are decided by 0.00000286% of the the voters, its an issue

wto make a different comparison... whats a bigger concern... the 1% or the 0.00000286%? which of those two groups do you think has more money to influence politics? yeah...

poor job at propoganda

Now I have no reason to distrust the Justice Department findings. But this seems like a non-issue, until you realize the actual tactic here is voter surpression.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

The whole Choogie thing was from before my time, so I always kinda wondered what his deal was. Now I get it.
chingychoogalera can be a real DICK!


Only to real dicks!~ He can be a regular gentleman as well-Thank you for your accurate and somewhat snipeish remark!
I have this uncanny ability to read a users comments and tell when an unreasonable douchebag is hiding behind an otherwise civil demeanor. We seriously distrust those who cower from confrontation.....It's like being afraid of life itself.

There's a reason America doesn't trust the mainstream media anymore and it not just one organization:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx?ref=image

Yes, Fox has an obvious conservative bias and most of the other networks have an obvious liberal bias. If you want proof of a liberal bias, watch the Univision forum interview with President Obama:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81470.html

Contrasting it to the softball interviews he usually gets, it's amazing to watch the president get grilled like that. Amazing because if you've been relying on the mainstream press for your information, you have forgotten what real journalism looks like. It's also proof positive of the free ride that President Obama has been getting since 2008. Yes Fox News is guilty of the very same thing on the other side of it.

But it's almost criminal when you consider how the mainstream press has been carrying water for President Obamas narrative about the video being the cause of the Libyan embassy attack, when it was obvious from the start it was a terrorist attack. I think they've been suppressing the story so as not to damage his re-election chances. What I mean by that is they didn't want to tread on the campaign narrative of President Obama being some kind of foreign policy giant, and that he had the Muslim problem solved. Obviously he hasn't solved that problem, and killing Osama Bin Laden didn't defeat Al Qeada. His systematic withdrawal of American influence from the region has left a power vacuum that groups like the Muslim brotherhood and Hezbollah have been more than happy to fill. Coupled with the Iranian nuclear threat and the failure of the sanctions to stop them, you have an unmitigated disaster on foreign policy, but out of the mainstream press you hear not a peep. If any of this happened under Bush the press would have murdered him but in this case they are running defense because they want to keep their guy in office. Considering all of this I don't think they have much credibility left.

Thank you for your response, it has made your initial comment much clearer. What you need to understand about the video and why my response was so harsh is that the song, while being directly inspired by Akin's comment, is not only about him, but about society's distrust and often denigration of women when it comes to sexual abuse. While you may have a point about Akin (I doubt it), his "slip-up" does not come from out of the blue, but stems from a sadly widespread misconception of sexual abuse, mostly held by religious conservatives who tend to blame the (female) victim, for being "lose", "asking for it", etc etc (when it pertains to homosexual rape/abuse they chalk it up as part of homosexuality's evils; viz the response to abuse in the RCC).

The reason your comment elicited such a drastic, gut-born response is that it echoes every misogynistic table-turning that crops up when sexual abuse of women is being discussed, i.e. the accusation of "man-hating", "fear-mongering" feminazis (as well as the whole "men get raped too!" trope, which no one is denying). Rare are the feminists who hate men (and those who do are wrong to do so, and generally called out for it); what we hate is patriarchy and everything it entails. The tactic of misrepresenting feminist arguments seemed to me what your sarcastic comment was about, hence my reaction.

So the strawman I copiously insulted was the MRA-hole whose misogynistic intent I read into your comment, and to be quite honest, it was (and still is) very hard to read anything else into it. But you have my apologies for insulting you if that was not what the comment was about. And since you and I are not alone in this exchange, I propose posting our discussion on the thread in question, that way people can see what you meant by your comment and see why I reacted how I did. What think you?
In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Where your guessing I'm white comes from, or how my skin color or gender would matter in the least, I don't know. You clearly seem to have some kind of history with MRA people and believe them all to be misogynists, and perhaps they might all be. I don't know, I'm not affiliated with them. But you equating my criticism of the video with being in cahoots with MRA convinced you I had to be pushing some agenda and blinded you not only to the intent of the sarcasm tag but also to any other possible meaning of the post, instead reading a simplistic turning-of-the-tables jab into what you seem to have perceived to be my sexist manifesto. That's the problem with reading a sarcastic post seriously and afterwards taking the sarcasm tag as disingenuous.
What I found objectionable with this video was that the artist misconstrued Todd Akin's incredibly stupid attempt at connecting pregnancy due to rape with his pro-life stance to say so much more than he did, that he considers any of those in lyrics mentioned scenarios of rape to be illegitimate. He didn't say that, though, so with all the things that he could be criticized for, there's no need for the artist to manufacture an outrage that he actually didn't put into words. Maybe you know something about him and his stances on rape that wasn't widely brought up in public during all this, but I only read his public statement linked in the description bar as well as reading about him on wiki and didn't see anything in it even hinting at him thinking all rape is illegitimate. So, what I did was basically the same thing I disliked about the sifted video, taking one aspect of the song that I reacted to; all mentioning of gender as pertaining to rape like: him taking her out, husband's privilege, he didn't have consent, short skirts. As such it's misrepresenting the artist's intended message (as I understand it), that Todd Akin thinks women can't be legitimately raped, to instead say that she thinks only men rape only women, hence the sarcasm tag. It's very easy to put words into other people's mouths.

It's really easy to jump on someone who's already being jumped on, and that is what I thought this video did. I didn't think it brought anything to any discussion, I didn't think it was funny and I thought it was unfunny because I perceived it (and still do, since nobody has divulged any further information) as hate fuel and character attacks based on misrepresentation. This isn't the first time I've reacted to this, as you can see me defending another borderline reprehensible person from what I though was unjust and unwarranted avenue of criticism: http://videosift.com/video/Bill-OReilly-amazed-that-Black-res
taurant-is-civilized

You are free to challenge any post all you like, but telling me to go fuck myself, that I disgust you and that I'm sexist and somehow pushing some misogynistic agenda, which has no basis in anything in the post, is not challenging anything. That's antagonism at best, slander at worst. You don't know anything about me, neither how I act, how I have acted nor how I think and feel, so making all kinds of value judgments on my character and verbally abuse me is completely unwarranted. I didn't discriminate against women in that post, I didn't imply women were less than men, nor do I think that. Both actions and words have consequences, even in internet communities, and any and all rash language and inflammatory rhetoric will still linger on long afterwards.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I will concede this much: my response was emotionally laden and insulting. But attacking what very clearer appears to be MRA misogynistic BS is not "white knighting", despite my perhaps overly heavy-handed manner. Or does one have to follow specific guidelines in order for their challenge of your comment's apparent ideas to be taken seriously? If you had a valid point to make with that comment, I think it's fair to say you failed miserably at getting it across. So instead of accusing me of "comment noise" because you don't like what I say, why don't you come and clarify what you meant? It's unfair and rather shameful of you to call my response petty and wildly assuming; your comment does not allow many other interpretations than the one I made. The only mere assumptions I made were to your gender and ethnicity, based on the fact that the MRA movement is almost entirely the resort of white males.

Come back to the thread and provide in clear language what you meant by your sarcastic lyrics, and if I was wrong in my interpretation thereof I will be quick to apologise publicly for getting you wrong.

(I am taking this off "private" setting because as a continuation of an open sift discussion I believe it should be available to anyone involved. I stand by my words, and I am sure you do to.)
In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Look, I don't know what emotional baggage you're carrying or what possesses you to go so overboard with white knighting, but you're behaving childishly and if you can't talk to someone you disagree with, or you think you disagree with, without starting to infer your preconceived notions onto them and insult and cuss them out, you are no better than any of the other comment noise that plagues youtube. If you want to rise above such pettyness, apologize for drawing wild conclusions, insulting and accusing me on the basis of those wild conclusions and maybe we can have a discussion about what my post was actually saying about that person's video.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
>> ^Kreegath:

How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬


Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.

Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.

I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant

*quality song btw