That is exactly what happened in the comment thread of this specific video. What video are you talking about? Or do you want to just chat in general about this topic? I am confused.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/video/10-Fully-Armored-Police-vs-1-Burnt-
Out-Drug-Addict-GO

For those who missed it, this is the video overcast is talking about. It is 52 seconds long.

I'm actually not talking about that video; I'm talking about a long-standing videosift tradition where people sift videos that fit the definition of snuff but then say the rule doesn't apply because "this is important". We always need to "get the word out" or some such nonsense. If you really want to get the word out, in most cases you could sift a news report about the incident instead.

>> ^bareboards2:

http://videosift.com/video/10-Fully-Armored-Police-vs-1-Burnt-
Out-Drug-Addict-GO

For those who missed it, this is the video overcast is talking about. It is 52 seconds long.


I'm actually not talking about that video; I'm talking about a long-standing videosift tradition where people sift videos that fit the definition of snuff but then say the rule doesn't apply because "this is important". We always need to "get the word out" or some such nonsense. If you really want to get the word out, in most cases you could sift a news report about the incident instead.

http://videosift.com/video/10-Fully-Armored-Police-vs-1-Burnt-Out-Drug-Addict-GO


For those who missed it, this is the video overcast is talking about. It is 52 seconds long.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

Clearly the video needs a good couple of minutes of warnings that there are going to be warnings of what is to come.


The people who wrote the warnings for the warnings were sacked, as were those that wrote the warnings for the warnings warnings.

Somewhere, in the depths of your personality..

there's a reasonable, well-informed, fact-checking, aware & receptive to the obscured realities and hardships which others face, science loving, strong need for evidence-based arguments [gasp] mushroom..

..waiting to spring forward. = P



>> ^quantumushroom:

Preaching to choir: End Drug Prohibition.

>> ^gwiz665:
Innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty important thing in a "free society".
>> ^SeesThruYou:
Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"



Sadly, we have the most laws and the highest amount of prision population in the world, per capita, and per period.

That's exactly my point. I would not have figured out what the racket was all about until they breached the door.
>> ^eric3579:

It depends on what he heard. If I was a drug user or dealer living in a house which has the potential to be raided(in the United States) due to drug use or dealing and I heard people screaming police, search warrent. No matter where in the house I was I would drop to the ground hands out and face down. Unless I was sure I could get rid of my drugs first. Thats just what I would do living where I live, and having some expierence with being around drugs and always aware that I could be in a place that could potentially be raided(any place drugs are being bought and sold).
If i had to guess, I think he probably didn't realize it was a raid and just reacted to the screaming he heard outside. The whole thing unfolded in such a short time. He didn't have a chance. Extremely unfortunate and tragic.
>> ^gwiz665:
Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

It depends on what he heard. If I was a drug user or dealer living in a house which has the potential to be raided(in the United States) due to drug use or dealing and I heard people screaming police, search warrent. No matter where in the house I was I would drop to the ground hands out and face down. Unless I was sure I could get rid of my drugs first. Thats just what I would do living where I live, and having some expierence with being around drugs and always aware that I could be in a place that could potentially be raided(any place drugs are being bought and sold).

If i had to guess, I think he probably didn't realize it was a raid and just reacted to the screaming he heard outside. The whole thing unfolded in such a short time. He didn't have a chance. Extremely unfortunate and tragic.

>> ^gwiz665:
Put yourself in his place. Would you now have done the same thing he did? I would certainly have grabbed something and tried to scare off the intruders. I think most people would have done that, and then most people would have been dead.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty important thing in a "free society".
>> ^SeesThruYou:

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"

Jigga, calm down please. I never called you a troll and in fact find, besides your angry outbursts, you are rational. I disagree with you on numerous points--not that your views have less merit than mine or more.

If you wanted an intersting title, you should have been prepared for some question marks about the slick practice of headling catching...

Second, I am actually with you on one thing Jigga--I think money should never come before public safety in Law Enforcement. And that means I never contradicted myself. If people are willing to pay, then yes, waiting would have been vastly the better option. You seem to think I hold the opposite view... On a side note, we agree even further. The war on drugs is not a good thing...

And lastly, a hockey team does not play in a line, one behind the other. The comparision is not worthy of you. Single file means the first person is by himself for as long as he acts solo... And in a time counted in gunshots, that is less than seconds.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
First of all, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since February 16th, 2006" href="http://dag.videosift.com"><STRONG style="COLOR: #008800">dag quotefail right above me again^ Neglect..NEGLECT!! (jk)
Second, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw did I say it was a comedy? I said I, personally speaking, use humor to deal with things I find repulsive. Maybe the title isn't as serious as it should be as is, but my intent was never to have anyone rolling in the isles. I wanted something catchy so people might actually watch it before absent-mindedly dismissing it without a second glance. As I said in the previous post, I feel like there is plenty of warning before ANY footage is even shown, the word "murder" is in the tags, I said in the description "be warned, this video is very graphic," and it's labeled NSFW. Anyone who says they "accidentally" watched this is fucking lying.
You say "Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor?"
>>>>>In short, if it means not needlessly killing someone because no one is in any immediate danger, yes. And I think people who value tax dollars over human life have morals that are askew.
But, then you go on to admit that "they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option."
And you have the balls to tell me that I'm contradicting myself? Do me a favor the next time you want to know what I think, just ask me since (and you can ask anyone in the "just sayin" conversation cringe ) I'm clearly a troll with assloads to say. That way you might get a slightly closer to the mark than you would inventing some hearsay nonsense.
Lastly, you mention the numerals involved. I don't agree that just because one cop pulled the trigger it was one cop vs one guy. The officers, even if they were ill coordinated, acted as a unit. I titled this without wanting to watch it again so I estimated the number of police. A re-watching had me count 7 cops walking through the door, 1 holding a camera, and 1 taking pictures with a flash in the background. By my count that's 9 officers ( acting in concert ) in total.
You wouldn't say that about a hockey goalie whose teammates were in the penalty box. The entire other hockey team would have one objective, to put the puck in the goal. Even if one person scored in some crazy twist of fate where all of the opposing team's hockey sticks didn't slap the puck in simultaneously, the announcer would probably say "________ team scored!!!" regardless of the fact that one person probably shot the goal.

>> ^Drax:
Quote-"And even the title now is numerically incorrect. It was one officer against one man--the others who came after never pulled their triggers. And though this seems nit picky, it is not. You could call it "One Premature Cop Unloads.""
What a stretch.
The title is not in-accurate. If the title read, "10 Fully Armed Police SHOOT Drug Addict" THAT would be in-accurate. I don't know if there's ten cops in the video (so there's that), but whatever the number is.. that's what the guy was up against.
The rest where trying to hand him a copy of the Watch Tower..??
..just sayin'


Well, here is a equal statement; "Ten knife fight at bar." If by ten knife fight you mean three people stabbing seven others, sure, the statement is still true-ish... I mean ten people were involved in the knife fight... But then, true-ish is a stretch too.

>> ^Aniatario:
^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?


Unfortunately for the police and pretty much everyone else on planet Earth "Common Sense" is never standard issue.

It must be nice to live in a world so black and white. Send a postcard sometime

>> ^SeesThruYou:

Wait, wait... this guy was a drug addict or drug dealer? If he was a drug addict, they should have gotten him some help for his addiction. If he was a drug DEALER, then they didn't shoot him fast enough or use enough bullets. Drug dealers are not human beings and shouldn't have any fucking rights. I'm so sick of fucking pussy-ass liberal fags supporting criminal activity. "Waaahhhh! The big bad police are hurting all the drug dealers, rapists, and murderers!!! How dare they! Waaahhhhh!!! Where's my iPhone? I'm gunna call mommy Hillary!!!"

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.