When I started watching this, I thought "meh, it's not so bad" and then he clearly crossed the line with threats of sexual violence in custody. (Not that something similar hasn't been used before!)

But thinking about it again, if a cop pulled me over and called me "boy", I would be annoyed. I try to deal with the police with courtesy and as a minimum I expect that to be reciprocated. That said, I've been lucky enough that in my few dealings with police, they have all been professional and courteous, even when I was a drunken idiot teenager

Was working in North Van during this silly Cotillion. Ran into a lot of people that had gotten out of there safely and was kept in the loop throughout the night. Just insane. Saw the black smoke clouds from across the water.

I interact with a lot of people in my job, so many of them over the last few weeks all predicted this. They told me they were all 100% positive that win (yes win) or lose there would be riots. It is sad when so many people that live in this city can call this weeks away.

I would like elaborate about the Surrey comment. This is definitely a symptom of one of the problems. I do not believe people that physically live in downtown or close by would partake in this. It costs a fucking arm and a leg to live here, and destroying things isn't high on our list of things to do in our home. I'm sure some of the people were drunken idiots that lived here, but I believe the majority of these people that went completely off are from out of town. In the end I guess none of that really matters.

What made things worse were the spectators. People sticking around and watching, and those cheering on the human sh*tpiles while they were going nuts. Had the majority of people gotten the F out of downtown once it started like they should have, the effects would have been less felt no doubt in my mind. It pains me to say it, but I feel the people that stuck around just to watch and laugh are just as responsible as those causing physical damage.

As I understand it that law is loosely interpreted given the circumstances. Sure peace officers are to uphold the law 24/7 but when they are out to dinner with their families? If an officer is ill equipped to deal with the situation then they should differ to those better equipped.

I'm also fairly certain that the laws applicable to officers differs from state.

As for this "If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy," bullshit; courage is doing the right thing when everyone else is doing the wrong thing. Meaning don't let peer pressure or fictive kinship affect the way you handle a situation. It clouds judgment and muddies the waters making it impossible to uphold the law objectively.

While not the best source it is very interesting to see opinions of those who stand in the line of duty. Of the more cognitive writers in the forum linked below, most of those seem to agree that being a good witness is the best way for an off duty officer to uphold the law.

http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Law-Enforcement-Police/Police-Officers-when-off-duty-346696.htm

>> ^Payback:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.

A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.
If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

Just curious about your post -- you know that you are in agreement with the thing you quoted, right? That the original poster said that the escalation of force was unwarranted?

In reply to this comment by Payback:
>> ^NordlichReiter:

There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.


A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.

If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.


A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.

If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

>> ^schlub:

This video doesn't even show the guy getting hit. Yes, it shows the off-duty cop swinging a baton, but you can't actually see it hit the guy (meaning, you can't see what part of the guy's body is being hit, nor can you see how hard he might be getting hit). Also, you can't see him use the "pepper spray" either. All you see is a can in his hand - and we learn through narration that he was sprayed -- since the camera's pointed at the dash at the time. She says he has a bloody lip, but, you can't see the blood in the video.
Additionally, you can't see what the guy on the ground is doing.
I'm just sayin's all
Just because a cop uses force to subdue someone doesn't mean it's an abuse of power.


There's a use of force continuum for a reason.

Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.

What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.

Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.

Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.

I would have just kept driving, like drunken idiot #2 was yelling to the driver. Laying into several idiots' faces with a baseball bat is probably going to feel great, but it's not going to lessen the problem or unbreak the window. Being an aggressive drunk without friends to calm you down is just going to make life painful and difficult and eventually kinda lonely.

Fox can get fucked.

The news box is moving... hahahahaaha. Fox news is a Comedic Drama, written by a drunken idiot with no hands who dictated to a deaf centaur standing on his head.

I laughed like this guy, and his unfitting music.

What i didn't get is why noone went in and pulled her out. Granted she was drunk and I'm not really all that into helping drunken idiots, especially because she'd probably make a big scene and resist you trying to help her...

But was there some sort of third rail that's energized why people didn't jump in and just get her?

Spoco, at first I was with you here, but that's what the "private" box is for. That's the sub rosa variable when we want to talk to somebody in private, or exercise our right to be a drunken idiot.

It is kind of fun to "over hear" what other people are talking about.

What disappointed me more than the big reveal (discussed below) was the idea of less drunkenness, more order.

I can just imagine the "orderly" part sucking hard.

The drunken hobo part was AWESOME though.

>> ^Abel_Prisc:
This trailer just explained the ENTIRE plot of the movie, from the beginning where he's a drunken idiot who only takes advantage of his power, to his recovery in jail, to him being a serious (yet still wacky) superhero. As far as the ultimate point of the plot goes, there aren't any secrets with this flick now. Now the only reason to see the movie is for the small funny stuff (that wasn't in this trailer. And if the pattern of comedies persist, we just saw the majority of the funny scenes as well) in between the major plot points that we already now know, and to witness the cliche' ending where he beats the bad guy. (Spoiler alert? )
I hate how trailers are made nowadays.


Oh it's been like that for like 50 YEARS.

Seriously, rent a vintage DVD, check out the trailers. They explain the ENTIRE movie to you.

Of course, back then, a lot of the movies were really good throughout, and they didn't just have 5 good bits, which were all in the trailer *cough*Cool Runnings*cough*.

Batemen might provide enough comedy to save it though.

This trailer just explained the ENTIRE plot of the movie, from the beginning where he's a drunken idiot who only takes advantage of his power, to his recovery in jail, to him being a serious (yet still wacky) superhero. As far as the ultimate point of the plot goes, there aren't any secrets with this flick now. Now the only reason to see the movie is for the small funny stuff (that wasn't in this trailer. And if the pattern of comedies persist, we just saw the majority of the funny scenes as well) in between the major plot points that we already now know, and to witness the cliche' ending where he beats the bad guy. (Spoiler alert? )

I hate how trailers are made nowadays.

>> ^dannym3141:
Someone needs to post a "where this is from" guide!
And also maybe some stories to go with it, i'd love to know what happened to that coward wrestler (even though it was an old video), and also the woman who got ... her face set on fire?? by the motorbike.


Well the woman in the explosive motorbike stunt gone wrong is Anthea Turner a popular english tv presenter, from wikipedia:

"The short-lived Saturday morning children's show UP2U was a flop, and is chiefly remembered today for a motorcycle stunt that went wrong. She was to stand forward of a truck, the motorcycle would do its thing, then pyrotechnics would be ignited, then it would link back to the Studio. Unfortunately there was a big communications breakdown; at the last minute it was decided that Anthea would sit on the back of the truck, she would also take her cue from somebody behind the camera which, unknowingly to the camera crew, became the same cue used to ignite the pyrotechnics. She suffered burns and temporary hearing loss, which led to her successful lawsuit against the BBC."

The incident with the reporter being threatened by a drunken idiot can be read about here: http://www.tribune.ie/2007/08/05/99472.html

Sorry I cant recall how to fancify the link to make it look pretty!

Not a fan of cops in general, I still sympathize with their daily impossible lose/lose situation.

In a grapple like that, a suspect could easily produce a knife the officer would never even see before being fatally wounded. Did the officer already have a chance to frisk for weapons?

Had he Tasered her, he'd still be blamed for using excessive force.

And the ever-flowing cries of racism, par for the course. The media needs that angle to sell it, even if it ruins a good person's career.

"I can't be held responsible for being a drunken idiot who assaults a cop, since I'm _____."

The cop should sue her.