Remember, you said

>> ^bareboards2:

Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!


And before you said

>> ^bareboards2:

[edit] Allowing for hyperbole and "all" and "yearn" ....
1. Yes
2. Yes.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@bareboards2
1 - Was all that stuff invented & perpetuated out of a sincere need to protect you?
2 - Do you sincerely believe that 95% of police wake up yearning to prevent every citizen, as much as possible, from being robbed or raped or murdered?
Those are simple questions you've refused to address so far.



Just in case you're still havin' trouble letting it all sink in..

>> ^bareboards2:

I said that I am glad that cops have cameras on their cars. Transparency.
I am glad that the internet is spreading the videos far and wide. Public empowerment.
This is how we protect ourselves.

Replay what Anna says at min 2:55 a few times

Hah. Kumquat?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I don't get the controversy when a crime happens? I understand it is an abuse of power, but a controversy seems like Weinergate, not thug cop acts out... We give simple crimes too much credit.

Who the fuck cares about Weinergate. Police brutality = "simple crime"? Unreal.


You find police brutality complicated?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I don't get the controversy when a crime happens? I understand it is an abuse of power, but a controversy seems like Weinergate, not thug cop acts out... We give simple crimes too much credit.


Who the fuck cares about Weinergate. Police brutality = "simple crime"? Unreal.

>> ^shagen454:

The real shame is that people take out of court settlements for this sort of thing. Yes, it is a pain to go to court for years - but when people opt out of the system and take money instead it only obscures the underlining problem.


Another shame is that agencies will settle out of court on plainly bogus accusations in order to avoid the waste too. It works both ways.

kumquat

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Hah. You mean this cop out?

"It's okay to vertically body slam a happy sober man into concrete, but goddamnit it is NEVER acceptable to horizontally body slam a sad drunk woman into concrete!"

You're clearly full of shit old lady.

And another prime example of how we humans compartmentalize the most awful shit in order to justify our indefensible positions.

..santorum stain..

>> ^bareboards2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MaxWilder" title="member since November 7th, 2007" class="profilelink">MaxWilder, the fact that she ended up bleeding and disoriented, with chipped teeth, and the cop retired rather than being fired makes this different from a vid where young men are bellowing loudly and healthily as standard take-down procedures are used.
Slamming anyone into a concrete wall is not standard takedown procedure.
Thanks for asking a coherent question without ascribing meanings and intentions I don't hold.
Nooky for you, young man, nooky for you!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Protection is what happens before you get your face smashed into concrete.

Most of our "justice system" is based on deterrence rather than protection. "If you do <action>, then you risk <consequence>."

Of course part of that is education, so maybe the cops need a class called "if you do something stupid then it will probably end up on YouTube".

So yea it didn't prevent this particular abusive behavior but it will surely go much further as evidence in court that her word against his, and that's a type of protection in itself (or whatever word you find more appropriate).

See, you don't even comprehend the level of delusion in this statement alone.

She was traumatized and physical injuried. Meaning she was NOT protected.

Protection is what happens before you get your face smashed into concrete.

Yet your statements still imply [oh shit, words goin' in yer mouth]:
"Yay, see! The solution for police brutality is more transparency & training"

Instead of
"Yay for better ethics & procedures that AREN'T based on the threat of violence to begin with."

I know that last sentence was a difficult concept to wrap your brain around.
Don't worry, you'll get it one day - hopefully.

>> ^bareboards2:

Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!

See MaxWilder's question to me and my answer above.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bareboards2
Fer fuck's sake lady. Everytime you choose to whine about semantics instead of address the issue, I'll respond with "santorum stains". How 'bout that?
Why's it so hard to understand that I can't stop to get a statement before every question I ask you? [even if i did. you never give a straight answer anyway]
It's called making an inference from your past implications.
~~~
Anywho..
Like I said, the issue today is:
Why do you praise this video footage as public empowerment.. but view activists exercising civil disobedience as "dumb" or whatever exact set of words you used?
[I'd hate to infer put words in your mouth again]
I'm asking cause it's mind-boggling that you'd advocate "transparency" aka "waiting til some bad shit happens" first, over actively seeking a society in which something as simple as dancing would never be met with imprisonment or violence.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^blankfist:
I hope you have a great lawyer and deep pockets to sue the city or state.

If the free market won't handle it then I'm sure volunteerism will. =)

The free market and volunteerism actually does work. So many sharpshooting lawyers wait for this type of moment, hope for this type of moment that when it happens they orgasm...
So, even if your comment was sarcastic, you are more right than you could have guessed and you support Blankfist's line of reasoning =)


I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just surprised to see Blankfist imply a level of hopelessness in a legal battle against someone/something with greater resources than the victim. He has argued that volunteerism offers a level of protection to the poor that they may not be able to provide themselves.

In a free market society with no government there would still be inevitable civil litigation between entities of greatly differing levels of personal wealth, but I don't think I've ever seen him express such pessimism for the weaker party is such a world.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^blankfist:
I hope you have a great lawyer and deep pockets to sue the city or state.

If the free market won't handle it then I'm sure volunteerism will. =)


The free market and volunteerism actually does work. So many sharpshooting lawyers wait for this type of moment, hope for this type of moment that when it happens they orgasm...

So, even if your comment was sarcastic, you are more right than you could have guessed and you support Blankfist's line of reasoning =)

What do I have to do to get you to stop putting words in my mouth, Genji honey?

It is sooooooooo tiring defending myself from things I never said and don't believe.

From now on, whenever you do it, I am going to respond with "kumquat."

Just "kumquat."

I used to do this with a boyfriend who loved baby talk. I hate baby talk. He was feeling loving and he would bugey goo goo at me and I would want to hit him. When he was feeling loving. So we worked out a deal -- I would look at him with all the love in my heart, eye to eye, and say "kumquat" as sweetly as anything.

It meant stop it now or you aren't getting any nooky because I am grossed out.

So....

Kumquat, genji. No nooky for you if you keep putting words in my mouth that aren't mine.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bareboards2
So is this where you draw the line?
She did resist so she deserved it, right?
Or she wasn't resisting in a place designated as a "no disturbing/dancing area" so it's not deserved?
Just trying to understand why you can empathize with this sort of violence but not violence directed against "those silly" protestors.

>> ^Pantalones:
but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level?

No, just untrue.

But hey, there's no requirement that video descriptions be accurate, so go for it.

You're at it again, dear Genji.

I didn't say any of this.

I said that I am glad that cops have cameras on their cars. Transparency.

I am glad that the internet is spreading the videos far and wide. Public empowerment.

This is how we protect ourselves.

You are in favor of that, aren't you?


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bareboards2
So is this where you draw the line?
She did resist so she deserved it, right?
Or she wasn't resisting in a place designated as a "no disturbing/dancing area" so it's not deserved?
Just trying to understand why you can empathize with this sort of violence but not violence directed against "those silly" protestors.

The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:

Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."

>> ^quantumushroom:

Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.
It's not a far cry at all. It's a fucking miracle she has any teeth left in her head at all after being smashed into concrete like that.