as a person coming from a militarized country, where each and every person will end up holding a weapon and practicing with it, there's no way around it - Guns are for killing. I'm very glad some people here (ehm ehm @chingalera) are extremely responsible and mature about the weapons they hold... too bad others hold weapons as well...

Ok, I'll start with a few things that most people would probably agree with, but the police force currently would fight like hell to avoid. How about we decide to actually punish cops who break existing rules and laws. Use testing to weed out unbalanced power hungry or corrupt types from becoming cops. QUIT hiring COMBAT veterans to become PEACE officers. I'm sure there are many things that could be done to fix the problem with the police, its just that it's not being done because the police think the only problem is that we, the lowly people, dont always follow ALL commands,and sometimes we need to be put in our place. >> ^shveddy:
False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.
Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.
Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?
Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:
One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.
Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...
...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.
Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.
Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.
If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.
I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.

Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.

Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?

Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:

One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.

Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...

...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.

Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.

Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.

If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.

I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

hey, we used to be the heroin capital a few years ago.>> ^chingalera:

>> ^lurgee:
I really loathe my CUNTry.

Hometown of Disneyland ain't shit compared to the crackdown party the cops'll have in Sunny Baltimore...

>> ^lurgee:

I really loathe my CUNTry.


Hometown of Disneyland ain't shit compared to the crackdown party the cops'll have in Sunny Baltimore...

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Jerykk:
If a protest involves hordes of people marching in the street, blocking traffic and generally being loud and annoying, I don't really consider that "peaceful." It may not be violent but it's entirely disruptive and hinders people's ability to get where they need to go and do what they need to do.
You can try and justify the disruption by saying that it's the only way to get attention but really, you would only say that if you agreed with the protestors. If a bunch of people marched on the streets because the MSRP of Twinkies was raised by 5 cents, would that protest still be "justified"? A disruption is a disruption, regardless of motivation. If the protestors in the video had permits and conducted their activity in a genuinely peaceful manner, I seriously doubt there would have been any police intervention.

You only see what you want to see. The only people being disruptive and blocking traffic in this video are the cops and their fucking horses.
And who said you have a right to life without "disruption" anyway? You gonna call the police when that asshole won't stop talking in the movie theater? You going to just keep your mouth shut and walk away peacefully when that cashier overcharges you for your Twinkies? Maybe your idea of protest is standing quietly on some street corner, permit in pocket, holding a sign. It's not my idea of protest (not any more), and if disruptions bother you, stay home and veg on VS all day. Just remember to be quiet and keep your opinions to yourself, because I feel they are disruptive, and they bother me.


Flawed analogies. If you're telling someone to quiet down in a theater, you are directly addressing the person you take issue with. If you tell a cashier that he overcharged you, same deal. Nobody aside from the people directly responsible for your grievances are affected. Conversely, when you block traffic so you can protest against police brutality, who are you actually affecting? The cops will show up and do what they get paid to do. Bystanders, on the other hand, get screwed.

If you want to protest police brutality, do it where only police are affected. Like a police station. Don't do it in the middle of a business area where you're just impeding people's ability to live their lives. If you're so self-centered that you're willing to promote your agenda at the expense of everyone else, don't surprised when people get irritated. And when these people have body armor, guns, tazers, tear gas, pepper spray, riot shields, etc, things probably won't end well for you.

>> ^Jerykk:

If a protest involves hordes of people marching in the street, blocking traffic and generally being loud and annoying, I don't really consider that "peaceful." It may not be violent but it's entirely disruptive and hinders people's ability to get where they need to go and do what they need to do.
You can try and justify the disruption by saying that it's the only way to get attention but really, you would only say that if you agreed with the protestors. If a bunch of people marched on the streets because the MSRP of Twinkies was raised by 5 cents, would that protest still be "justified"? A disruption is a disruption, regardless of motivation. If the protestors in the video had permits and conducted their activity in a genuinely peaceful manner, I seriously doubt there would have been any police intervention.


You only see what you want to see. The only people being disruptive and blocking traffic in this video are the cops and their fucking horses.

And who said you have a right to life without "disruption" anyway? You gonna call the police when that asshole won't stop talking in the movie theater? You going to just keep your mouth shut and walk away peacefully when that cashier overcharges you for your Twinkies? Maybe your idea of protest is standing quietly on some street corner, permit in pocket, holding a sign. It's not my idea of protest (not any more), and if disruptions bother you, stay home and veg on VS all day. Just remember to be quiet and keep your opinions to yourself, because I feel they are disruptive, and they bother me.

>> ^lantern53:

Why do I always have to be the adult here?
In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.
And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".


I'd argue that you're being immature, rather than adult.

Adults question bullshit. Kids swallow whatever they're told and indeed adopt it for themselves. Your government has managed to get you to help opress your fellow citizen.

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.

>> ^Yogi:

Killing horses isn't the same as killing humans. For one thing, horses stop.


Go out and spear a police horse. Let me know how you get on.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^LarsaruS:
I'm not sure whether I should upvote for awareness or downvote the conduct of the officers...
I keep arguing that all people who are in marches should have their placards on, at least, 7 foot poles with a sharp point. So they bring in the horses or do cavalry charges? Say hello to my pike wall and enjoy sticking around.

Yeah, that's a sensible solution that won't have any negative consequences.


Killing horses isn't the same as killing humans. For one thing, horses stop.

In reply to this comment by redyellowblue:
The Mil-Po-po are just twitching to use all that gear they bought, all those armors, and guns, and trucks, and tactics. Any excuse to use that and see some action probably gets them pumped up. Unfortunately its just going to get worse and worse the more gagets they get. Ever look at a Gun magazine lately? Its full of "Tactical porn" and I bet every officer "wants" to be that guy with armor and cool looking guns, american flags and eagles, with scopes and knives and gasmasks. All that slick machined metal crafted to destroy your opposition.


Lol. So true. I collect knives, and I assure you it's not just a police mentality. Go watch knife reviews on YouTube. So many reviewers/commenters discussing the "tactical" positives and negatives of particular knives, as if any of them will EVER find themselves in a situation where "tip-up" or "tip-down" will make one bit of difference. And if they should find themselves in that sort of situation, the vast, VAST majority of them would do best by running away, and spare themselves from getting killed or having their own knife shoved up their ass.

"Tactical porn" is exactly what it is, and it sells lots of gear to civilians as well as police.

>> ^bobknight33:

And some want to ban guns. Things will get worse and you will wish you had the right to arm yourself. -- But then it will be too late.


WHO wants to take your guns? You are either just regurgitating provocative crap, or paranoia has taken over as you enter the procurement phase of your own massacre.

If a revolution did happen, and "they" did come for our guns, the tree of liberty would be well refreshed on your blood, Mr. Patriot, but history will look back on said revolution as the Great Nutter Purge.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
government really only reflects the mindset of the people.
we're stupid, so we have a stupid government.
but the older generations are REALLY stupid, and they're dying off. so there is reason to be optimistic.

Really? I'm not so sure. I think they were less enlightened, certainly, but what are we doing to prove we're less stupid?>> ^petpeeved:
I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.
While I think that's a great idea, I'm very wary of the term "silver bullet". Fact is, that life is complex, and rarely has simple solutions. Economics and politics are an intricate interlocked system. Pulling on one thread alone never works.


there positives and negatives to be sure.
but overall for the species, the introduction of the internet allows a greater flow of information. This both increases overall awareness and allows for new associations to be drawn between bits of information. The overall effect is a palpable positive for intelligence, which despite our misplaced reliance on standardized testing, is heavily dependent on both awareness and the ability to create information associations based on logical connections.

The over 60 crowd is from a different era of both energy availability and access to information.
so i say, be a little patient. our timeline is much more instant - we demand instant change without necessarily being aware of how the tendencies of the species is changing . but in terms of evolution, we are changing rapidly, and the greatest catalyst, global/planet change, is just starting to take hold.

>> ^criticalthud:

government really only reflects the mindset of the people.
we're stupid, so we have a stupid government.
but the older generations are REALLY stupid, and they're dying off. so there is reason to be optimistic.


Really? I'm not so sure. I think they were less enlightened, certainly, but what are we doing to prove we're less stupid?>> ^petpeeved:

I may be a simpleton but there really does seem to be a silver bullet to the mess we're in: remove the money incentive from national politics completely, starting with evicting all the lobbyists from Washington, and gutting the amount of money that flows into the political campaign warchests every election.

While I think that's a great idea, I'm very wary of the term "silver bullet". Fact is, that life is complex, and rarely has simple solutions. Economics and politics are an intricate interlocked system. Pulling on one thread alone never works.