Thought the same thing when I found this and it was unpublished, especially in light of recent events on a personal level where, at a couple of key moments of clarity with regard to relative rights of cops and citizens, having pre-scripted responses to their bullshit and some rehearsed scenarios could have helped me tremendously.

Oh. My humblest apologies to anyone who I have lambasted for talking shit about Texas, my home state. I redact my support for the state as her government has become a beast unfriendly and aggressive towards her citizenry, as the system's standard of ethics, morality, and I.Q. minimums-for-cadets is at an all-time low and there's more bottom below.
I DO NOT recognize her any longer, or her developmentally-disabled masses. Change only for the worse as we brace for impact of comet Police State.

@newtboy what exactly is then a "normal reality" consider your answer from the premise that "reality" is a construct of an individual's
perception...I don't agree with "them" either and see the ever-increasing justification for such and future similar actions as an affront to humanity as a whole.

These cops are enforcing laws that scream "police state" plain and fucking simple. The less we do to protest, the more motherfuckers they are going to pack into ready-made plastic holding containers and eventually, "disappear."

The real problem I can see here is that these cops are putting food in the mouths of the people they live with in order to feed yet another generation of assholes who may eventually become cops. It's a ludicrous, self-perpetuating clusterfuck.

Big corporations are not to be blamed for this. We the people are to blame.
People would rather watch American got talent or other such dribble rather that see what is truly going on. Low information voters should start paying attention or better yet, don't vote.

It's a shame that we are loosing our rights by leaps and bounds and no one really cares.

Police state.
Drones,
Total loss of privacy,

Tags for this video have been changed from 'apple, smartphones, camera, accountability, police state, ios, fascism, ussa' to 'apple, smartphones, camera, accountability, police state, ios, fascism, ussa, tyt, anna' - edited by messenger

"Will they try and turn the internets into a police state too?"

Yes.

@JiggaJonson, man, you're harboring such personal resentment. It's all so petty and cringeworthy at this point. But, again, your premise is completely ridiculous. And for so many reasons it's hard to list them all here. I also don't believe in the heavy gun restrictions here in Los Angeles, but I'm not about to walk out onto the streets in front of LAPD with an AK-47 slung over my shoulder. By your backwards logic, that means I'm supporting gun control.

Not to mention, Thoreau lived at a different time when it was probably safer to be a tax resister. The fewer interactions with our police state that I can make for myself is probably for the best. Also the Internal Revenue System (a self-proclaimed tax law enforcement agency) wasn't formed until the exact year Thoreau died. Fact. Look it up.

I'm fairly certain Thoreau didn't have to submit a W9 to work as an author. I, on the other hand, do. And the 16th Amendment, the one responsible for Congress's ability to levy income tax, wasn't even ratified until over forty years after his death. And so forth and so on, etc. etc. boring conversation and blah blah.

Plus my personal life is none of your business. So you're just really talking out your ass and comparing apples to oranges here. I really hope you can find happiness in your life and move past being so bitter.

He is right. We are becoming a police state and all the while the media feeds up mind dumbing tv shows and the news brings us division between its citizens.

I rather see national outrage against stories like
http://videosift.com/video/Your-vagina-is-US-Govt-property-will-be-searched-randomly

that brings nations l outrage against wrongful government actions.

Indeed, the inescapable irony.


These tactics are time-honored, cameras and tech simply gives them new tools:
These thugs still use covert operations, undercover agents, and perlustration (now made simple with facebook/twitter/etc) and agent provocateurs.

How 'bout we all call this techy cunt being used by these other cunts and let him know how much safer the world is for the assholes in charge now that Billy is working for the secret police??.....MEH!-"Crowd-sourced policing": A euphemism for creating a police state, one-citizen-at-a-time.


Email:
James@kingston.ac.uk

Phone:
+44 (0) 208 417 2858

Location:
PRSB113

I know my enemies and my friends and allies. I also have become quite deft at disengaging a potentially hind-brained copper from his predictable, robotic license.

My general rule of thumb is polite, courteous, etc.-Keep the robot's heart-rate down, make them feel in control, cooperate.

Sometimes this does not work, especially the further out of the city you travel, constables and sheriffs necks tend to be redder...This is Texas, you must remember and while the pigs of Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Carolinas (deep south) are much worse, you still have to factor in asshole-redneck-douchebag.

In the event I get no quarter from a cop who's simply human garbage, I let rip with my assessment, this after I already know I'm going to jail. Every time this has happened incidentally, was for unpaid parking tickets, and once for possession of an oz. of weed, which the prick searched my vehicle about 30 mins. for before he found it....A total piece of shit, this assessed after an attempt at a conversation with the asshole-The cunt risked my life with his driving as well, breaking all speed limits to get me downtown to county, probably because I would not stop verbally assaulting him from the backseat...He deserved all I had and more, the buzz-killing prick who was "JUST DOING HIS JOB."

Here's to all the people who scream "TROLL" whenever someone leaves one remark on a post without returning for a "discussion" (perhaps that's all that one felt needed said to make a simple point?)


@shatterdose "Who typically freaks out? People that are guilty or crazy"-That sounds like a willing herd animal using broad generalizations in favor of a police state.

@arekin-Agreed-I am not implying that I would have handled this scenario any differently-

@bmacs27-All relevant and valid observations-Our distrust, fear and derision of cops in the U.S. comes from conditioning-The so-called, "war on drugs" has been the bane of law enforcement since prohibition, that and CORRUPTION from top to bottom-

@moopysnooze THANK YOU!!?? How much more WILL the cattle take, eh??

Just watching the video, it did angry me to see what happened, but as I read the comments, I did begin to think well, what are the police supposed to do in a reported domestic abuse situation.

A few things that crossed my mind are... firstly, everyone is different, some sensible and some not so; some clever and some not so. This is fact, and one would expect the police to know this and be able to deal with different situations appropriately. Sure there are many possible reasons why they don't handle situations properly like poor pay, assuming everyone is at their worst from experience, personality types etc, but this is not what the public wants or expects - hence the dislike.

Secondly, no matter any other context, if the person holding the camera did not have a weapon in their hand, did the police have to taze him?

Now having read the article, I wonder if some previous commenters still believe that their behavior is justifiable. The police were reported to have turned up in their numbers with guns in hand without explaining the situation.
For those who may ask why he didn't get go out there or let them in... bear in mind that he has returned from serving in the army to return home to have guns pointed at unarmed civilians by people who were not able to hold a calm enough conversation long enough to handle the situation properly.

In regards to the police state, it isnt just about how the police behave, it's about what the mob are willing to accept. Judging from the comments, it seems that the some are willing to accept to a lot already. The questions is how many and how easily they could be persuaded into accepting more.

and here I just was commenting and defending us officers on the other "police state" video (where law enforcement handled it properly) and then here comes a video like this.

Only thing to say is the cop made a mistake and obviously become completely flustered by it as he probably knew he was being filmed. This does not give him the right to be an asshole. I have to ask what is the age of the male that is taking the PAS (preliminary alcohol screening) test? If he is under 21 there is a no tolerance policy towards underage drivers with alcohol in there system. He could of blew .01 and still be arrested. Anyone under the age of 21 should not be consuming alcohol (I know I know, we all did it) but if you do, DON’T DRIVE.

That being said, just a few notes so everyone knows (may only apply to California). In California (and I believe everywhere) you can be under the legal limit of .08 BAC and still be arrested for a DUI. There are two subsections of the Vehicle code for a dui, VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b) which are usually both charged. The B section is only for if you are over .08 BAC. The (A) section can be used if you are driving erratically or unsafely even if under the legal limit. That section is also used for when driving under the influence of a drug (pot, prescription meds, etc..). 9 Times out of 10 in court the charge of VC 23152(A) will get dropped to a wet and reckless which is treated like a DUI but with fewer consequences.

Now, please do not take the advice of these other people and refuse all testing (in California). In California, there is a law called Implied Consent, please read here:

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm

but to sum it up, you have to give breath, blood, or urine when arrested with probable cause for a DUI. This may not sound fair but it was put in place so people could not refuse all testing then go to court and argue there was no proof of their intoxication. There are penalties if you do not give samples so please read that link. This law can help both ways, as an example if you really are not under the influence of alcohol or at least under the legal limit, then the blood test (most accurate) will show this. This will either liberate you in court showing you were not intoxicated as the officer said or at least get your DUI dropped to a wet and reckless if you were under the influence but at a legal level. Of course, if you were really under the influence or got into a DUI crash nothing is really going to help you but a good lawyer.

Just as an example, a woman was stopped for making an illegal U-Turn. Before this officers admitted she had been driving ok. Once officers pulled her over to issue a citation they immediate smelled alcohol coming from the car and her person. The female agreed to a breath test and blew a .38 BAC! For most people including guys, you would be unconscious if you had that much alcohol in your system. The woman was charged for a DUI but more importantly got alcohol counseling because the court ordered it. This is just an example of times where people who drink on a regular basis (alcoholics) may not show signs of alcohol impairment. They are such sever alcoholics who can function to an extent while intoxicated. That DUI arrest probably saved the women’s life.

All I am trying to say is I know it may seem unfair or prying to have an implied consent law here in California. All it is meant to do is to encourage people when they go out to drink to please GET A CAB or SOBER driver to take you home. Sober does not mean you “feel” sober, sober means no alcohol or you have followed the guidelines issued by California DMV on how many drinks / how many hours it takes to be sober enough to drive.

Lastly, I will say there are ways of helping yourself during a DUI situation so educate yourself and do some research (not that rusty penny or mustard or barely blowing your breath crap) if you are really worried that one day you’re going to be pulled over after consuming alcohol.

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.

interesting, I agree this video needs context. Also the guy should have just cooperated with the officers and went outside - why unnecessarily provoke a situation like this when it could most likely be better resolved through cooperation?

I am however curious where the line is drawn with these sorts of calls and the laws allowing police to enter regardless of warrant. Obviously the police should have some authority to enter - many violent crimes take place inside homes, and they should have the authority to enter to prevent these crimes given reasonable suspicion - but where do we draw the line? I once was up late with some friends at our place, and we saw the police at a house next door. They saw we were up, came over, and asked us if we knew our neighbour (which we didn't) or had any information about whether or not he might have been inside because someone called in worried that the guy was going to kill himself. The police eventually left without breaking in the door. I think they were right in doing so in this situation.

but it's such a tough situation.. In the end, I think if there was a violent crime taking place against me in my home, which perhaps was called in by someone else who heard the noise, I would gladly forfeit my privacy and the cost of new hinges for my door for my own safety. I would want the police to enter, even if the perpetrator was yelling about police states and so forth... I would assume that most victims might also opt for this, which is why we allow police some discretion in these circumstances.