This clip's an utter embarrassment to both men.

A policeman isn't a legal expert and it would be unfair to expect them to be. But he should at least have a basic understanding of the laws he's routinely enforcing and the ability should be there to communicate them. This here was appallingly bad.

I notice the guy on the bike didn't comment on the allegation or provide us with the footage of him going through the lights. And the policeman would have no reason to lie over something so trivial. So I'll assume a strong possibilty he jumped them. Then he uses his legal knowledge from the get go in an effort to wriggle out of dealing with the issue of guilt, which sadly the policeman is ill equipped to handle. It bugs me when the issue of right and wrong gets sidelined for who's best at playing the game.

But at least it saved this guy a ticket and the tale probably scored him kudos with his law student buddies. Amazes me that he'd want to share it with the rest of us though.

Wouldn't it have been a far better situation if the cyclist had apologised, accepted his mistake, and the policman had used his discretionary powers to simply ask him to be a little more careful.

I've been sifting for about a year now but haven't been bothered to sign up before now - BUT this guy is clearing being an asshole.

Is it legal for him to not answer any questions? Yes.
Is it legal for him to film the policeman and request their identification details? Yes
Is he an asshole for filming it and putting it online like he's some kind of hero of the people? Absolutely.

Thanks for the thought out response MMD. Actually, my father and grandfather owned guns and kept them in the house. They were former marine and army, and definitely believed in the 2nd amendment. My father even gave me a rifle for a birthday as a child and taught me basic safety and maintenance.

But I never saw them use their guns in an emotional outburst to make some argumentative point. They had too much discipline for behavior like that. The guy in the video is clearly very angry and emotional (from the timbre in his voice) before and while using the gun.

As far as the legality of him doing what he was doing. From my experience, cops can make up a charge if they really want to, and maybe they (and child services) would at least bother the guy enough to make sure he thinks twice before brandishing a gun in this manner and putting it on youtube.

Yeah people shoot at things all the time, but a laptop? I know how they are assembled, and there are several layers of components that make up the machine, including many brittle materials that can easily shatter. Not to mention toxic materials like solder, etc. I doubt this guy has been taking laptops down to the quarry for target practice regularly enough to know how they take a hollow point.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^longde:
Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)

I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.
A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.
Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.
There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.
If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.
About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.
While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

>> ^longde:

Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)


I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.

A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.

Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.

There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.

If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.

About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.

While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^sixshot:
That video doesn't show the mouthing off part. Not enough footage to really say that the tech was justified. I can understand if the tech was for mouthing off. But staring down is really trivial. IMO just looking at your opponent shouldn't be grounds for a tech after making a dunk like that. If you're serious about the game, you always want to keep your eyes on the players and ball, so you can see if there's an opportunity for a defensive play.
If what happened is true, then the kid deserves it. Playing in college hoops means you're given the privilege. You learn manners and you learn sportsmanship. Once you go pro, then all that can be thrown out and you're free to do whatever you want.

The only call that needed to be made in this video was a defensive foul for contact on the player that was dunking. Calling a technical instead on the guy who dunked is insane. Unless there were some very choice words missed in this video the call here looks horrifically like a ref who's taken sides, not an athlete being unsportsmanlike.

You cannot blame the ref for enforcing a rule that exists. That's like blaming a policeman for arresting you when you break the law. He didn't write the laws, he has to enforce them, it's his job.
I'm sorry but no sympathy here...he did it earlier and got a technical, he knew what he did was wrong after that. You either learn or you just repeat your mistake and get an even tougher learning experience.


They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^sixshot:
That video doesn't show the mouthing off part. Not enough footage to really say that the tech was justified. I can understand if the tech was for mouthing off. But staring down is really trivial. IMO just looking at your opponent shouldn't be grounds for a tech after making a dunk like that. If you're serious about the game, you always want to keep your eyes on the players and ball, so you can see if there's an opportunity for a defensive play.
If what happened is true, then the kid deserves it. Playing in college hoops means you're given the privilege. You learn manners and you learn sportsmanship. Once you go pro, then all that can be thrown out and you're free to do whatever you want.

The only call that needed to be made in this video was a defensive foul for contact on the player that was dunking. Calling a technical instead on the guy who dunked is insane. Unless there were some very choice words missed in this video the call here looks horrifically like a ref who's taken sides, not an athlete being unsportsmanlike.


You cannot blame the ref for enforcing a rule that exists. That's like blaming a policeman for arresting you when you break the law. He didn't write the laws, he has to enforce them, it's his job.

I'm sorry but no sympathy here...he did it earlier and got a technical, he knew what he did was wrong after that. You either learn or you just repeat your mistake and get an even tougher learning experience.

You have to question the levels of both his training and iQ when, knowing he was being filmed, he still carried out an unnecessary, unprovoked, and cowardly assault on a woman who was clearly restrained.
He should lose his job and be prosecuted for the assault, the damage people like him to to decent policemans reputations, for totally disregarding the laws he is meant to uphold and, finally, for thinking he could get away with it.

This is definitely a "double-edged sword" maneuver by whoever is using the Anonymous persona. This does have the potential to be very bad-but, as has been said above if the right things are done and this induces more fear and apprehension... It has the chance to potentially make many of the police realize that they have more of a stake in this other than just another day at the job, always obeying the bosses calls and shots.

The only reason I think it may be time to see something like this is that the media, who has the power to end this type of issue if they decide to actually be investigative and not wag their tail when the police chief or mayor calls. They can find out who these policeman are. They can use societies' moral inaction and their own judgment as a huge tool for change by demanding for that police officer to quit or be fired. This happened in the past, but the media has seemingly joined forces with the easiest source of money and they do not willingly put themselves at risk anymore. Journalism is all but dead except at the edges.

So when the people are trying to make a point via demonstrations and protesting and in turn they are unfairly being silenced by: batons, gas cannisters, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and even the media tries to lie about them--to shut them down. Yet the people still fight on. That is when you begin to see these type of actions; like Anonymous. An attempt to regain power when they have lost almost all of it. As sad as it is, every major media outlet is acting in the best interests of what Fox News would serve. They do not answer and show the story; they speak of it in hushed tones and they implicate OWS and Occupy at every available point they can that they use drugs, they don't actually know what they want, they are violent, etc... Occupy and OWS do need to make a point; but it does need to be made carefully. Maybe it's better that Anonymous decides to be the heavy arm.

We'll see what happens. In the meantime make sure you spread all of the indie media outlets out there that ARE covering this in great detail.

Here is a video of another policeman throwing a flash grenade into the crowd trying to help him.

I very much understand peaceful protest and I participate in it and have since the Iraq War started. However I've never been just simply attacked by policemen. I have to imagine if I was attacked I would fight back. My question is where legally do my rights lie? I don't think it's ok that a policeman can attack me and not expect me to fight back, that just doesn't make sense to me. If they're being unreasonable what are my rights under the law to protect myself?

I don't know the answers but this video angers me...if a cop ever did that to me while I was being peaceful I don't think I could stop myself from going on the offensive.

>> ^vaire2ube:

ahh, the guy in white wasnt swinging and the other guy was, bro. he definitely was beyond defense and going for revenge.
the canadian tony bologna happened by at an opportune time, wow


Yep, and also the taser seemed the safer approach here. Instead of getting close to a "youth" who is very, very upset (Maybe with reason, but upset nevertheless) it saves a take down or a cross to the cop's face (And then way more jail time.)

All this Monday night quartering is understandable, but wrong still. I walk up, see two people fighting, I try to blame both. But if I walk up and the "defender" is the aggressor at the moment I arrive, it is the only thing I know and can react to.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

LOL, You guys have got to see this one.
promote


Thanks Boise, that's what I thought. They had me at, "Running a train."

>> ^hpqp:

Now where are all those who got their knickers in a twist over that video in which the cop kept the person pulled over at distance and at gunpoint, eh?


I notice something about the two videos and both the "oorah" brigade and the "police are assholes" brigade;

In this video, the policeman has no real view on the lunatic, he approaches him whilst he's sat in his car (he could have a fucking bazooka in there and he wouldn't know), he seems very relaxed as though he hasn't got a hint of guard up and even after attempted shot goes wrong he seems utterly surprised and almost as though he doesn't believe it's happening until he finally reacts. The policeman has no real alternative but to shoot at the guy because the guy's a clear and huge danger to everyone. And perhaps he always was a nutcase, but perhaps if the officer would have been more cautious no shot would have been fired and the nutcase would have ended up where he belongs.

In the other video, the man voluntarily gets out of his car and walks around, he takes his hands out of his pockets. The policeman is clearly expecting danger (perhaps a bit TOO much if you ask me), he's issuing clear commands and appears to be going to great lengths to minimise the risk to himself (and not necessarily others). Personally, i know there are solutions which are used by british police at times which involve letting a person *who is clearly acting outside the law due specifically to police pressure* escape (or think they've escaped) only to turn up later at their house and take them safely and calmly for everyone involved; i would have preferred such a solution but i don't know if it's feasible in that part of america.

Why must the nutjobs AND anti-police people live at the extremes? We don't have to have one or the other, we can have a nice mixture of safety and respect for both the officer AND the individual. BOTH videos are examples, imo, of it being done wrong by the officer. And i don't mean job-regulations wrong, i mean basic common sense/common decency wrong. You know, that thing everyone stopped having around 1970.

Now try with a policeman. Video pls.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video British Policeman Narrowly Escapes Suspect's Knife. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.