Nope, not over reaching in the least. He attacked while armed, that's brandishing/menacing, and assault with a deadly weapon, he ran at her, said something to her while he did it, then touched her, that's assault and battery, he stole her phone, that's grand theft (phones are expensive) smashed it, that's destruction of private property, kicked it at her, that's battery with an object, and he did it all to hide evidence of his actions, that's felony destruction of evidence.

Yes, if I attack you on public property while armed, smack the phone out of your hand, stomp it, then kick it at you while I'm at work, I should be fired AND prosecuted...while you just say "no"? Please explain your logic (or complete lack thereof).

Wow. You really lack the capacity to understand the point of smashing the phone was to stop her from having evidence of their actions? Please explain, who's going to make him pay for a phone or reprimand him when it's a citizen's word against the lies of all (3) officers there? If there wasn't this second video, they, you, and lantern would still be claiming this didn't happen and is just a lefty making up BS to attack good cops...in fact even with the video you and lantern seem to be trying to say that.

It IS a pattern. You've got 3 officers involved here, and not one good one stopping or reporting them. In fact, in all of these daily (or more often) abusive cop videos you almost always see other officers standing by while their fellow officers commit violent crimes, but you NEVER see one of those by standing officers do their job and STOP the abusive cop....NEVER.
That makes it a probable profession-pervasive pattern.

Aren't you over reaching on this?

If you trashed my phone like that should you lose you job? Say this occurs at your work. I come up to you and start filming. Should you loose you job? As you said "we've got assault and battery, armed robbery, destruction of private property,..." The answer is no.

The cop was a dick and should pay for a new phone and apologize to the lady. His supervisor should reprimand him but not much else, unless its a pattern.

Let's see...we've got assault and battery, armed robbery, destruction of private property, destruction of evidence...and probably a few more crimes here. I won't be surprised in the least if there's not a single crime charged, however.

Police are proving conclusively that they are NOT protecting, serving, or upholding the law. Since they refuse to police themselves, I'm thinking it's time to disband the criminal gang and start again, they've all failed time and time again to be honest and upright people, much less proper authorities. If cops policed themselves, the other cops would have tackled this cop, jumped on his head, hog tied him, and carted him off to jail....but that's NEVER happened, not a single time, ever, no matter what kind of murderous crime the cop commits in front of his fellow officers. In my mind, that means they are not real cops and so not deserving of respect or compliance.
How about a ballot initiative to remove any 'protective custody' for officers sent to prison, so they have to go to gen pop like every one else? Then they might think twice...assuming some are prosecuted...because it would no longer be summer camp with other cops, it would be real prison.

Some system where the wealth of the lowest paid worker was linked to the companies net profit would be nice. If their going to argue that whole "trickle down" thing they can only complain so much when we legally manacle them to their staff!

Or perhaps a national minimum wage based on a fraction of the highest earners.

Or going really crazy perhaps outlaw anything but co-operatives/shared ownership with staff. (that one is probably too complicated and problematic to be practical I fear)

I might suggest a similar system for politicians too i.e. they get paid as much as their poorest citizens, or some sensible fraction of that number. (including private assets to discourage corruption)

Maybe even go the whole hog and make politicians and high ranking civil servants utterly dependant on the state i.e. no significant private property and a state issued lifestyle which matches that of the poorest.

Too Extreme perhaps but if we meet them somewhere in the middle...

The Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists would probably go mental, but then how would we tell?

Interesting.
Apparently the video starts with the performer telling the officer the law that allows him to be there, performing, and accepting donations. 1050.6 section C. After reading the law that clearly stated he may play there, the officer decides 'fuck that' and arrests him for 'loitering'...a charge only dropped when the video went viral.
The officer is being 'retrained', but I think he needs to be prosecuted for 1)false arrest and 2)battery with a deadly weapon (the guitar) and perhaps even 3)damaging private property. We need his name though, so he can be publically ridiculed and ostracized for being a dickhead bully, and not hired by any 'security' company when he looses his job.

Is English a second language, or are you just being disingenuous? Me thinks the latter. No...publicly owned roads are NOT toll roads because they are paid for with taxes. Taxes and tolls are different things, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently. I live on a private road..so I'm certain they must exist.
It is absolutely NOT illegal to create a private toll road on private property with private funds. That's just asinine. It is nearly impossible to build one without using public services, such as the public roads and ports needed to deliver materials, but certainly not illegal.

It's leaching off me if you don't pay your fair share, and you have made it clear you don't think you should have to pay any, so I must assume you do all you can to minimize what you put into the pot...so yes, I would make an educated guess that you are leaching off me. I don't even itemize deductions, because I feel grateful to live in what I feel is a great country, and feel it's unpatriotic to try to shirk my duty to pay for my portion of government, even if I disagree with how they spend most of it. That's the cost of living in a 'representative democracy'.

As to mail, yes, you may not use mail boxes set up for/by the USPS for a private mail service...so you can't do 'first class mail'. You can, however, deliver letters for a fee to your OWN style of 'letter box', so your claim they have a 'monopoly' is ridiculous, they would be so happy to have it taken over, it's a big money loser and a huge pain in the ass to keep going. I'm personally grateful mail hasn't yet been privatized, as I know full well the service would suffer badly to make it profitable, for me especially since I live in the boonies and would never be profitable as a customer. To deliver my letters by FedEx would cost 10 times what USPS charges. (by the way, FedEx and UPS are proof that you already CAN deliver 'mail' privately, just not into a USPS 'mail box')
EDIT: What you said was akin to me saying 'Instead of just complaining about the quality of available burgers, you could open your own hamburger stand' and you answering 'I can't...it's illegal for me to sell "Big Mac's" because...government'.

AND, I would add, you have still never addressed my original point, that if business could/would 'self regulate', they would be doing so now. Self regulation is total fantasy, it simply doesn't happen. How exactly, I wonder, are 'the people' supposed to gain the knowledge about a companie's violations of public trust and health if there's no regulatory agency inspecting and reporting on what the company is actually doing, and they can do all their evil in secret?

The same man who tells you that he does not want to see the government interfere in business-and he means it, and has plenty of good reasons for saying so-is the first to go to Washington and ask the government for a prohibitory tariff on his product. When things get just bad enough-as they did two years ago-he will go with equal speed to the United States government and ask for a loan; and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is the outcome of it. Each group has sought protection from the government for its own special interest, without realizing that the function of government must be to favor no small group at the expense of its duty to protect the rights of personal freedom and of private property of all its citizens. - FDR

WTF? This idiot thinks he can film inside private property if he wants to? Am I missing something or is this guy just completely fucking retard?

I think it's noble to do whatever little you can to oppose the brutal half-century long occupation, humiliation, starvation and assassination of your people, yes.

Israel is an illegal occupying power in international law, that's a fact. It constantly violates practically every obligation that occupation incurs in international law; it engages in collective punishment, it regularly seizes and destroys private property, it laughingly fails to provide for the safety and welfare of the population under its control, it settles occupied territory with its civilians, it forcibly relocates Palestinian civilians, it routinely ignores the UN's attempts to restrain these and other illegal behaviours, these are facts.

Israel is engaged in terrorism in Gaza and elsewhere, and has been for decades - fact.

That's not a glass it's a plastic cup, and it's full...1/2 full of liquid, 1/2 full of gasses.

Google glass wearers are self centered assholes IMO. Consider how you would feel about people who constantly wear a wire and hidden camera for the cops, now realize that the cops/feds have access to anything recorded by google glasses. Now how do you feel about google glass wearers? Would you allow one in your home?
I think google glasses should have a bright red light on the outside that indicates any level of recording or picture taking. On private property, it's illegal to record people without their consent in most states. I'm 100% behind excluding these devices on any private property without written consent of the owners AND clearly posted written notice to all visitors that they are being recorded, and making it a criminal offence to record audio or video on private property without a waiver. Write your representatives and tell them so if you agree.

A consensus is not reality, as I've already stated.

I don't care what people believe about global warming. My problem is that when govt's believe we can do something about it, they begin to take my private property i.e. money, to fight it, when gov'ts do little but waste huge amounts of money and increase our debt.

Do whatever you want about global whatever, just don't ask me to believe that what you do will accomplish anything.

Definite failure of legislation here. Surely the law cannot state that you are allowed to discharge a gun on private property *anywhere* in the state of Florida? That would be retarded. Does a condo in Miami count? Someone's backyard with a lovely view of an elementary school?

Generally in saner lands there are city or county ordinances about such things, why isn't this the case here?

Oh Bob, how I envy you. The world must be such a nice place if you can view it only in black or white. Binary thinking must be easy on the synapses.
Here's one thing I don't understand, though. Maybe you can help me out.
Why do you hate liberty so much?
I mean, you're an american, right? Land of the free, home of the brave?
Home of the Liberty Bell? The country whose most famous landmark is called the "Statue of Liberty".
Why so much hate the most american thing? I always wanted to asked somebody who's so obviously republican as you.
Here's something I found on Wikipedia:
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

Hmmm... generally supporting following ideas:
- free and fair elections (voter id laws and voting fraud prevention)
- civil rights (Dude! Don't tread on me!)
- freedom of the press (concern about lamestream media and "liberal bias" in the media)
- freedom of religion (for example the freedom of teaching children creationism)
- free trade (capitalism yay!)
- private property (for some reason the name "Ron Jeremy" came to mind but I think I got the name wrong)

I can understand a dislike for equality (come on, slaves are super useful) but not for liberty. Not if you're a true american.

Shouldn't you call yourself a liberal? Is it just a weird closet you're in?

I fully agree, the reaction was unreasonable and illegal. I understand I may have sounded like I was excusing the attack, I did not mean to.
My point was you should not assume people will act reasonably, respectfully, or even legally when they are 1.drunk and 2. you are continuing to antagonize them (illegally?) by recording their drunkenness after being asked to stop. They had no right to assault or rob her, but it was easily foreseeable that something like that would happen. The same would probably happen if she were 'demonstrating' a full size video camera in the bar, but the glasses make it too easy to forget that's what they are.
The bartender should have foreseen the escalation, taken control right away and made her put them away or leave, then there would be no problems. The bar may be in trouble for not doing that in the end.
The fact that google had to put a public warning up about this shows me it's a big issue they need to address and not leave it solely up to their users to act properly...I'm not sure how they might do that...red record light maybe, so you can show you aren't recording?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but as I understand it you are still not allowed to record audio of others without consent on private property (or many public properties), and these people obviously didn't consent.

Bring a camera into a dive bar and refuse to stop filming, you should expect trouble. I'm surprised the Google Glasses weren't destroyed.
Google glass records audio and video, so they should be illegal to use on private property, especially without notice, just like any other audio recorder.