Are you insane? Being a dissatisfied customer doesn't give you the right to commandeer a place of business - that's some crazy level entitled bullshit. If she doesn't get the service she expects, she can down-rate him, she can ask for her money back, she can make a report to the BBB, and she can sue him / Uber for her money back and whatever damages she can prove. She doesn't get to hijack his place of business.

The implications of what you're saying would completely screw over any sane conflict resolution - if I don't like the movie I can stay in the theater until they show me a better one, if my drink was poorly mixed I get to stay in the bar past closing time, if the milk I bought was bad I get to demand that my complaint is resolved by duel in the Kroger dairy section... no. Just because you bought a service does not mean - even if you were screwed over - you get to decide that the place of business now becomes a place of arbitration for your dispute. Take that shit to the proper channels.

As for screaming at her - he terminated their professional relationship at that point, and it was just two private individuals in conflict. Maybe it's 'smart' to kiss up to assholes, but it seems absurd of you to Monday morning quarterback him given that when we didn't see the ride. If he'd used physical violence in any way that would be a completely different story, but you're allowed to scream at people while waiting for the cops or other help.

Your video, A NFL quarterback explains how he reads a defensive line, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

OK, I see your point there. That kind of goes to my 'why are they both on the traffic side' though...although I grant he didn't really have much opportunity to move it to the side of the road. I would have retreated (edit: either on foot or in the car) when the guy got past his own trunk, but that's just me, and I'm obviously abnormal.

As to 'what happens next'...I want to say 'backup arrives', but I do see that he can't assume they will, maybe staking his life on that.
So, somewhat less outraged, but still quite disappointed that other methods were, at best, afterthoughts.

Making life and death decisions alone in the dark on the side of the road is hard. MmmmmK? And this is all Monday morning quarterbacking too with 20/20 hindsight. I do see that, lest you think otherwise.

Onto a secondary topic, it includes the "media frenzy" and the contract clauses that force players, coaches, and others to appear before the media... Plus the media in general, when it comes to the Superbowl (but, this has to do with our country; or at the least certain segments and populations of our country). But, really it's about the general stupidity and levels we have turned this ONE event into!

Only a few interviews are worth looking at typically and they tend to be AFTER a game, not before it (as that amounts to "what ifs", "probably might", "we sure can try", and "if I win, I'll go to 'insert Measleland or another place here' with my wife/kid/family/parrot"). I absolutely hate the fourteen hour pre-game show that the NFL and the channel hosting this *thing* that apparently people watch, that is quite like a: "super-fabulous-orgasmic-serotonin ovulating-dopamine excreting-heroine junkie nerve conduction transfer-fourteen people high at a rave experimenting in an orgy with all the holes and toys available"... OK, so maybe that is a bit too far, but still...! It really is the most "grandiose" setups for a game, that doesn't need such a grandiose setup.

The should just make it a damned national holiday already--everyone already stays home or is basically forced to, since one half of their family is probably glued to the TV for quite awhile.. Although I know we always "had" these interviews on the TV, but we never really listened to them, because they bring out 40 people who essentially ALL say the same thing (the only difference is if it is a different team and or if they are extremely religious--they will then tell you how their team will win, "...no matter what...", and then if they are religious proceed to randomly give you the, "God is on our side...", mantra...which always made me laugh--literally, out-loud).

Then they cut back to the ex-coach's and arm-chair quarterbacks who have been given a one day opportunity to tell the world what they think, and how he game will go (and it never does).

Needless to say, I HATE, with a passion, the "pre-game show" (which didn't exist in it's ridiculous form for a VERY longtime until the late 80's and early 90's). I'd rather them move all of their prime-time TV shows that will not be shown that night, due to the game, to that period of the day and let us watch that instead before the game (then they can give us a modest 45-30 minute pre-game; not this 5-hour marathon of ads and marketing, with a bunch of talking faces trying as hard as they can to make a name for themselves in that time-span).

Only people like "Beast Mode" can save that time allotment and make it worthwhile (if you think it is "entertaining", you REALLY need to stay away a bit from Football, and I'm saying that as a concerned friend...)--because right now, although a lot of people flip their TV over to the channel with it on...it is a massive waste of money and time--that somehow generates massive amounts of money (talk about "very careful" and "orchestrated" money setups and schemes; but luckily they have idiotic companies paying them gigantic sums of money for their commercials to air...even before the game comes on...). And, I wish people wouldn't just flip over to it, to have it on in the background (as most of the time I've noticed, whether it's a game at my house, someone else's OR an actual Superbowl party--no one watches that crap, it just sits on that channel...making them "think" they are getting ratings, but they actually aren't. It's kind of like saying that people go to Tailgate parties to park cars and see how neat the cement is...

Trance said he doesn't understand why she doesn't. You said why should she have to? Nobody is saying she has to. She might want to if she'd like to avoid hearing other people speak their mind. It's her choice. Similarly, catcalling is their choice. They don't need to be classy if they don't want to.

The Jessica Williams video is better in that it isn't about privileged white cisgendered problems exclusively. However, it also doesn't make the case very well. There isn't any evidence of "Wall Street douches" making catcalls unless you want to talk about a picture of a blurred out face in a suit verbalizing nothing.

The assertion that many men are making is that girls selectively complain about catcalls. Specifically, they only want attention from the men they want attention from, and expect us to read their minds... I'm sorry... Body language... and figure out the difference.

For example, a (female) friend of mine was a teaching assistant at UT. She tells this story about going over a study on gender differences regarding random propositions for sex. As you might expect the results were that men were more likely to say yes, and women no. Big surprise there. Well, once the professor finished, Vince Young raised his hand and said "that's not how it works." Every girl in the room (according to my friend) blushed, giggled, twirled their hair, and "made eyes at him." It seems every girl in the room was ready for proposition from an nfl quarterback... Just not homeless people drinking on the stoop.

You guys playing the race card again. If I disagree with something a black person does, I'm a racist. Wow, that's getting old.

The witnesses I have heard said the decedent charged the cop. It only takes about 2 seconds to fire 6 shots.

The decedent demonstrated he was willing to take the cop's gun, and that is something a cop can't tolerate.

A cop has a job to do, so he can't just sit back and do nothing, because the next cop to come along has the same job to do, and it's not right to lay it off on the next guy. That's called responsibility.

Of course, you progressives automatically think cops are wrong. Funny, since cops are members of 'the system', the gov't.

But I understand how easy it is to just monday morning quarterback and say 'the cop should have done this, he should have done that'.

blah blah blah

Do you have proof that every one of these instances of cops behaving badly were because of orders from high up in the chain of command? Because you know, that would be rather big.

That's what I mean by calculated intent. You have to prove all of this is by design, which has clearly never been demonstrated.

This video...and all the others are anecdotal. The Alex Jones nutbags of the world would have you believe that there is someone, or a cabal of people who are fiendishly steepling their fingers and cackling maniacally at the diabolicalness of their master plan. That's nice and all, but you need proof.

Until then, it's far far far more rational to believe that every single one of these situations can be traced back to very human things like poor training, poor judgement, fragile egos, over worked, underpaid. and actual complex psychological issues all of which are part of the human condition.

Sure, these things need to be addressed, but it's complex and not simple to implement. If it were, they'd have done it by now.

The pundits (aka the armchair quarterbacks) don't like complex issues, they like to try to reduce everything to sound bites. It's far easier to sell the "ZOMG FASCIST STATE THEY:RE OUT TO GET YOU" message than something that actually requires critical thought and tough questions to answer. It's easier to just lazily point the finger at a scapegoat.

You had a somewhat decent argument @LiquidDrift ...until you said the words "Alex Jones"

It's pretty easy to cherry pick instances of cops behaving badly and ignore instances of cops doing good. This sift alone has a wide variety of videos of both types of cops. So you (not implying you personally) have a rather large burden of proof to meet to make a valid claim of "fascist police state" you need to prove calculated intent. Until then, you've just got a significant number of individual cases of people who are simply unable to use the power they are given wisely and ignore the responsibility they have. Something all of us humans have been guilty of at some point in our lives.

The internet is a great tool for communication to bring stuff like this to light, but it also breeds a massive amount of armchair quarterbacking.

Without a doubt, I would agree that the police are in need of some fundamental reforms to address these issues, which is a far more rational argument than the delusions of Alex Jones

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

i figured it best to bring the convo to your page.
i have derailed enough threads this past week alone.
would be impolite and rude to keep tramping through the china shop willy nilly.

i think i am starting to understand where you are at.
of course i am presuming,but im gonna go with frustration.
anger and outrage to what is being done to the people of syria.

i can relate to that.it is an outrage.
it is heartbreaking.

we disagree on how to proceed.
i am not here to change your mind.

i am here to talk to you as a man.
to maybe help you understand how your passionate posts may be perceived.
your last one i found impertinent,insulting and rude.

if i had to paraphrase this is how i read your last comment on the raytheon post.
"how can you all be so fucking blind?are you all a bunch of fucking pussies?dont you SEE what that man is doing?and you fucking pansies want to talk? you are all retarded,stupid and have no idea what is going on!"

i deleted half my commentary because it really was just me ripping you apart.
and that would not be fair to you and it would be just as insulting.
your post really pissed me off.
but we have talked before.
we disagree more than agree but we have always been civil and i appreciate the time you take to respond.

so the point of me coming to your page is to point out that you are talking to actual humans.
you called me a pussy.
you implied that this situation only bothers you and anybody who came to a different conclusion in regards to how to proceed in syria was not getting the plot.
was that your intent?
did you actually MEAN to imply that anybody who disagreed with a military resolution was a pansy?

well..i dont think so.
i think you are just really passionate about this and frustrated that nothing is being done.
outraged at the violence being perpetrated upon innocent people.

i feel ya.i truly do.
and i would be willing to bet the very people you chastized as being weak in their approach feel you as well.

the first thing we need to address is the fact we are all armchair quarterbacking.we have no influence nor power to dictate what happens in a country on the other side of the planet.
so basically all our bickering and arguing is a cathartic release for a situation that is horrid,horrifying and complicated.

the second is really just questions i would like to ask (and you could promptly tell me to go fuck myself).

1.how would a limited strike upon assads regime change anything that is happening on the ground?

this is really the only question you have not answered and to me it is pivotal in understanding your logic.

i have my suspicions but i await your answer.
and my apologies if i cam across snarky.
i was angry at the time.
till next time.
namaste.

I see that as part of the problem. There is an almost cult-like worship of the military and the people who have served. (oh no VoodooV is anti-military! lynch him!).

They bring a vast amount of experience and insight to the table? Of course they do, but are they the end all be all? Are they fundamentally better/superior to people who haven't been in the military? Not so much. If you think they are Then you seem to have trouble with that pesky concept of equality.

There is a fundamental pressure every US elected official ever has experienced to not "appear weak" That can often lead to unnecessary chest thumping and saber rattling as history has shown time and time again can get us into trouble. But it is a reality that you have better odds at winning an elected office if you served than if you hadn't and people need to fundamentally re-consider that line of reasoning.

Quite honestly, McCain is part of the old guard, the old way of thinking. We can't afford to think like that any longer. As technology continues racing ahead, The world becomes an increasingly small place and we have GOT to figure out how to get along with each other. Of course there will always be a need to have/show military force, but it's a scalpel, not a blunt object.

To me it seems like McCain is just becoming more and more incompetent. If there is any...ANY grain of truth to how they failed to vet Sarah Palin because they both thought they other guy did the vetting, that is just this huge failure and that McCain simply didn't care or pay attention to what was going on in his campaign and to me that speaks volumes as to how he would have led the country.

Time for retirement John.

But here is where I defend him. He wouldn't be where he is at right now if people didn't choose him. Whether I agree with him or not, He is doing what he thinks is best because the voters put him there. There is no mustache twirling villain. The world doesn't work that way. @arekin is absolutely right. There is a massive compulsion that whenever a vote doesn't go someone's way, then obviously the bad guys won and that everything they do will be evil, all the absurd arguments like "he's not MY president," or "I don't think he's a citizen," or "he's not a REAL American" are just lies people tell themselves to make them feel better. This isn't an episode of Scooby Do where if you solve the mystery you get to pull the mask off and the villain says "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"

Talk is cheap Mr. Speaker, if you want to be in power so you can "arrest the gov't" put your money where your mouth is, STFU and run for office then asshole. Convince the people you're right and lets see if you can do any better. That's how the system works! If there is one negative to the Internet is the massive amount of armchair quarterbacking the Internet breeds. Countless millions of people who seem to honestly think they would do a better job. Well hey, you know what? I'm sure there are some of you out there that COULD do a better job, but if you're not going to throw your hat into the ring and walk the walk then I've got no time for your rambling and conspiracy theories.

McCain's response to his speech was fucking perfect. Not only did he call him out to run for office, He pointed out that he IS governing with the consent of the people. So if you don't like it, do a little community organizing of your own and convince the people to demand better. Oh shit, that takes effort! fuck it then!

No one really takes power. The people will always be strong enough (with or without guns) to thwart anyone who takes power. In reality, power is given. There are countless mechanisms of peaceful change in our gov't. Use them or shut the fuck up.

IMO, the single best thing we could do for gov't is to COMPLETELY REMOVE ALL PRIVATE MONEY FROM OUR ELECTIONS AND ABOLISH LOBBYING. It's because of all the corporate influence in our gov't that we probably get into these shenanigans in the first place.

Ahh the "libertarian" shows his true colors.

For someone accusing me of a strawman, you seem to make some pretty good strawmen yourself.

Never claimed to live in a democratic utopia. Actually working pretty good as 200 years of history is showing. Sure we have problems, no one ever claimed we didn't. Far better than your utopia of a corporate totalitarian meritocracy where morality is apparently found in profit motive. Sorry, but the jury is has been out on the whole democracy vs plutocracy for some time. Sorry that you didn't get the memo.

You really have a problem with Obama personally? Then join the birther nutters and work towards convincing your congress people to impeach him. There are multitude of ways to effect change. The problem...and the beauty of that is that it requires somewhat of a consensus. not outliers filled with paranoia and hate.

hows making stupid one-note charlie submissions to VS working out for you as an agent of change eh?

Don't like your options? then you have yet ANOTHER option, there are plenty of other countries to choose from, pick one of them.

Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way. I got no time for armchair quarterbacks who would probably wet themselves if they actually had to make any tough decisions.

What? Render time? I'd guess minutes at most. C'mon, this is 2013, not 1993.

But you're right: Oculus Rift + This = Star Trek Holodeck in real life. Sports is possibly the best application for this combination, since the area of play is limited and well defined. Let me build upon your vision of the future.

It would require the ability to change your camera angle even when the "video" is playing. They'd also need to thoroughly map all audio sources on the playing feild. Heck, I'm sure there are tons of other massive technical hurdles that I haven't even thought of, but if you will, imagine this:

Go to an empty baseball field (or other large, flat area) during a time when you can be assured you'll be totally alone. You'd need to set up some kind of markers, four in total, non-coplaner. They would track your movement on the field in 3 dimensions. You might also set up a large circle fence around the outter edge of the field with sticks and string, to make sure you don't run into a tree or a building, since you'll be totally blind once you don your Oculus Rift. Then, put on the Rift, and play the video with your vantage point on the field as the camera angle. You'd be holding in your hand a remote control which can pause, rewind, or fast forward.

You could literally be IN THE GAME, AS IT PLAYS, with the ability to run along side your favorite football player as he runs into the end zone, seeing everything he sees, hearing everything he hears. Or stand in the endzone, and watch your favorite plays from every imaginable angle as though you were really there. Rewind the "video" and watch again from the vantage point of the quarterback, or the referee, or the coach.

There is no higher form of sports immersion. It is Nirvana.

Let me start out by saying I work for a county Sheriff’s Office and will give you some insight or an idea what goes on in an officers/deputies head with any situation (which could pertain to this one)

First, I am a big nerd and have been around computers all my life and the internet so I have seen many police videos online. So let me say first that I agree that there are bad officers out there. Are we all bad? No, but the few ruin it for the many and I’m sorry to see such hate and distrust because of it. The only thing I or any law enforcement can do about that is do our job correctly and wipe the stigma away one person at a time.

Second, when it comes to responding to a 911 call (A call for service), 9 times out of 10 you do not know what you are going to. Dispatch (radio or control whatever moniker you want to use) can only give you the info that the person calling 911 gives them. Say this video instance, that someone from inside the home or a neighbor called 911 because of possible domestic violence going on inside the home. This is usually all the info an officer will get before showing up on scene. Now if the officer approaches the house and tries to make contact and is confronted by a man who has locked his door and is shouting at you, this is going to cause alarm with the office. Not only can he not make contact inside the house to verify if someone is actually hurt or to clear the call as it was made on accident by a neighbor, he has a male subject who is disobeying his commands to answer the door. I’m assuming this officer made a few attempts to make contact before he called for backup (fill units). Now with multiple officers, they will attempt to make contact a few more times. These officers broke down the front door to make contact inside the house. The only reason they would do that is because they saw danger or possible harm to someone inside, or the call made to 911 dictated that there was someone inside the house who was injured or in fear of their life.

To be honest, there are many reasons why responding authorities would break down that door. Maybe the 911 call was from a family member inside the home stating that their brother etc… was off his medications and was threating to hurt himself or others. Maybe he was acting erratic because he was off his meds and police broke down the door due to this individual having a violent past when he stops taking his medications. Maybe there were no meds involved at all and this individual has a violent past so the officers chose to act based on past experiences with said individual.

See, that’s the problem with almost 98% of these videos, WE DON’T KNOW. There are so many possible scenarios that without full disclosure on what went on, what info did the police have, and what were they witnessing on scene. We cannot “Monday night quarterback” these videos. I know videos prior to this have shown officer’s acting in the wrong with all the info available, but that doesn’t give us the right to assume this or others videos are showing officers acting in the wrong. I do not go to work every day planning on hurting people or making false arrests. I have said this many times to people who I have arrested or deal with when they ask “why are you arresting me”, “are you taking that money out of my pocket and stealing it?”, “this is a false arrest!”, my response is your few dollars or property or the statistic of making one more arrest if false is not worth my job. I am not going to make false allegations or take someone’s property that would cause me to lose my job and most importantly my pension. My family relies on me to bring money home so I can provide food and shelter. I would like to think almost every officer/deputy thinks and believes the same. We do what is right, even if during the situation it may seem wrong to others (civilians), we do what we think is right so at the end of the day we can go home to our families and the city/county stays a little safer. That’s my whole day, trying to make the city a better place one call for service at a time, and then get home safe to my family.

I really wish we were appreciated like firemen or military but I know we never will be. Law enforcement only show up when things have gone bad to worse. Nobody ever wants to go to jail. Try having a job where everyone hates you no matter what good you do. Yet we still go to work and put our lives on the line everyday (many of us die each year) so people can sit at home or in there office cubicle and judge videos of our actions. So please try to remember we are not all bad.

Just my .02

So...when is your research going to come out in a peer reviewed journal? Because the CDC's would have.

Perusing bits of articles online is not exactly what I was referring to, nor was it what the NRA spent so much money getting suppressed. Now, if you have a degree in statistical analysis or epidemiology, I'll apologize, but otherwise, you're an armchair quarterback making pronouncements with nothing to back them up.