search results matching tag: responsibilty

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (1)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (16)   

Self-Driving Cars Are Coming Right For Us

Payback says...

I'm pretty sure self driving vehicles are going to be killed off by the legal responsibilty problem.

If you're the only person in your self driving car, and it runs a little old lady over, who's at fault? If you're still going to be at fault, because it's your car, then people won't buy them in any great numbers. If you have to be just as attentive even though you have no control, people won't buy them.

I see self-correcting cars being popular. The car that decides "oh, you're an idiot, I'm gonna save you" and then does so.

Police Protecting and Serving the Shit Out of Skater!

ChaosEngine says...

What the cop did was absolutely wrong. It's possible that he didn't actually mean to run the kid over, but you can't tell given the crappy editing. Either way, he doesn't seem to apologise or take responsibilty.

That said, there's no context, no information and the guy filming sounds like a douche.
Instead of providing any useful information like location, cop name, etc, he's just acting like an idiot.

"Yay, police brutality... here comes my 15 mins of youtube fame".

Ron Paul Newsletters - Innocent or Guilty?

vaire2ube says...

There were newsletters with articles written by Ron Paul.

He knew there were newsletters, he knew the people who put them out.

He took responsibility and confused everyone by doing something no one does -- taking responsibilty... and if that costs him votes, so be it.

I'm not willing to take such a huge leap of faith when there is so much reasonable doubt here, and say he is a racist bigot.

Ron Paul's words and actions speak for themselves. Find HIM actually saying something bigoted, and provide the full source.

You can't do it. I find that interesting. I, however, easily found things that prove there is more here than "Ron Paul is a racist".


You know what? He can answer this question to everyone's satisfaction about as much as Obama and his birth certificate. It's a red herring. It's swiftboating.

Craig Ferguson: no more Britney jokes (crowd laughs anyway)

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'alcoholic, recovery, responsibilty, pity, craig, ferguson' to 'alcoholic, recovery, responsibilty, pity, craig, ferguson, britney spears, venti sherry' - edited by calvados

Cop beats Iraqi war vet

Porksandwich says...

I know of the case where the officer in Toledo Ohio (might be wrong on the city) shot a motorcyclist in the back and severed his spine. They punished him with some jail time, although I don't recall the specifics of it right off the top of my head. Technically he could have hurt the police with his bike or if he had a gun, but the cop over-reacted and paralyzed the guy. While the police officer was found guilty, that does not excuse the department of blame. Perhaps he had shown a history of it, perhaps he was not properly trained.....hell maybe he was going through some stuff at home and they shouldn't have let him out for duty. If they were aware of it and took no action to make sure the guy was fit for duty, they are culpable. And given that they are a government/tax funded organization by and large.....they may not have to pay it out of their own funding if they lose..perhaps they are insured against it. I really don't know on that aspect of it..someone will be paying out on behalf of them whether it's another government branch or an insurance company...

This guy could have been much more aggressive and tried to harm the cops, but they were obviously after him for one reason or another. Something he said, something he did, dunno. Anyway, the place he was in was either some sort of federal building or some kind of high crime apartment complex..that was a whole lot of cameras...and they had police at the entrance. So unless the department hangs him out to dry, and even if they do. Big cop will argue that the building is a high crime zone and he was afraid for his life or some such, and maybe he was. I haven't seen anything where he's permanently harmed the guy, so it's not like he's paralyzed, permanently disfigured, or some other long term disability caused by it (for what I have seen at this point). And sure victim should sue the cop who beat him, but "beating" cop had a partner who did nothing to stop it. So department now has two cops who allow or perform beatings on their suspects. Not a trend to be ignored, especially when it's on camera in so many angles. He can easily sue that department, he may not get 35 mil but he'll get something substantial. And if either cop has a history of this stuff, department is in it thick at that point.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Your post is very...uninformed... The agressive cop will most likely face criminal charges so the department will not hold the brunt of the lawsuit. This is a fairly recent change that came about as departments have been forced to take responsibilty. We had a guy down here pull a DUI woman out of her car (through the window) because she intended to drive off. Of course her door was locked... He lost his job, but did not go to jail. Why? Because she could have killed him. That fact did not prevent his job security... Still, in this case there is no chance for the victim to hurt the police.
Departments do not "feel the hurt" financially, ever. They do feel the brunt of politicians who turn on them and get their leadership fired.

>> ^Porksandwich:
Hell if those cops had been white I think this guy could ask for double what he's seeking at the moment. Betting he gets 5-10 mil though. Big cop should be facing criminal charges, but he'll probably just lose his job and go to a small town in another state to continue on. Little cop should lose his job as well, unless he's reported his partner for anger issues in the past and been ignored...then he might be looking at a pay day too if they decide to take action on him.
Guy getting the shit kicked out of him needs to sue em both after he's done with the big money trial against the department/government, put some financial hurt on them. The guy whipping his legs with that baton after he's cuffed, and focusing on his head at the beginning is bad news. He was looking to cause damage and pain to him and not in a subduing way. In a knock him out or make him beg kind of way.

Cop beats Iraqi war vet

Lawdeedaw says...

>> ^Porksandwich:
Hell if those cops had been white I think this guy could ask for double what he's seeking at the moment. Betting he gets 5-10 mil though. Big cop should be facing criminal charges, but he'll probably just lose his job and go to a small town in another state to continue on. Little cop should lose his job as well, unless he's reported his partner for anger issues in the past and been ignored...then he might be looking at a pay day too if they decide to take action on him.
Guy getting the shit kicked out of him needs to sue em both after he's done with the big money trial against the department/government, put some financial hurt on them. The guy whipping his legs with that baton after he's cuffed, and focusing on his head at the beginning is bad news. He was looking to cause damage and pain to him and not in a subduing way. In a knock him out or make him beg kind of way.


Your post is very...uninformed... The agressive cop will most likely face criminal charges so the department will not hold the brunt of the lawsuit. This is a fairly recent change that came about as departments have been forced to take responsibilty. We had a guy down here pull a DUI woman out of her car (through the window) because she intended to drive off. Of course her door was locked... He lost his job, but did not go to jail. Why? Because she could have killed him. That fact did not prevent his job security... Still, in this case there is no chance for the victim to hurt the police.

Departments do not "feel the hurt" financially, ever. They do feel the brunt of politicians who turn on them and get their leadership fired.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Longer vid here, including more context and what happens next:
The cops continue to beat him and kick him after he's handcuffed and lying in the fetal position on the floor. Give the man his $35 million.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
You mean sadist idiot. The other was a passive idiot. But I am sure you counted the one cop that was there and who was a sadist.
At any rate, my view is to lock up the cop in this one. Fire the other cop if he did not report the abuse.
But the victim wants 35 million dollars from a lawsuit?! I could see if the victim's legs and arms were sawed off with a dull knife, but there is no excuse to give him 35 million dollars of taxpayers' money. Even if his civil rights were violated---if the cop is trained not to act in this manner and the department can prove such, and if the the department can prove they disciplined the cop properly, this greedy hat won't get much. I assume the department will settle out of court because lawsuits cost more than the payout would probably be... Just another sap looking for a free ride.
Thank god for cameras though.



Thanks for the new vid. I did kind of address the lawsuit issue more in the above quote. Call your congressman or woman, sue the officers, and be done with it.

Government Goons Threaten Jurors' Rights Activists

Lawdeedaw says...

You know, I can respect this reply very much. The analogy is just that, similiar but different. It is hyperbole, but along with the flag burning, as we both agree, it puts things in perpective.

The tree is a slippery slope. I find permits completely appropriate because of certain situations that may arise. Say, for example, two groups book one event. One is the skin heads, and they booked their protest to meet with the black panthers... Chances are, there will be blood...

Next is an anti-gay protest/march, right into a gay activist parade (Coupled with floats and driving drag queens in little punch buggies.) This protest by the anti-gays would be completely lawful if there were no permits yet would be disasterous.

Besides, these three proved you can hold a "protest" without a permit. Just deny it is a protest.

I respect your opinion and wish we had valid freedoms in all walks of life just like you do. However, freedom is sometimes our worst enemy. People will always f-things up to where laws have to be made...

See, freedom allows you to walk past a 15 year old girl being raped and do nothing about it (Has happened in America.) It allows you to take a picture with your cell phone of a man who has been shot while trying to protect his family (Has happened.) It allows motorists to yell at someone just run over and dying to, "Get this fucking trash off the god damn road!" Freedom is the antithesis to community, sadly... But would I live anywhere else but a "free" nation? No... I just wish we had more responsibilty towards one another.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).
"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."
This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.
You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.
I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)
The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

Government Goons Threaten Jurors' Rights Activists

Lawdeedaw says...

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)
Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...
Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.

You're forgetting obtuse apologetic wanks.
It's OK because everyone else does it wasn't an acceptable rationale when I was 6 years old.



IT IS NOT OKAY BECAUSE everyone does it. Who said that? Only a moron, idiot, or a douche would think that it's okay. Only someone looking to hate everything about my posts BEFORE they understand my posts would misunderstand my post because they have a vendetta against me and just wish to downvote everything I do...

I never said it was okay in any fashion. Did you read that? Point it out to me AFC... I will wait. The proof of your intellect will be nice to see.

I think cops who break the law should go to jail, be fired and that's that. I never professed anything different. Just like teachers and preachers. Throw them all in jail and hold the same accountability and rage towards them all! Hang em all equally!

You remind me, in a small manner, of George W. Bush... A left George Bush, but a Bush nevertheless... Never apologize! Down with all the insane people of religion! Down with police in general!

This is my pretend conversation with AFC. "Lawdeedaw, your arguments are *Making up lies about arguments* wrong on all accounts. How dare you say stuff that I pretend you speak." Me, "I am outta here. Have fun playing with just yourself man *Or girl, I am not really sure.*"

Government Goons Threaten Jurors' Rights Activists

AnimalsForCrackers says...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS

Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)
Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...
Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.


You're forgetting obtuse apologetic wanks.

It's OK because everyone else does it wasn't an acceptable rationale when I was 6 years old.

Government Goons Threaten Jurors' Rights Activists

Lawdeedaw says...

>> ^marinara:
PROMOTE COPS NEED TO BE PROFESSIONAL NOT THUGS


Just like Teachers (Having sex with students,) and Preachers (Having sex with children,) and politicans (having sex with anything with a vagina) and children (Dope dealing disrespectul shits,) and fathers and mothers and civilians (Omg, don't make me list their actions...)

Maybe you have too high of a responsibilty level for humanity? Just a guess. But blame the cops, if that get's you off...

Woot, glad I am not a cop and the center of the hate of the world. In fact, the only ones hated more than cops are those who believe in god. Lolz.

"Why Bank Of America Fired Me"

enoch says...

winston,
i think we can agree that we have differing philosophies.
that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.
1.in the 1800's a corporation was a temporary venture between different companies to achieve a common goal,the charter was only allowed if it was for the "common good".when the goal was achieved the corporation was dissolved i.e:the brooklyn bridge.
2.after the civil war a few creative lawyers used the newly written 14th amendment,installed to protect newly freed slaves rights,to create limited liability corporations that would not have to dissolve but rather flourish and have rights as a person.even though a corporation is not an actual person.
3.in the the 1960's (if i recall correctly) lawyers once again got creative and lobbied to have the "for the common good" removed from the corporate charter.which in essence took any morality out of the corporate charter leaving profit as it's sole impetus.
4.a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection.why?because the government is for the people and by the people (in theory at least) and with corporation no longer bound by law to do "common good" it is the last line of defense.
a.the reason i state this is because many people echo the "free market" line.what we have now is nothing close to a "free market".when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.
b.i use adam smith and milton friedman as examples to make my point.for both of these men were huge proponents of the free market but for both of these economists plans to work there needed to be an equal playing field.how can we have a free market when international conglomerates own our political leaders?they own the media so they control the message.

we are a republic.what makes us a democratic republic is our right to vote but if the message is controlled the vote will be slanted by that propaganda.the last thing our government,corporations and financial institutions want is an informed citizenry.

there are two more points i would like to make.
1.you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations.
ok.if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie"?
you my friend have been snookered into buying into a polemic paradigm that does not, in reality, exist.the message has permeated your views on people who may think or feel different than yourself.humanity is a far more diverse grouping than TWO ways of thinking,feeling,being.
2.i also saw that you put the responsibilty on the borrower.that in itself is not an entirely incorrect statement BUT according to the GOA it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.i could go into further details but there is plenty of information out there to back this statement up.

in summary:
corporations can,and do,much good but they can also do incredible amounts of damage.the way the system is set up it comes down to cost/ benefit every time and maybe that needs to be changed,but when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice.

on a personal note.winston,you sound like a pretty stand up guy but do not project your integrity onto a corporation.they would eliminate you in a heart beat if it profited them.also...dont be so quick to judge those who you do not know,understand or walked one inch in their shoes.life happens and sometimes it aint pretty.
i enjoy our conversations winston.
till next time...peace.

A simple question (Religion Talk Post)

alien_concept says...

I believe in personal responsibilty and treating others as you expect to be treated, bottom line. I believe in the afterlife, I think we all have an eternal goal. I believe in reincarnation. I don't think that this is it, one life then you're done, that seems like a waste and not enough time to learn everything you could learn. And I also believe that if i'm wrong, who gives a fuck cos if that's the case, when i'm dead i'm dead and I won't know any different anyway

I believe that religion is just a tool to get people to fall in line. At the end of the day, who gives a shit what's the truth, we'll never know until the end and even then we might not. Just be real and honest, don't lie to yourself, know yourself and love yourself, the rest will come along with it.

There ya go, yet another unforeseen outpouring from yours truly. Gah, I need to take a break away from here, my facade is slipping dammit

*wanders off to hug a few trees*

Don't Pressure the Fed - You Will Lose

Craig Ferguson: no more Britney jokes (crowd laughs anyway)

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'alcoholic, recovery, responsibilty, pity' to 'alcoholic, recovery, responsibilty, pity, craig, ferguson' - edited by legacy0100

Olbermann: Waterboarding is Torture

Ryjkyj says...

I think it may be different to be waterboarded as an excercise by people you trust then by your enemies.
That said, I'm not sure how I feel about it either. There are a lot of studies that say that any kind of torture is ineffective in getting any real information.
I think tha one thing that it comes down to is documentation. Let the person applying techniques take full responsibilty for their actions. That way, if it helps, good for them. If not... (insert punishment here)
It seems like a little accountability might be in order when it comes to this subject. That way, at least people would have to really think about what they were doing.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon