None of this has much to do with feminism, or disagreements, or for that matter anti-feminism. It's a question of whether public/semi-public social media should be treated the same as, for example, your phone, or your door. Calling somebody repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) against their wishes can qualify as harassment in most countries. Coming to their residence or place of work most definitely can. Even if the content of the calls is not threatening, it can still be harassment, which is how you get a restraining order in place. So, regardless of whether you 'disagree with feminists' or not, the question is if you can successfully sue someone for harassment if they take steps to spam your social media repeatedly, against your wishes. The fact that the plaintiffs call themselves feminists and the defendant calls them dumb cunts [edited for accuracy:] hateful bitches is, in this description, an unnecessary smoke screen to feed the myth of MRA victimization on the internet.

In my country you probably couldn't sue successfully for this, and I doubt you could in Canada either. I also think the plaintiffs seem like absolute fucking shits on twitter and I hope they lose. Possibly they could get a limited restraining order against him, though that might require a bit of sophistication on the part of the court to enforce through twitter.

Also, whether or not the plaintiffs were also harassing him doesn't automatically invalidate their suit, but it might rightfully be a mitigating circumstance for his behavior - either because it demonstrates that they were actively engaging with him (even if indirectly), and didn't actually fear for their 'psychosocial security', or because it demonstrates that they were creating a real negative public impact on him, and he had a valid reason for trying to engage them in the way he did.

I don't know why internet lawyering is such a dirty word, it's so much fun.

The only thing I'll say is: Hey, stupid people. Don't even feign a strike in a police officer's direction. You're very likely going to get your shit fucked up because the officer has all the power and is probably not able to wield that power as anything more than a lowly animal.

Such officers so incapable of restraining their superiority/god complex should not be in a position of total physical control over suspected criminals who, by virtue of the fact that they've been taken into custody, may be likely to be disobedient little shits.

I work in psychiatric services where we regularly have erratic/violent/scared individuals - often who can't be reasoned with and it's so rare that we would have to restrain. By virtue of being arrested a person is in a heightened state of arousal - someone in cuffs who kicks out a little after being thrown in a chair violently is not a threat and the risk of throwing the the floor are significant - it's not that hard to kill someone by sitting on their chest.

I know several bar bouncers (not trained police officers) who have told me that any 5 trained men can restrain any one man, no matter what.

They should have just cuffed him and thrown him into a squad car.

End of story.

It's like a restraining bolt, for cats.

Looks fairly restrained and carefully performed, actually.

The damage was secondary to getting the obstructions moved out of the way. No punitive damage, in that the excavator could have squashed them flat and piled them up if the operator had wanted to.

Secretly? If I had the Money, I'd do that all the time and live on TV. If I wasn't able to restrain myself so well, I'd leave messages with my key on every car parked like that. I had to enter my car through the passenger door one time too much.

Wow surprisingly restrained and pro for funny or die.
IS funny or die ...getting older?

Open or closed hand, there is no excuse for that...

1. Proportionate and appropriate use of force. She is barely a threat out of cuffs. In cuffs, she's effectively helpless. Restrain her and add attempted assault to her charges.

2. Didn't report the incident, a sure sign that someone knows what they did was wrong... If everything was kosher and he was reacting appropriately, he would have reported the incident, right?

It was definitely a punch and kick to the ribs of an inebriated woman who was restrained in handcuffs. She did attempt to kick him, but the return force used was wildly inappropriate. This officer also beat up an older man half his size on a traffic stop, causing multiple lacerations to his scalp. If you watch the related cnn video, you can see he is basically a juiced up thug who gets his jollies on beating people and taking buddy photos with them.

It's just becoming apparent, to me at least, that for every good officer we have it seems like we have 9 bad ones. A horrible ratio, to be sure.

Does american police training consist of 3 months of reading judge dredd comics? It's been a while since i've seen police academy, so i've forgotten what their training is really like.

You need to stop people in your custody from trying to hurt you or others, but you have a duty of care to the person you have restrained whether you like that person or not. This isn't judge dredd, and the first person to apprehend someone doesn't get to decide who deserves what punishment.

And not one *uck was given about the horse.. it could have just as easily run off and they'd have a run-away horse case on their hands. Not one deputy even attempted to restrain the horse or move it away from the fight.

Oh.. and as im typing this near the end they say one deputy was KICKED by the horse... they all should have been.

No attempt to secure the stolen property in a stolen property crime.. just straight to the beating.

Turning the camera off made it seem like they knew the amount of force being used was excessive. With that said, if you read the news story from the link posted above, it did say the suspect had a loaded gun on his person. Considering that this vehicle matched the description of the one they were looking for AND this person resisted getting out of the vehicle (at least it seemed that way) AND the person had a gun, it's easy to see why the cops were being aggressive. I'm not saying it's right to kick an obviously restrained suspect in the head and body or turn off a camera that is there for the officers' protection as much as the public's. That's behavior is definitely questionable.

"teaches right behavior"....
Do you mean like owning slaves, murdering infidels and heretics, raping women, crusading, inquisitioning, conquesting, etc.... Yeah, great book of morality, and wonderful moral behavior exhibited by it's believers...not.

It's only because people fail to follow the religious ideas wholly that religion is tolerated at all. If people acted like the fanatical Muslims, taking every word as law and acting on it, Christianity would have been outlawed in the US at the inception of the country (indeed, many of the founding fathers seemed to want this, at least in part). The 3 major western religions all require 'holy war' to spread the belief system if read honestly.

What he said is that only psychotics need religion to restrain them from immorality. If you aren't psychotic, religion harms you more than helps you.

Any catholic hospital would qualify as one opened by psychotics, since one of their 10 important rules is "no statues of anything", yet they do nothing but worship statues and icons. They institutionally ignore any 'rule' that's inconvenient, and insist on absolute adherence to any that further their current goals, which may change 180 deg tomorrow. Sure sounds psychotic to me.

Awful lot of hospitals named after saints, as well as a large number of schools. Religion teaches empathy for other people, it teaches right behavior, it teaches the ten commandments, it teaches the golden rule.

Just because people fail to follow those ideas wholly you condemn everyone who believes in any of it.

To replace it you bring in some philosophical sophistry that has nothing to back it up unless it is to say that there is a spark of Godliness behind it all.

It is good that we can agree that people have an innate sense toward empathy but it's an empty box.

All you have to say is that psychotics are restrained by religion, ipso facto, anyone who believes in God is a psychotic.

I don't know too many psychotics who open hospitals, care for the sick/infirm/dying, educate the masses.