Let me get this straight. A Democrat admits to smoking pot and Republicans lose their shit. A Republican admits to psychotically attempting to stab "a friend" for changing a radio station and this somehow is a reason people should vote for him?

OK, that's a large change from your original post where you limit the death sentence to the mentally ill.

Wow. I'm certainly glad people like you don't make societies rules then. Death sentence for a simple threat?!? Sweet zombie Jesus! That's EVERYONE at some point.
What if you threaten to stab someone who's trying to stab you? You threatened, so you die?
What if I claim you threatened me to get the state to kill you? You can't prove you didn't, so you die?
What if you just hit them with a stick? You still get executed, right?
What if you turn a corner and accidentally stab someone? You still get executed for being unsafe, right?
What if you just push someone? You still get executed because that's also violence, right?
Or is it ONLY if you use a knife? Your position is so odd and illogical to me that that's a reasonable question to ask. Exactly where is your line where violence is met with death? At what age do you implement it?
I don't think you thought through the full implications of your 'idea'.

People in general are unpredictable. Period. Those that are assumed to not be mentally ill, yet are still prone to violence are MORE dangerous and unpredictable than those we know to be wary of, not less.

I don't think you've actually ever deigned to speak with a custodian, considering your assumptions about them. I would counter that most take great pride in their work, work that's a necessity, that pays well, and does not require extensive training or school, only a willingness to work hard and an ability to be conscientious about your work.
Your idea, to ask if they would like a cushier job with the same pay, is patently ridiculous and applies to ANY job....'Would you like to work much less in a far cleaner environment with less stress for the same money?'...DUH...who's not going to say "yes" to that deal? If you asked them would they quit their job for another job they might actually GET at it's pay rate, I would suggest you'll likely find 99% would say "no fucking way, are you stupid?!? I would need to work 3 fast food jobs to equal one custodial job". That goes for those with and without degrees, BTW. A diploma is no guarantee of a job in your field, and a job in your field is no guarantee of happiness.

Do you not see that, while you likely do greatly appreciate their work, you are denigrating them and the job they do? It's like you think only 'untouchables' should do that kind of work, and they're all really sub-humans so that's OK, but a real person would/should never stoop to 'cleaning' after others.
Just wow.

EDIT: In a way, your mindset is the reason why custodial work pays so well, so I guess I should really thank you.

@Jerykk
capital punishment much?
look,i get it,eye for an eye,choices have consequences,violence should be responded to with violence.

i do not necessarily agree with that premise but i can understand why someone would adopt that premise, but YOU....you take it to a whole new level.

"You threaten to stab someone, you are executed"

really?
you really feel that this is a justifiable stance?
in your world merely threatening violence should be countered with actual execution?

have you even considered the gravity and weight of what you are proposing? the implications alone are horrifying.

i struggle to understand your commentary.
you consistently seem to promote an extremely fascist worldview.i wonder if you are even aware of this facet.

I think you're missing the point. I propose that we execute anyone that poses a threat to the general public. That means anyone who commits a violent crime (or threatens to commit a violent crime) regardless of their mental state. People who are mentally ill tend to be less predictable (making them a greater threat in general) but the punishment should be the same regardless. You stab someone, you are executed. You threaten to stab someone, you are executed. You attempt to stab someone, you are executed.

As for being a janitor, most people don't want to clean toilets or mop floors even if they get paid to do so. It's a last resort when nothing better is available. If you took a survey of janitors and asked how many would rather have a different job even if it paid the same, I'm pretty sure most say that they want a different job. Janitors are definitely a necessity and I appreciate their work but I would never want to actually be one myself.

WHAT?!?
So, you must also think that battered women 'caused this to happen' by not capitulating to their husbands/boyfriends, huh?
You must think those innocent people released from Guantanamo 'caused this to happen' by not making up some terrorist activities to admit to when being tortured?

Sitting quietly is not a crime that requires violence...EVER. The disruption this has caused is exponentially greater than the disruption caused by not leaving class. The proper thing to do would be 1. talk to her and explain that by not following the officers instructions, she's forcing them to expel her and she won't ever be returning to class after today and 2. if that doesn't work, call backup. This bodybuilder cop, Ben Fields, is well known as "Officer Slam" at the school, this is not the first time he's been sued over excessive force, not even the first time he was caught on camera, but this time he was caught strangling and throwing children across the room by the neck.

There's absolutely no excuse for the violence from that officer. They are now trying to claim she hit the cop so his actions were OK...but want us all to ignore that she was flailing and accidentally touched him only AFTER being lifted by the neck with another hand reaching between her legs. In my opinion, it's fine to stab anyone doing that to you when you were simply sitting. Stab them in the eye with your pen...in self defense. I think I might have attacked that douchebag beating up a girl if it had been in my class....and probably paid for it later, but that's better than just sitting by and watching. I couldn't live with myself if I just sat and watched that BS.

Again. I hope she gets paid, and he never has another dime to his name, because she's going to win this lawsuit big time.

WTF?!?
Impersonating an officer is a felony. Intentionally causing emotional distress is actionable in many states.

I really hope we get to see the video where one of these clowns gets shot, or baseball batted to the head, stabbed, etc. They deserve anything that happens to them while playing this game...IMO.

I'm right there with @lucky760, screw these people. Someone's going to have a heart attack and then they'll be murderers. Stop this crap before then.

To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

He was really lucky he didn't get stabbed.

No, no, my moral compass is right in tune with that of the society, it's just that if you stare at me wrong I'll murder you. That's all. Not much of a difference at HEY ARE YOU STARING AT ME? Oh sorry, I have astigmatism so I can't see too good. Either that or EVERYONE IS LOOKING AT ME!!! AHHHHH!!!

I mean, hey I am all for peace and harmony, you just have to STOP. Stop it!! WHY WON'T YOU STOP IT!!!!!!!!! /STAB

Now explain copper wire finger stabbings!

He could have backed away, or closed his door. Is that so hard?
The title said "shuffling in his direction", it did not portray him as a person randomly shuffling around shot for no reason.
You said it in the next sentence...the officer ALLOWED him to get too close, he had options to not let that happen that don't include homicide. That's the point I, and the Mexican government, wish to make clearly. There WERE other, non deadly options that keep the officer safe, they simply didn't try any of them and went with deadly force as a first option when verbal commands didn't work.

Stabbed or shot him with WHAT? His hands were empty, and in fact he was totally unarmed, and too drunk to win a fist fight.

Yes, moving towards the officer can be seen as threatening, but a threat that is easily avoided without using firearms in numerous ways, like walking back or closing his door, either of which would keep him 'safe'.

HOLY SHIT!!! Now just putting your hands down is a shooting offence! I'll simply disagree on that, and hope I'm not alone.

I'm flabbergasted that the officer is being seen as doing the right thing by people here for shooting instead of retreating to a safe distance, people who's opinion I value, no less, not just our local cop excuser. I watched again to see if I see what you guys do, and I just can't see it. I must admit, it seems I'm a minority in that...at least in this country.

I guess people better do exactly as the officer says, and if you have two officers telling you to do opposing things, (for example- "FREEZE" AND "GET ON THE GROUND"....which do you do?) well, you're hosed, because one of them can shoot you for not obeying, making you 'threatening'.
Oh.

I agree with lucky760 here. This guy was not a compliant person shot for no reason.

I'm someone who thinks cops should be held to extremely high standards and I've commented such on other cop videos on videosift. But in this case I'm not really sure what else the cop could have done. He needed to engage the guy physically. He was walking toward him. That might sound innocent enough but the closer he got to the cop the more dangerous he became.

Even if there was a real language barrier and the guy didn't understand what he was being told this is just obviously not OK. He wasn't behaving right, maybe he was high or whatever but he was a physical threat to the officer.

Portraying him as just a person shuffling around being shot for no reason ignores the fact that he was shuffling right up to an officer who had his weapon drawn. If the officer allowed him to get too close he could have attacked the officer. Even if the officer got a clean shot adrenaline could have driven the guy on a step or two and he could have stabbed or shot the officer. That distance separating them is important. Moving toward the officer in this situation is a threatening act, regardless of where your hands are.

The officer did not shoot on numerous occasions when the guy put his hands down, an act which under the circumstances could legitimately be seen as a threat to his safety. He waited until the guy had gone way too far and got way too close. This wasn't a trigger happy cop out to back a Mexican, it was an unlucky cop in the wrong place.

It is HORRID. Agreed. But I clawed my eyes out and stabbed pencils in my ear drums so it's fine now. It's... everything will be better when we're dead.

This woman's rape (while undoubtedly horrific) does not in anyway trivialise someone else's bad experience. Just because you were stabbed doesn't make the time I was beaten up any better.

Besides, you could argue the other direction too and be just as wrong. Why raise money for this one woman. There are probably millions of women worldwide who have suffered much worse.

It's a stupid, stupid argument.

And just in case the hard of thinking brigade show up, the victims choice of career has absolutely no bearing on the trauma she's suffered.

The explanation I heard was thus:
They didn't want to go with red, the tradtional Labour colour, because they wanted to make a statement that they were trying to reach out to women and break from the norm. So they went with pink, which is close to red but not red (symbolic of a change or break from the mainstream), is not affliliated with any of the other major parties, and is a bright, warm colour. Clearly they are still guilty of being so out of touch they couldn't see how it might be perceived, but I can sort of believe that the thinking wasn't purely " girls like pink, lets make a pink bus".

This all came to pass because of polls showing that voter turnout for women is abysmal (frankly I can't blame them...) so here is Labour making a clumsy stab to try and engage with half of the voting public.

I think it is silly to deny that men and women care more about different things. Is it patronising to focus on education, or childcare, or care for the elderly (all things women ranked higher than men) in order to try and score votes, or is perhaps the greater sin to simply ignore any difference and continue the existing dialogue which seems to be turning women away from politics in droves?