*quality takedown of Faux News' inevitable hypocrisy.

kumquat

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Hah. You mean this cop out?

"It's okay to vertically body slam a happy sober man into concrete, but goddamnit it is NEVER acceptable to horizontally body slam a sad drunk woman into concrete!"

You're clearly full of shit old lady.

And another prime example of how we humans compartmentalize the most awful shit in order to justify our indefensible positions.

..santorum stain..

>> ^bareboards2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MaxWilder" title="member since November 7th, 2007" class="profilelink">MaxWilder, the fact that she ended up bleeding and disoriented, with chipped teeth, and the cop retired rather than being fired makes this different from a vid where young men are bellowing loudly and healthily as standard take-down procedures are used.
Slamming anyone into a concrete wall is not standard takedown procedure.
Thanks for asking a coherent question without ascribing meanings and intentions I don't hold.
Nooky for you, young man, nooky for you!

@MaxWilder, the fact that she ended up bleeding and disoriented, with chipped teeth, and the cop retired rather than being fired makes this different from a vid where young men are bellowing loudly and healthily as standard take-down procedures are used.

Slamming anyone into a concrete wall is not standard takedown procedure.

Thanks for asking a coherent question without ascribing meanings and intentions I don't hold.

Nooky for you, young man, nooky for you!

Ok before we start taking sides on this I'd like to point out a few things.

-She was not "dragged to the ground". He was pulling her laterally and she didn't move her feet... she fell over, and not even violently. I was expecting a takedown from the description.

-Unless there is a news story not linked here, we don't know why she was being arrested.

-We can't see what the second detained person did since she wasn't in view of the camera before Tubby went after her.

I'm sure I'll catch shit for pointing these things out, but it amazes me that so many people on this site upvote videos criticizing unsupported religious beliefs and then proceed to accept unknown factors in police videos as fact.

Maybe the cop was abusing his power... or maybe not. I'd rather know more about the situation that waste time getting pissed off over assumptions.

^cosmovitelli:If you can't see how letting people get body slammed for abstract localised unspecifiable silent body movements can't lead to getting dragged off to jail for dropping gum then you need to start hiding your gum.




*sigh* again, no one was getting slammed for dancing. The cops werent running around saying "hey, that dude is dancing, crossface chicken wing that motherfucker! ya! DX for life!! SUCK IT" and then slamming their crossed arms on their crotch.

the only "bodyslam" that took place (in the video at least, the rest is speculation) was on kokesh (pretty sure it was him). If you can objectively watch that video and then with a straight face insist he was slammed for dancing you are out of your fucking mind. He was being placed under arrest and then repeatedly and forcefully resisted arrest. THAT is what he was taken down for. The arresting officer gave him two "last" warnings before the takedown but all you saw was the bodyslam huh?

if you can objectively watch the video and then with a straight face insist that those arrested were not disturbing the peace and were acting civilly then you are out of your fucking mind.

their first warning even was "if you demonstrate by dancing" but all you heard was dancing huh?

officer calmly and politely explains to them they are in violation of the demonstration ordinance and gave them ample warning to knock it off. what do they do? argue the semantics of dancing with them? continue to demonstrate and then act outraged that they got arrested? MLK would be proud

the fact that everyone keeps latching on to the dancing aspect and willfully ignores the fact that they were demonstrating shows a certain selectiveness of what we are seeing here. Ive been trying to be as objective as possible in viewing both of these videos. but we see what we wanna see huh?

Did you read the part where all forms are "transitional/intermediate" forms? "True ancestor"? Evolution doesn't work that way.

Also, there are Precambrian fossils, but why should a YEC even care?

Typical how you totally ignored the Professor's takedown of the video's arguments, to pick on Coyne's rant against IDiots.

I have an avatar of Obama playing with his Playstation during the Bin Laden Takedown and I approve of this message.

>> ^Gallowflak:

@Psychologic
Making particular assumptions about the nature of an event like this at all seems retarded. To construct a scenario that would justify the coppers' violence is groveling and obsequious.
Yeah, there could very well be a good reason. Based on the history of police brutality in America, the weight of evidence is on the other side, which is why the "he might've had a gun! also it might've been a stolen wheelchair!" seems absurd and dense, much moreso than it would be to make the assumption that they're just violent cocks.


Past abuses by other cops have nothing to do with this event, though past abuses by these cops would be relevant (I don't know their history).

If someone believes that no cop should ever treat any person like this for any reason then I'm fine with that... such a belief doesn't require any knowledge of the events leading up to this confrontation.

As far as why the cops felt the need for a forceful takedown, I have no idea. They apparently thought it was necessary. Did they have a good reason or were they just being assholes?

I've known several cops that would take someone down like this simply because the person was being disrespectful. I've also known others who would only do so if their safety were being threatened. Which is the case in the video?

Pointing out that there are ways the man could possibly have been a threat is not the same as saying he was a threat. It's really ok to admit there is no way of knowing simply by watching this video.

It's funny you mention that because the officer on the left DOES actually use technique in his takedown. watch the leg sweep. TAKE THAT YOU CRIPPLED BITCH KEEYAII

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...

True. Which is why I said mobility issues, and not paraplegic.
On the other hand, we might argue that the twitch was actually an attempted leg sweep. Good thing those peace officers have been studying their martial arts self defense techniques!

what the fucking fuck? did he have lasers on his chair or something? i could see a takedown for that

M'eh - a lot of the griping about this cop is 20/20 hindsight. Let's look at the things that the cop DIDN'T know as he arrived there on the scene...

1. Didn't know the two females were related.
2. Didn't know the girl walking away was a teenager.
3. Didn't know whether the girl walking away was drunk, on drugs, or whatever.
4. Didn't know if the girl walking away was armed or not.
5. Didn't know who in the situation was 'the reason' they were called.

So all he really knows is (A) there is an altercation and (B) one person involved in the altercation is trying to leave the scene. I've looked at the vid in slo-mo and it is possible the hard takedown was entirely accidental. To me it looks like he charged at the suspect and then sort did a half-stutterstep / goofy stumble when he misjudged the distance and with is arm already up it just took the chick down hard.

I am never in favor of violence except as a last resort, so I'm not trying to justify such a takedown. However, it seems to me that there is a lot of unnecessary fingerpointing, and other arm-chair generalship about the cop, his motives, and all that other stuff.

Regarding whether or not the mission was to kill him... based on the information we've been fed, isn't the answer clearly yes? To accept that they would've taken him alive if possible, wouldn't we also have to also accept that this elite SEAL team was incapable of a non-lethal takedown? Tranquilizer dart, gas, taser, shoot him in the kneecaps, Vulcan neck pinch, whatever. It's not like he took cyanide at the first sign of trouble. They shot him in the head.

I'm pretty sure that this is the fake "fan made" trailer that the studio started doing takedown notices about a week or two for.

Can someone confirm for sure if this is that trailer of if suddenly they released this? It looks very familiar and similar to the fake one?

Morganth posted the same video last week but it went dead
http://videosift.com/video/Harry-Potter-Deathly-Hallows-Pt-2-Featurette

ARTICLE:
Muggles the world over were quivering with excitement on Monday (April 18) when an alleged new "first peek" trailer for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" debuted online. Just one problem: It was a fake.

After the trailer was picked up by several sites -- from fan blogs to legitimate news gathering organizations -- Warner Bros. had the footage yanked off YouTube (though it's still available elsewhere) and issued this terse statement:

"Warner Bros. is not pulling the 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2' trailer. The alleged 'trailer' is not a trailer. It's a fan-created piece that uses the studio's intellectual property in an unauthorized way."

Since the movie hits theaters in July, we expect a trailer for *real* fans -- you know, the kind that don't get so excited about a hyped-up blockbuster that they take the initiative to create a tribute of sorts -- soon.
http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/04/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2-trailer-a-fake.html

*quality takedown.

Just noticed this message and updated the video. Thanks for your help!

In reply to this comment by radx:
The fail clip was reuploaded by a few others after the copyright takedown.

This one works.