You'd think so, but he's barely touching it, and it doesn't do anything but squeak. No thrashing around, no running away. If it was eating, it would probably go back to munching between squeaks.

Funny how things change. I don't think these guys were considered metal back then. They were hardcore punk, and were popular with that crowd. It wasn't till Anthrax, Megadeth, Metallica and Slayer that the sound of metal changed with thrash and evolved to include sound like this.

Huh. See, I recognized Ant from Bluesnews but I never thought he was the reason I came to VS. It is all Ants fault. Thanks @ant!

Things were different back in those early Bluesnews days. For me it was Bluesnews, Shacknews, Slashdot, AVault, hanging on the Irc, blabbin on ICQ and then many hours of Quake, blowing peoples heads off listening to thrash. Gives me a headache just thinking about it.

I live in Yarmouth, Maine which is on the coast about 15 miles north of Portland. Based upon the local news, the biggest impact is power loss. Thankfully, I woke up this morning and the coffee pot was waiting for me.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'star trek, oh my, takei, howard stern, internment camps' to 'star trek, oh my, takei, howard stern, internment camps, thrash lab' - edited by messenger

Naw, Not cool man.

It's a sport and a job and a business, not a battle.

When one of these guys goes to work, he kisses his wife and kids and wishes them a good day, just like you and I do. They head off to work, knowing they will be back home soon again and back with their families.

Do you cheer when someone on the job falls, or something falls on them? Some jobs have risks and you know what they are, you just hope it doesn't happen. When someone slips and falls at work, knocks themselves out, it's serious business and everyone is concerned. You don't want to be the guy in the corner cheering and jeering because that's just not cool.

It's not cool on the job and it's bad sportsmanship on the field.
It's one thing to watch sports for the thrashes, smashes and hits, but you hope they get up and dust them selves off. They're athletes, they're tough and they can take a hit. But when you do see they are hurt, you don't cheer and be glad that they are hurt, that just goes over the line of human decency.

I think this ignores the fact that thrashing a and beatings used to be common, and society has always had problems. You're never going to convince me that the way to stop violence is to be violence. All you're saying with that is that you're somehow special and violence is ok only when you're doing it. I just don't agree with that.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I think the larger point is missed though. If all good black men (and good white men for that matter too) showed this level of caring in our culture, then our entire culture would be changed and less violent. This discipline only teaches the kid to rebel because it is rare to be shamed for your actions in America. I remember a mother who had her kid hold a sign on the street about him being a failure in school because he actually failed that grade. Same argument--psychological abuse, teaches them to rebel, better ways to handle it, etc.
Do you honestly think the Uncle hasn't tried talking to the kid? Sitting down and chatting? I personally have talked with thugs in a mentoring kind of way, never above them and never condescending...but they don't respect that because American culture vilifies it. Even the liberal culture takes it for weakness as they scream for heads in passive-aggressive manner.
You think like a rational person, that I think is the biggest problem. Thugs don't.
>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^Sagemind:
Oop's ya, Uncle then - Obviously the guardian though. Or someone who cares about him. I don't think it much matters. That uncle is putting a firm stand down on Gang Banging.
Gangs are some touch crap to get involved in, I don't think the "Uncle" is is being harder on him than gang members would - most likely, he may be saving the kids life.
>> ^robbersdog49:
>> ^Sagemind:
That's a big kid who still respects his father. I think he's gonna be alright.
Gotta get through to them somehow that gangs are not cool.

Nephew? Let me google that for you...
Learning that you gain respect by using violence. That sounds like a great lesson. Sure to keep him out of trouble.


I think the reasons he's doing what he's doing are perfectly valid, he's right to try to turn the kid away from gangs and gang culture. I think the way he's doing it is wrong. He's giving the kid something to rebel against.
If he really respected his uncle, his uncle wouldn't have to beat him like that. That's not respect you're seeing - it's about as far from respect as you can get. It's fear.

Needs more Thrash

One puts me right out. Right until the thrash. Then I'm back.

It's not necessarily that most cops are bad, but the ignorance of some good people (some of whom are "cops") causes them to err against society without their understanding that they are doing so. People see the world differently and make judgements based on their limited perspective. So a cop thrashes a humanbeing that they perceive to be a threat to their ordered view of society. License to fuck up those that threaten their vision of the world. I could easily see myself doing the same thing, because when I'm driving on the highway I hate the world.

Actually went and looked up the law. Because as more evidence comes out, I still thought that a teenager being followed by a much older adult (~10 years) should result in that teenager being covered under the SYG (Stand Your Ground) Law.

So looking at the text. Trayvon could use justfied force, in accordance with 776.012 and deadly force if he met the criteria of 776.012 (1). He was the person SYG, being stalked for unknown reason by a complete stranger. This is ignoring Zimmerman's comments and just looking at his actions. He followed a kid heedless of advice and the standard op of a neighborhood watch - call it in and remove yourself if no crime is taking place.

776.032 should not apply to Zimmerman, because he caused the confrontation by following. There was no defensive nature in stalking someone to the point of them defending themself from you.

776.041 could apply to Zimmerman as he is the clear aggressor (Again lots of people feel that aggressor means you threw the first punch, that's not what the law says, it's all about reasonable belief that you are in danger and I think being stalked = reasonable). The police had to verify that under 776.041 (1) wasn't happening, which I don't think it is easily proven that Zimmerman was commiting a hate crime via the stalking/profiling/shooting. 776.041 (2) only grants immunity if (A) OR (B) are fulfilled. I have not seen that the police have established (A) or (B) were fulfilled.

(A) Did Zimmerman exhaust every reasonable means of escape the danger of Trayvon? Does yelling help count? My argument here is that persistent following and disregard of advice of written material for conduct PLUS verbal command from dispatch shows that he is incapable of acting reasonably. The reasonable act would be to call it in and leave it the fuck alone. Plus he had no reason to be out of his vehicle after Trayvon.

(B) There is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw from conflict. There is evidence he was getting thrashed on the ground by his victim after he forced the confrontation on Trayvon, but not that he tried to de-escalate the encounter by either (A) or (B).

So again, I wonder why Zimmerman was let go when he there is no evidence to suggest he didn't force the encounter by his rash and impulsive decisions to get the people "who always get away". Then you count the "fucking coons", which according to many is "fucking punks" or "fucking goons" because "coon" is something no one under 40 has said in a decade. But coons sounds nothing like punks and goons is what all the kids are saying these days (sarcasm).


I've had this discussion on other sites. And overall people seem to keep preaching that you should apply the evidence and the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked. Following isn't illegal and questioning someone isn't illegal, and calling the police isn't illegal, and saying "fucking coons" isn't illegal, and ignoring advice of dispatch isn't illegal, and using lethal force in defense of yourself isn't illegal, and.....blah. But taken together, it shows that Zimmerman did a lot of stupid shit to provoke an incident that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if a reasonable and rational person had been in his place. And according to the SYG law, Martin was covered under it more so than Zimmerman. Yet far too many people are all about believing the police THIS TIME because......of some reason...whether it be Zimmerman is white, an adult, or is alive to "say so". Yet Martin is unbelievable because he is black, a teen, or hit Zimmerman (many believe unprovoked at that).

Over all, it has a lot of earmarks of a case of road rage. Where Martin does something to upset Zimmerman. Zimmerman follows Martin, violence goes down. In most cases I've heard, the guy who does the following and forces an encounter = guilty. Because it's unreasonable anger/decision making leading up to the event and there may not have been an offense in the first place...especially because there's no evidence of an offense to require that kind of action on the part of the guy following you to your home, work, or whatever destination...getting out and starting shit.


2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I noticed you put your dual barrel 1911 video in metal. metal is not for actual "metal" it is for metal MUSIC -

" For all things metal, including sub-genres, can be found in metal sift.

No rock and roll. No soft rock, or rock of any kind.

Gothic, Doom, Heavy, Thrash, Speed, Death, Black, New, Post,Industrial, Symphonic, Operatic, Power, Viking, Folk, Extreme, Viking,MetalCore and many others can all find a home here.


Now stop reading this, and mosh. "


yea its pretty stupid of a channel name, It depicts actual METAL not metal music.... But I wanted to let you know so you can "Modify details" under the title and change the channel assignments yourself.

** edit- let me express that again, IT IS A COMPLETELY STUPID CHANNEL ANNOTATION THAT DEPICTS WHAT THIS CHANNEL IS ABOUT... Jackass'

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^deathcow:
How long is it proper to mourn the great leader, how many times should I thrash my hands against the escalator in grief?
Until cameras and gov't observers go away?


I hope so. A part of me fears that these poor bastards aren't faking it.

Bear in mind that this is 0.0001% of the North Korean population, I'm sure most aren't like this.

>> ^deathcow:

How long is it proper to mourn the great leader, how many times should I thrash my hands against the escalator in grief?
Until cameras and gov't observers go away?

How long is it proper to mourn the great leader, how many times should I thrash my hands against the escalator in grief?