This video does not show the beginning of the event.

And this is why the officer should have a small video camera on his uniform. That way he would be able to show the entire encounter to defend his actions.

(AND, knowing that his own actions WILL be recorded, and reviewed if there is an incident, it might encourage the officer to behave better while on the job...)

This is unbelievable. In this video some PEOPLE are stopping some other PEOPLE from giving food to hungry PEOPLE. Did they get so obsessed with their shiny blue uniform that they forgot that they were people with freedom to choose whether to let hungry people eat or not?

I feel like if i'd been one of the police there, i'd have had a sudden existential crisis - what the fuck have i been convinced to do here? I'm here in an authoritative capacity to stop desperate, hungry people from getting access to food. Shit, i'd have tried to organise a mass human shield around them.

I think everyone should take 5 seconds and just think exactly how this came to pass - from the law being written by the guys we endorsed, right down to the chain of command commanding these people apparently raised to obey orders unflinchingly - and then collectively feel embarrassed about it.

Sure, this may have been avoided if the proper 'housing'(?) could be arranged and it may have been inexpensive, but did it really fucking need to when it was going more smoothly than anything the government could have arranged?

Yep. Assassination is what I call that. There's absolutely no way any SANE person can excuse that, the police had every opportunity to safely use non lethal force, but chose to use only lethal force, enough lethal force to kill about 75 people from what I heard, maybe more than that.
This was 2012. Any word on what's happened since then? Was this Albuquerque? (I'm guessing based on his football uniform, and the fact that they have a history of killing the mentally ill)

He'll get counseling if he needs or even wants it. Canada is pretty good that way. They'd make sure of it just due to the media shitstorm that would happen if it didn't.

Honestly though, if he had been an on-duty, uniformed police officer, he'd be on paid leave pending completion of the investigation. The fact he's back shows his honour, sense of duty, and knowledge of the political consequences of showing (or not) a "stiff upper lip".

I know it's supposed to be funny and they're a bunch of little football players in uniform so it's not like they're being badly hurt...

but watching this makes me feel sad.

I think it's not just seeing what's happening to them, but that it's being played for the world in slow motion to mock and laugh at those innocent tiny kids whose fun little celebration was spoiled.

One of the worst things in the world for me is even the very thought of an innocent child's fun being suddenly turned into sadness, or, worse, pain or, worst, tragedy. So seeing it actually happen hurts my heart a little.

I agree, but to play devil's advocate here are two counterpoints:

1) The YT-1300 was designed as a freighter, and the Millennium Falcon only became a capable warship after pretty extensive modification by Lando and Han Solo. So, perhaps some of those flaws can be justified with "not really intended to be a combat vessel" rationale.

2) Or even ignoring that, shielding seems to be established as being much more important than armor plating around wires and pipes in the Star Wars universe. TIEs (at least the lower models) have no shielding whatsoever, and the only thing that separates them from just being pure cannon fodder is size, agility, and numbers.

But even in medium fighters that DO have shields, it seems like they at best protect against a very low number of glancing hits -- we see X and Y wings with shields go down after 1-2 hits a LOT in the movies. In that scenario, I guess there isn't a whole lot of need to slow yourself down with heavy armor plating that might let you survive another hit if you are lucky. Kinda like how modern police officers and soldiers don't wear heavy steel plate armor; they either wear kevlar (think "shields") or nothing but clothing/uniform.

So, maybe the larger ships in Star Wars stock up on shields and aren't too fussed about physically covering up systems -- once the shields are down you're pretty much toast anyway.

If you only change 'black person' to 'punk' or 'douche' or even 'thug' (I see no reason to be racist, not all 'knockout game' players are black by far, and he didn't say ''call the white cops") I could agree with all of that...and it would make a better tune than 'black person'. Write it.
As to even good cops being turned into pricks by dealing with shitheads, it sounds reasonable, but as Mom used to say, that's a reason not an excuse. They (you) should be offered counseling as part of your compensation package to help with that...or should spend time each week out of uniform 'serving' the community (like at a soup kitchen, cleaning parks of needles, volunteering somewhere), they'll get to see a much better side of people that way and be reminded we're a single community and no one benefits from 'us VS them', it's better for all if it's just "us".
But yeah, that also probably won't happen.
Progress?

@lantern53

When you have a country were it is acceptable for SWAT teams equipped with more weapons and body armor than an average soldier in your national military to kick down doors and throw flashbangs into people's homes on the "suspicion" that a small amount of drugs may be in the house, or to intimidate peaceful protestors by raising their weapons towards them, when it is acceptable for the NY city police department to conduct secret surveillance on anyone within three states who happens to be a Muslim in the name of counter-terrorism activities, when it is acceptable to taze people simply because they don't provide identification upon demand, when it is acceptable for the police to go to the wrong house to serve a warrant and shoot the dog that happens to live there then I think it is only natural that people are going to hate on the police. The police in the US (particularly the LAPD) have earned the hate they receive ten times over in my opinion for a lot of the reasons he states in this video.

Like he said, the problem is that you are telling a group of people that they are there to enforce the law. Which isn't a problem until it dawns on some of them that they occupy a position that allows them to actually act above the law and get away with it.

Every cop should have to have a camera attached to their uniform that is recording at all times while they are on duty and that video should be available for a civilian oversight committee to review. The committee should have the ability to punish or fire officers who overstep their authority or misbehave on the job. And the videos should be public record so we can see both the good cops and the bad.

It's absolutely based in reality. I can say that with 100% certainty, because that's how the NZ police do it every day. They don't even carry guns*.

I know all of this, because a friend of mine recently became a cop and he's had to deal with situations like this.

The US is blinded by their obsession with guns. They're useful tools but they should be the last resort.

And while I don't believe that officers should be trained to get themselves killed, there is a level of risk that is inherent to the role of policing and they must be prepared to accept that.

I am not one of the rabid anti-police libertarians on the sift. If you look at my comment history you'll see that I support police more often than not. They have an incredibly hard job, but it should be a hard job. When you give some one the states monopoly on force, I expect them to be held to a high standard. In a civilised nation, "shoot first" is not an acceptable policing practice.


*they have guns available in the car and there is a special Armed Offenders Squad, but front-line uniformed police don't as a rule carry side-arms.

Not at all convinced by the ID here. The spider in the video doesn't look a lot like a brazilian wandering spider. The video is from brazil it seems, but they have a lot of other spiders there too.

Wandering spiders are proportionally very different to the spider in this video, and colouration is different too. The one in the video above seems a uniform dark brown/black colour, without any of the bands on the legs that would help ID a wandering spider.

Have a look at this video of an actual wandering spider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noLn2gK3fzY#t=50

Spinning the iphone - it is possible to do, i've played with that effect with a tv remote as a kid, trying to flip it over once and catch it. That's when i found out about Dzhanibekov effect. I think that basically more mass lies along the plane in which it is spinning, and it either isn't balanced or isn't precisely stable as it's released, and so there is a net centrifugal force acting on the phone in the direction that it begins to rotate (if you don't do it right), gently at first but the further it goes into its spin the more it reinforces itself and it flips. (that's what i remember from childhood, but the wikipedia article itself is accurate so double check) I'd like to investigate this effect in space/vacuums though, it's still interesting.

The water one - this is just one scientific opinion and i imagine many exist, but i can't find any true source on this. My immediate reaction to his explanation about the uniform electric field is to consider the field projected by the cup - prior warning simplifications are rife. Approximate the electric field emitted by the negatively charged cup as being normal to the surface at any point on the surface. You bring that field towards the water, and if there is indeed a more positively charged side, then it would experience a force in an electric field. We can safely believe that the water molecules will fall facing in all directions (fluid dynamics ensuring a nice distribution of particles within the stream allowing us to believe that), and any that are not pointed exactly parallel to the electric field will experience some kind of force. However water can also have a meniscus, which might encourage the water to "stick together" a bit and head towards the negative source, but i'm not sure about that in a flowing/falling context.

The fundamental point here is that an electric field is introduced to the water which responds by moving towards the source of the field. He hasn't shown me anything to doubt the standard explanation, and i don't understand why he thinks that the molecule wouldn't experience a force if it is as described. Without using electric charge to explain it, and i'm quite certain it isn't magnetic (the only other associated phenomenon), he's basically saying it's magic?

@robbersdog49 got the cane and cereal ones, and the teabag one is of course just the fact that the burning teabag heats nearby air, hot air rises which causes cooler air to rush in from the side and below, which causes a bit of an upwards current of flowing air, and when the remnant of the teabag is light enough, it is lifted by that force. As it burns lower, there's less fuel (paper) and it's less hot, so the force drops, so it only happens when it's nearly ash and very light. The last piece almost doesn't make it.

that is seriously ridiculous looking. The uniform, the ponpons on the shoes, the movements. Just terrible.

Related Posts: Basrats and Bereta: Construction Cat Calls
I found that especially funny because of these "dress like a slut, get treated like one" type of responses here.
I know, the word "slut" isn't nice and I'm not good a political correctness (I actually loathe it) but maybe the problem is not with the word but with our associations with it.
You see, the problem I have starts with the idea that there's something wrong with sluts. As a man (and therefore certainly a pig, at least in my case) I enjoy sluts tremendously. They are women who share, at least in general terms, my sexual morals and enjoy their sexuality as much as I do (theirs and mine). I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, I dislike STDs as much as anybody but being slutty doesn't mean automatically being careless, just more at risk. Maybe I just don't understand men who like their female sex partners to be well behaved little princesses. They either prefer very conservative sex (you know, when blowjobs seem kinky) or they are strangely rapey. Maybe it's just our manly discomfort of loosing control over female sexuality.
Then there is this notion of dressing "like a slut". Sure, there is unappropriate clothing. I wouldn't go to a funeral in my Spongebob Squarepants pyjamas. But why is it in todays times, in the western world that is covered in billboards full of women in bikinis, so wrong to walk the street dressed in your best "sexy hooker" halloween costume? Are these women on the billboards, the ones who strike sexualized poses to sell me beer, dressed like sluts too? Is a bikini "slutty clothing"? I'm pretty sure my mom once wore one and yours probably too. As long as the important parts are covered, it should be fine.
The real issue, though, is the idea that anybody has a right to comment on that. Loudly.
If I have a right to comment sluttly clothing, can I also comment on other clothing that isn't the percieved norm? Do I get to shout ghost and terrorism related jokes at women in burkas? Can I yell at cops to come and strip-search me because I have a thing for uniforms? Should I yell at anyone with unfortunate clothing choices? "Hey lady, don't shake that ass, it's too fat for these pants! I don't want the Blob to escape!"
No, it's only sexually provocative clothing that gets these reactions. And that's why I like the video above so much, because it shows what kind of comments you get. It's never "young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!" nor "What a beautiful skirt, is it silk?"
It is always amused, approving and at the same time disrespectful and sexually dominant. Often gleefull and too often actually misogynistic.
These are never positive comments and even if the words seem positive, they're harassment. It's nothing but sexual harassment. Otherwise these men would be yelling "Young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!"
Dress like a slut, get treated like one, that's just a lame excuse for men trying to control female sexuality.
Personally, I think if you dress like a slut, I should treat you with respect and kindness. Because I want sluts to like me. I'm a pig.

Not exactly a near prohibition, more of a "demonstrate a need to own this firearm". Also, not quite a confiscation, more of a buyback... There are now more legal firearms in Australia than there were before the buyback. If you want to see strict firearm laws, look to Japan and not here.

Something this discussion has actually missed is that in the larger states the 1996 legislation didn't really change much - one of the more important parts of it was uniform laws across all states and territories.