My buddy Fred pulled over a car with 4 people in it, every one was wanted!

no shit

ah the good old days

(sorry, couldn't watch the whole thing with that howling going on)

As far as what he pulled her over for...you don't have to tell the truth on that one. I once had a guy wanted on a felony drug offense, I told him I was arresting him for a parking violation. Once I had the cuffs on him, I told him what it was for...that way he's more likely to not resist since he thinks it's for something minor...safer for both of us, win-win!

A good mom and later on he will provide plenty of nourishment. Win - Win!

Sorry, the guy had been involved in violent crimes, was armed with a high powered rifle, fired the rifle in the air, pointed it at police, and one of the officers took a chance in taking him down before he hurt himself or others.

People don't understand that they could have simply shot him as soon as he pointed the gun at a cop, with just cause. The fact that the guy lived, and will most likely use this to sue the city and make out like a bandit, is pretty much a win win for him. His lawyer is just blowing it up to make more bank in the lawsuit.

Copy pasta of salient facts, remember, these are in addition to shooting the rifle and pointing it at a cop.

At 6:45 a.m., Valencia robbed a 7-Eleven in Tucson with a metal object in his hand. Authorities said he was dressed only in his underwear. He was charged with theft.

A little more than an hour later, police said, Valencia set a fire at a church for which he was charged with arson of an occupied structure.

Just after that he entered a home and stole a car, police said.

Authorities said he drove to a Walmart where he stole a .30-30 rifle and ammunition. He fled the store with Walmart employees in pursuit.

Couldn't he have it surgically removed and donate it to a burn victim, so they wouldn't have to use reconstituted cadaver skin? He might even be able to make a deal where the burn victim pays for the removal and maybe throws in some lipo for his trouble. That seems like a win win situation to me.

Hey, more people = more Videos to sift and more Sifters !!!

WIN ! WIN !

VideoSift, a prototype for a future without Scarcity.

Who needs a job when you have your health? According to Nancy pelosi, no job means you can spend more time with your family, chill, and develop your artistic side.

win/win

I think the fighters commentary was more about "not ranked, not getting paid = don't give a fuck".

As long as the other guy doesn't go bragging to his friends about winning an MMA fight, it's a win-win.

Meh, I dunno Aaronfr. I do understand your point of view and the cynical part of me is turned away by it, but really, it's a win-win. For instance, most people don't donate to charities out of genuine altruism so much as to *feel* as though they're altruistic, and that's really a perfectly acceptable reason. Every company that "donates a portion to charity" and has pink yogurt lids or whatever are doing it for marketing, but that's okay too because they're still donating money.

If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. These things work both ways. Maybe this kid took advantage of the WWE's desire for free publicity to get his dying wish fulfilled. If giving people a ribbon to wear on their lapel so they can stroke stroke their ego in public for the rest of the day brings in more donations, it's worth the extra cost of the ribbons.

hahahhahah! that's hilarious that you think I'm attacking you by saying that you're in the closet.

I'm trying to help you. Nothing worse than denying who you are friend.

To give you an example. I don't like sifts of cute pets as I think they just cater to the "aww" factor. So guess what? I don't comment on those sifts...I don't vote on those sifts...I avoid those kinds of sifts. If I don't like something...I avoid it.

You on the other hand, seem to make a point of visiting virtually every sift involving things you hate. Blacks, Atheists, and especially homosexuals. You're on record as saying:

"I'm not afraid of homosexuals unless I'm in a prison where I can't defend myself from being raped by one."

which is really fucking oddball considering 1) how many people think about being in prison unless they've got a guilty conscience and 2) how many "supposedly straight" people think about being raped by homosexuals unless they're completely insecure.

you make a point of following a topic you claim to dislike, so I'm only observing your behavior and saying hrm...that's strange for someone who is always proclaiming how "normal" and how "not-minority" he is..

you doth protest too much sir. It's textbook projection

if you really dislike them so much....go away. It's a win win for all of us

or stay, and eventually be banned because it's only a matter of time before we catch you saying something racist or hateful again.

Seriously...think about your own actions for once instead of obsessing over what strangers do.

Don't have to be able to cook or bake there pardner, all ya needs't throw a cookie recipe out there that you've never baked but have tasted once er twice maybe....can't be all that too hard, eh? Once'll do-We'll do all the bakin' needed then, EX-strippers n' FE-male bartendresses' will decide yer fate...ON Camera!?

Kind of a win-win-win if yer prone to catchin' some drift...

HINT: You can even submit the NAME of a cookie recipe of some friend of yer granny's that you herd-tell of that she made that you tasted once at a funeral...We can improvise as long as there's some kinna documentation

So much of what you are saying here is not terribly accurate.

Fleeing in this case is easier to sympathize with on account of the US's recent history of locking up and torturing whistle blowers for years on end.

You do live in a country where you pick and choose which laws to follow. Constantly. Like most people. Did you have a drink before you were of age? Have you rolled through a stop sign? Did you tear a label off a mattress? Have you smoked weed? Average people break the rules when they think that the rule is dumb and deserves to be broken, or when they think following the rule would be a greater wrong than breaking it. I expect the latter case applies to Snowden.

Turning himself in is hardly win/win. Maybe he's not interested in being locked up and abused for years on end for what he considers a service he did to the US people. It's not everyone's sole goal in life to die of old age.

His case isn't that much stronger if he turns himself in. He's not some rhetorical genius or a mastermind lawyer waiting to uncover his byzantine court strategy. He released some information regarding serious infringements by the US govt, and that's it. His motives are easy to see, and anyone could pick up and argue his case for him. It's just not that deep.

You're right that the outcry didn't follow. People are getting rather well conditioned to being spied on in pretty much everything we do. To me, the much more important revelation was that the US govt had a collection of secret laws that only it knows about, and that it acts based on it. Privacy is just the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah you don't get to ignore a trial simply because you don't think it will be fair. Every criminal ever would be justified in fleeing the law in such a case.

I noticed you didn't answer my question.

We don't abide fleeing the law in any other situation, How come this is different?

We don't live in a country where we pick and choose the laws we want to follow.

Besides, turning himself in is win win. Snowden is virtually guaranteed that he will only die of old age because if anything happens to him, the US will be blamed.

His case is stronger if he turns himself in and argues his case. Fleeing hurts him.

Also, I hate to break it to you. Snowden's fleeing didn't create the public outcry you expected. The jury is in on this. Thanks to GPS and smartphones and other apps that use personal information. The public really doesn't have a lot of problem with being eavesdropped on. Most people already knew it was happening Congratulations, you created numerous internet memes but no actual change.

Attitudes on privacy are changing. Sorry you didn't get the memo.

The largest problem with the "free market" is that all people have ALL of the information they need to make good choices. And sure when people make deals or barter (Most of the time) they are doing it to enhance their end of the bargain. Most people don't care about win win, they care only about "do I win?" This means that if one party has more information than another about a particular bargain then free market capitalism breaks down. This is why we have insider trading laws. If anything government regulation should be stepped up to include those evil investment strategies where investors sell you one thing and then bet against that thing, hoping/knowing it will fail.

He is right that the free market is not like Darwinian evolution (I get irritated when people say that they are similar). In Darwinian evolution populations of organisms adapt to their environment and occupy a "niche space" the place in the environment they are adapted for. A corporation is like an individual consuming everything in its path. Corporations can also change the rules of the game. An organism in nature cannot change the laws of nature.

Lastly he clearly missunderstands the phrase a "dog eat dog" world. They idea behind that turn of phrase is that conditions are so tough in the world that dogs are eating other dogs.

Jebus this guy acts smart and hoity toity but sure seems ignore some obvious flaws in his arguments and touches on things that are neither here nor there.

I'm pretty much with you, but to be fair, the woman that found this particular little shit's phone had/has the option of going to the police at any time.

If his mother sounded defensive or laissez faire when confronted with the information about her son, she could have just called the police instead. If she didn't get back ALL of her missing stuff upon confronting the kid (and mother) at their house, she could have called the police. If there was any damage to the car, she could have asked that to be covered IN FULL, and go to the police if it wasn't forthcoming.

Heck, any of the other people he stole from still have the option of going to the police if they aren't satisfied with just getting their stuff back and an apology.

But in this particular instance, I bet that keeping police involvement as a last resort was win/win for every party. If she had gone to the police first the kid would have a record (which he perhaps deserves), the people he stole from likely wouldn't get all of their stuff back and probably wouldn't get any money to cover any damages he may have done (or at best 60 out of 400 as in your Mom's situation).

So for the time being, maybe this was their best option. I'm in easy agreement with the spirit of your last line though -- if it ever happens again no benefit of the doubt need be given.

A rather naive video. Of course they are after your money, it's called capitalism. Could this guy name any companies who spend millions in developing a product for altruistic motives? If I can afford a product that I want, then I am grateful that the producer has made it available to me. He gets my money and I get the product - win, win. I do, however, agree with him on the absurdity of "brand loyalty."