I think this narration makes a lot of assumptions.

That wolf was never domesticated. Domestication is a genetic adaptation that involves retaining juvenile traits that allow an animal to overcome the boundary that would instinctively cause them to flee or fight. This would take many generations. You can imagine how that adaptation would be advantageous to animals that benefit from living at the edges of human settlement.

There's no way to know why that wolf interacted the way it did but it was wild and posed a potential risk due to it's instinctive programming.

Happy that it remained an uplifting story. But it's not responsible to spread the narrative that you can domesticate a wild animal.

Well, since it's a Project Veritas thing, I'll assume it's more total faked bullshit.
If ever there was a media organization based in fake news, it's them. They're the bullshit artists that cried wolf, I won't be suckered again by them....If only I could put a source of videos on ignore, Veritas would never darken my screen again.

All I've seen about this is someone saying their channel thinks ratings are important...like every other media organization. That doesn't make the story fake, it explains why they stick with it and ignore more important, but less sensational news.

Coming from the people that believe Alex Jones, Faux, and Veritas itself, this is the pot calling the dirty glass punchbowl "black". Need proof? Benghazzi....birth certificate....pizzagate.
Member those? I member.

I dont get it, how does the US misunderstand Putin?

Probably have to watch these interviews. Putin always says well what he wants to say. He can outlast a smart US president and he can take advantage of a dumb one.

Putin is occupying large parts of a sovereign country in Europe, basically getting away with murder, but for Oliver he is a nice friendly guy, willing to be interviewed, with an interesting outlook on world peace. Wolf among sheep preaching vegetarianism.

Yes, that's where we differ, because she sure didn't seem to be trying to leave to me, just had an inability to stand still under stress, like many 15 year olds. (And as I've said, it's the macing a handcuffed, secured girl that's out of line imo, the manhandling was just more than needed and was certain to escalate problems rather than solve them, so not smart but on the low end of the scale of acceptability, the macing was a pure assault in my eyes, for no good reason beyond sadism. It was not the right way to get her in the car.)

Keep in mind, she gets on her bike and rides (slowly) with ZERO complaint from the officer she's right in front of, he LET her do it, then got pissed off that she did it. WTF?!
Again, this could have been solved with a simple command to sit down, a command they did not give. Also, detained is not under arrest. You are under zero obligation to submit to detention. If they thought she was leaving the scene, they should have arrested her. Instead, they said repeatedly that they were detaining her for 'cooperation of investigation' (not a crime) and a medical release (something they probably need for their own liability purposes, but not something they can arrest a person for as far as I know).

Yes, the little girl was in the wrong...did my saying exactly that confuse you?

Yes, I absolutely think that if an officer pepper sprayed another officer's child for something the first officer screwed up (like failing to put her all the way in the car) the parent would go ballistic and sue...no matter how their child had acted. Rude behavior is not a threat, the only legitimate reason to use force. I don't think they would see it like you do if it was their child.
Yes, they would also probably reprimand the child too, but bad manners do not excuse assault with a weapon on a handcuffed detainee.

There was no reason to use mace, the proper response is to pull her into the car from the other side.

Your analogy only works if the wolf hounds go after the sheep when there's not a wolf in sight.

Hours? Really? Try an extra 10 seconds to avoid 15 minutes of battle and days of court. "Sit down" doesn't take even that. If they don't have the patience to verbalize the instructions they want followed, they should quit. Deescalation is their job, and they absolutely failed, as they often do.

Remember, they repeatedly say they're only detaining her because she may need medical treatment, then they treat her in a way that ensures she needs medical treatment. If they were really trying to help her, they failed so utterly miserably that they all should quit today...but we know that was bullshit lies, right?

I'm guessing you've never had a gun to your head and a knee on your neck face down in a gutter because an officer made a mistake reading your licence plate and had zero patience for the car thief he was taking down, followed by threats of retaliation if you report them. You might give them less cooperation and leeway if you had.

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

I see a future lone wolf ... yikes!

Informative:
Link to article referenced in the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/nature-documentary-tricks_n_7249528.html
(but boo, reading, yuck)

Non-informative:
So they can edit in plottwists.
So yeah, bambi lives.
But then cut to: White wolf goes back starving kids. Camera goes slowly to dark as one of the wolf pups exhales for the last time.
But then cut to: A large family of maggots has been waiting for this moment, rooting for bambi in the earlier scene.

Poor (hypothetical) wolf cubs!

Your video, Wolf Attack on Bighorn Sheep, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

From the comments, it is a wolf fish. All species of which are considered of concern or threatened. I wouldn't give that woman another rare fish to kill or her money back to buy one from another place.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wolf couldn't moderate his way out of a paper bag. He sounds like he's on strong opiates.

At least Wolf Blitzer generally allowed Bernie to speak without interrupting him, that's the best I can say about his part in this interview.

Jesus, Wolf Blitzer is such an idiot!

Look man, I always liked you. I usually disagree with you and I think you're kinda crazy. However, I admire your faith, your conviction. I'm a cynic because I'm a disappointed idealist, so you are a bit of my mirror image. But...
Dude, you still live on Planet Earth. You still partake in what I call 'the real world'. We both know The Donald doesn't even give a shit about god and we both should know he's not gonna improve this mortal coil.
Wolf in sheep's clothing.
I'm just sayin'

Just remember... while there is a Congress that *might* temper some of his proposals... there's no Congress between him and the button (and the fact that he has said he would not rule out a first strike nuclear attack against somebody in the Middle East and Europe... and he also might not protect our European allies if attacked if they haven't paid). There's no Congress between him and him launching an initial retaliatory strike for making jestures... No matter how bad Hillary is, she isn't ready to destroy the world and start a nuclear holicast the way Trump is more than willing to do. Also, the lone wolf attacks we've seen the last year or so will only greatly increase under Trump as he and his ideals, implemented or not, incite futher self radicalization, by people who won't need contacts, they'll just be upset that the US is targeting Islam as a whole specifically, not just the jehadist... and remember, it looks like he'll win as he is winning in states like Florida and Ohio... When those nuclear missles rain into the United States, remember, those voiting for him, you specifically knew that would happen and you chose to destroy the world by voting for an egomaniac that has no clue how to be diplomatic, who has no clue how the real world works... who thinks the world opperates just like a boardroom... or one of his appartments where he kept black people out...