"Disproven"!? Really?
2 is not many, especially when one is the killer, and the other is a well known blatant racist who claims she was hanging out in the ghetto to learn how to not call black people n**ger any more, and who didn't come forward until 2 weeks after the cop's version was printed in the papers/reported on the news, only then did she come forward and corroborate his story.
The other 38 witnesses reportedly said he was surrendering.

No man, that body armour, those boots...I'd harvest the bones of a thousand murdered infants to build our bed if that's what it took. Do you think that's what she wants?

I had to go rewatch this. It's practically perfect. Not an origin story, no romance subplot, no compromise. Just a day in the life of Judge Dredd. Love it, but my favourite Dredd story was told in rhyme:

They'd been waiting there since nightfall for the Sharks to come along,
They knew they'd have to pass this stretch of street.
So they'd sharpened up their stickers and they'd brought along their bars,
And they were wearing steel-tipped stompers on their feet.

There was Big Frank Zit and Faceache, Crazy Joseph with his spear,
The Dixon Boys were there and Billy Rat.
Ike the Spike had brought his sister with her homemade ghetto blaster,
And the Ghoul had put new rivets in his bat.

Now it wasn't nothin' personal that they had against the Sharks,
Any bunch of dead-end spugs would do.
'Cos there was nothing they liked better than to mash and bash and stomp,
Same as any normal Mega-City juves.

"A-rumbling! A-rumbling! We love to go A-rumbling!
("AAAH!")
We love to lay in ambush in the night!
("AAAA!")
A-rumbling! A-rumbling! The Zits were born for rumbling!
(SMAK!)
There's nothing we like better than a fight!"
(KRAK!)

Then a headlight pierced the darkness - a rider gaunt and grim,
Daystick drawn and ready in his hand.
     The chin belonged to Dredd,
     And the voice as well, which said:
"You creeps can do your rumbling in the can!"

"It's just one judge!" cried Cindy Spike and opened with her blaster -
"I'll send him back to Central in a sack!"
(SPOING! "AAAAAAA!")
But Dredd's bike absorbed the blast and laid her on the street,
With tyre marks running right across her back.

Then the judge got down to business and his daystick rose and fell,
Striking out at every head he saw.
For though the Zits launched the attack, the Sharks were fighting back -
And self defence is no defence in law!

As the heap of bodies mounted, Big Zit could see his Waterloo,
Waiting just one station down the line.
Oh, sure, he loved to rumble - but he preferred to be on top...
"Let's scram and live to fight another time!"

("Dredd to Control! We got forty-plus juve rumblers fleeing east through Bernstein. Zits and Sharks, back-up required."
"Wilco, Dredd!"
"Med squads and meat wagons to Moreng Alley. Estimate twenty casualties, more to follow."
"Control to all units area Bernstein. YPs on the run."
VRMMMM!
"Pick 'em up!")

In the space of sixty seconds there was a judge on every street.
From watching bays others scanned the slab -
"We got two Zits runnin' fast though the Tamblin Underpass!"
"Krupke here! I got 'em in the bag!"
(THUNK! THUNK!)

They cut them off at Sondheim and they mopped them up on Wood,
On Pedway 12 they corned Crazy Joseph.
He tried to make a stand - but a spear's not worth a damn,
When it's up against a judge's high explosive.

The Ghoul surrendered quietly, he didn't have much choice -
Ike the Spike tried to scale the sector wall -
("Save your bullet, he'll never make it." "Oh no! AAAAAAAAAAAAH!" SPLATT!)
The Dixon Boys all copped it when they tried to hitch a ride,
On the 2020 Zoom to Bernstein Halt.

Big Zit thought he'd play it clever, the law was everywhere,
The safest thing for him to do was hide -
Dredd tracked him down on infrared - "Don't bother to come out!"
"The best place for trash like you is inside!"

In minutes flat they'd caught them, every Shark and every Zit.
To Dredd it fell to ladle out the years -
"Twenty years apiece for Cindy Spike, Billy Rat and Ghoul."
An extra ten left Big Frank Zit in tears.

For Faceache minus half his face, for the hapless Dixon Boys,
For Ike impaled so cruelly on his spike,
For Crazy Joe with his gaping hole, there'd be one final rumble,
Along the last conveyor belt at Resyk.

A-rumbling! A-rumbling! They loved to go A-rumbling!
But the Zits will go A-rumbling no more!
A-rumbling! A-rumbling! They loved to go A-rumbling!
But they should've known they couldn't buck the law!

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

You were warned.

But Americans would rather watch Fox News and be afraid of terrorists than curtail the rampant abuses perpetrated by police every day.

Number of people killed by Police in the US since 9/11 = 5,000, over 350 per year

Number of American civilians killed worldwide from Terrorist attacks in 2011 = 17

Yeah, give the cops more power and bigger guns.

Crab fisherman, among dozens and dozens of others. Being a cop is less dangerous than many many jobs not considered 'dangerous', but because cops complain and whine so much, most people would believe being a cop is the most dangerous job out there. Statistics say it's no where close.
EDIT:The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers
(notice anything missing there?)

There are more unpredictable dangerous situations to be dealt with in MANY other professions. It's not a lack of preparation that kills crab fishermen, it's the unpredictability of the ocean. It MAY be true (can't find statistics) that cops are more likely to be attacked by a human than most other professions, that doesn't make it more dangerous or unpredictable than other unavoidable, unpredictable dangers in other jobs.

Far more civilians are killed by cops than cops are killed by civilians. (This means your assumption/assertion that civilians can assume cops won't kill them, but cops can assume civilians will kill them is ridiculously wrong and backwards.) Last year, 111 cops died in the line of duty, of those, only 39 were 'killed' (as in homicide, 33 by firearms), the rest were all accidental. In that time, cops intentionally killed 316 civilians (that number also does not include 'accidental' deaths). That's almost a 10-1 ratio where it's 10 times more likely that a cop will be a killer than be killed.

It is no longer a minority of cops that perceive threats everywhere and 'take things too far' before they become actual threats. If citizens did this, they go to jail. Cops should not be above the law in any way.

I agree with 'cops should be on camera 100% of the time they're being cops (which is all the time, so includes at home, if they're armed there). It may not have avoided or minimized the Brown case though, it may easily have proven he was shot at and executed as he surrendered, adding fuel to the fire.

PS dangerous and hazardous are synonyms.
PPS. It's @newtboy....one word.

All good until that 'escalation' is to deadly methods. Non-deadly force should not be met with deadly force whenever possible. This cop didn't try anything but bullets, at best against fists, at worst against retreating people trying to surrender. To me that's deadly cowardly bullying.

No. That's simply wrong.
Cops MAY need to use more force than they are met with, they certainly do NOT need to escalate to violence every time they take someone into custody (as your post suggests)...if they did, why didn't they beat up and/or shoot the Governor of Texas?!?
There's a huge range of action they can take between doing nothing and using overwhelming deadly force. Cops that think they should use the maximum amount of force possible, to 'protect themselves' should not be cops, those are cowardly bullies with immunity and guns.
If the proper thing is to use the most force possible, why are cops given pepper spray, tasers, batons, hand to hand combat training, radios, Kevlar gloves, etc. ? In this instance, ANY of those could have been tried before shooting someone retreating, surrendering, and far enough away for any of them to be tried.
From my viewpoint, this was likely more about the cop being pissed he was ignored when he told them to stop than any fear he had of two youths that were leaving the scene, and about them 'respecting his authoratah'. That's not an acceptable reason to shoot a person....even if they're black.
For you, as a cop, to claim you should always be MORE violent than your suspect means YOU are the violent criminal (or at best, an advocate for being violently criminal)...so perhaps a cop needs to come to your home based on an anonymous tip and shoot you in the head?!?...why would you say not?...you're armed and angry and advocating deadly violence!
Cops are supposed to DE-escalate violent situations, not aggravate and escalate them. It's not just sad but frightening to hear you, a self professed long term cop, to say the exact opposite. Once again I'll ask, where are you located. If you are representative of the police there, I truly want to avoid your stomping grounds.
To me, your stance means I should meet officers with deadly force, because if they decide they 'fear' me, they'll use deadly force on me without hesitation, so killing them first is always self defense. I don't think you thought it through to conclusion saying they should always be MORE violent.

The officer shot to save his own life, which is perfectly legit. According to witnesses, the perp was not surrendering, but believe anything you like.

Why do people think that cops are supermen, able to shoot someone in the leg, or experts at MMA or submission holds, etc?

I bet you couldn't handcuff your own girlfriend/boyfriend if they didn't want you to, go ahead and try it.

As for Norway...well, that's a whole 'nother country.

You fellas defending the cops need to think again.

You DO NOT SHOOT except to SAVE LIFE. I don't care if its Charlie Manson - if he's unarmed and surrendering in broad daylight YOU DO NOT SHOOT HIM.

Failure to respect this code leads to paranoia, violence, rage, hatred and TOTAL SOCIAL APOCALYPSE.

Ferguson will get back from the brink but only because of people who understand that.

Btw Norway has the most liberal, kindest, most forgiving judicial system in the world (AFAIK) and also the LOWEST REOFFENDNG AND CRIME RATES.

USA reoffending rate 85%. Incarceration rate highest outside of Somalia. So if the moral spiritual ethical stance is too lefty for you try BASIC FUCKING STRATEGY.

There are many reasons it might not even be possible to vote in representatives for these people. Gerrymandering, fixed elections, etc. Negligence and apathy are valid, but I doubt they're the primary reasons. And all people are equal, just as all people are fallible.

Cops are just like anyone else, with the exception that they have an institution that will protect them from their personal decisions, such as shooting unarmed, or racially segregated people out of spite. I have more personal experience than I like with white police officers openly practicing racism and physical abuse, when the only minority around is their victim.

You cite how Brown allegedly tried to take the mans gun. He also allegedly did not. Unfortunately it comes down to the eye-witness account versus the officers. In cases like this, I can find 999 instances out of a thousand that reflect police organizations that promote racism and abuse, in a scenario where the minority suspect did everything expected of them in a confrontation, and was still victimized. Having the gall to support the officers in this case, a case where we as the observers have nothing to go on other than heresay, is ignoring decades of historical experience with exactly these scenarios.

Lastly, you're not a boyscout. I'm not a boyscout. Fuck boyscouts; they don't even exist in realistic contexts. I don't give a good god damn fucking shit what he did prior to being murdered. It is so irrelevant it's laughable. In this particular instance where we're judging a man for deserving life or death, it doesn't matter if he skullfucked a litter of puppies and raped the kindly mother of everyone on earth collectively. If the man who shot him had no idea of the crime, as has already been shown he did not, he had absolutely no right to fire on an unarmed man. Even if he *did* know of these crimes: he still has no right to take the mans life.

If Brown tried to grab the mans gun, he failed, and therefore he was still unarmed. We have multiple witness accounts that he was shot while surrendering. At that point, crimes, robberies, past events, whatever: none of that matters, because one man killed another while the latter was no threat. No other argument you can make has any validity.

I had to swim through Jellyfish like this in Mexico... They completely surrended us while we were out snorkeling against some cliffs, our only escape was to take a deep breath, and dive down under them and swim as hard as we could, then come up in the middle of them fast and dive again, so our wake would push them away. They were attracted to the movement so we had to come up fast, gasp, and dive again, we made it past them after six or seven dives and quite a few stings.

Indeed, however with small exception I thought we were being fairly civil. That said, we all know what to expect from the 'little f*#king thing'. It's why the admins are constantly on his ass, and he may be banned again.

My point about veracity was that one has to trust the 'reporting' by others who may have an agenda to further. Without first hand knowledge, it's difficult for some (like me) to give full trust in ANY reports. I tried to read the first link you provided, but it started with a 'letter' to Saddam and I admit I didn't go farther.
As I recall, the numbers were more in the 1-300K dead from the ethnic cleansing (I have 175K in my head, but I don't know if that's right). I was old enough to watch the reports live when it happened in the 80's-90's and worry I might be drafted. I have not intended to imply Saddam wasn't terrible, only to imply he was not as bad as possible.

What I've seen so far from ISIS were hundreds if not thousands of 'prisoners' marched to their execution after surrender, even after swearing allegiance to ISIS, reports of mass rapes, village destruction, 'warnings' to all those not in line to leave or die, takeover of 1/2 the country in weeks (or less), all by 5000 people. Reports are that they are gaining members, allies, and massive amounts of money and arms. For their size, they appear to be worse than Saddam, who had hundreds of thousands, if not millions at his disposal. If you multiplied the videoed crimes of ISIS in just the last week by 200+, you would understand my point that they seem worse than most weeks of Saddam's rule....when you consider their respective sizes.
I'll hope you are correct, and ISIS is soon to be wiped out, but it's certainly not happening yet. No matter how it plays out, you are certainly right that ugly times are ahead for Iraq.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to with regards to 'derision,' but i don't really care. Probably best for us to drop it since it now appears that you're turning to some rather irrelevant issues. The original point about the "border states" was not how to label or refer to them, but to show that Lincoln did not 'emancipate' or invade them, thereby showing his motivations had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

I don't know who specifically 'shot first' but this is what happened:

"Ft. Sumter was located in the middle of the harbor of Charleston, SC where the U.S. forts garrison had withdrawn to avoid incidents with local militias in the streets of the city. Unlike Buchanan who allowed commanders to relinquish possession to avoid bloodshed, Lincoln required Maj. Anderson to hold on until fired upon. Jefferson Davis ordered the surrender of the fort. Anderson gave a conditional reply which the Confederate government rejected, and Davis ordered P. G. T. Beauregard to attack the fort before a relief expedition could arrive."

The Confederacy ordered an attack on a fort in what it saw as its territory and therefore under Union occupation. The Union saw it as their fort.
Again, a survey of the opinion of people you know about who 'started it' does not the same thing as that "most reasonable people" would see it like you do.

More irrelevant splitting of hairs: in the United Sates of 2014 practically no one openly advocates institutionalized slavery or openly argue their "right" to own slaves. So for practical purposes, (almost) everyone is openly against slavery.
That, in any case, is totally irrelevant to the Jon Stewart video and so your comments are far from relevant.

"I'm not going to comment on Jon Stewarts motives or morality, they are not germane to the subject I'm discussing."
It's all well and good that you're not going to comment on Stewart's motives or morality, but most of what you constitute your "arguments" are not germane to what I'm discussing here, or to any of my original points prior to your digressions and tangential discussions about which I frankly have little interest. No offense.

@VoodooV

what strawman?
if you are going to accuse someone of using a deceptive tactic at least understand the terminology bubba.

and you are correct.
i did just make a statement and did not clarify my reasons.
so let me clarify:

you compared the imminent threat of hostages who are in danger of physical harm or death to a possible dissident who may..or may not..be plotting harm in the future sometime as somehow being similar.

this is a logical fallacy.
your analogy is flawed.
and it does not stand.

i didnt feel i had to point this out due to the fact that @Yogi had already given you an example of executive abuse of powers.

i mean really..how do you surrender to a drone?

i apologize if i stepped over some imaginary line,or if you think i am attacking you in some fashion.

i am not....but ill refrain from engaging with you in any fashion if that is your desire.

It's a set-up for what's going to be ubiquitous in less than 20 years A10anis, cameras on every pole (wi-fi, infrared, audio, facial recognition software) and a cop's nose up every corner of your ass at the great cost of having ended the 'great experiment' -

Feinstein is only a shill for power-brokers and a miniature version of someone whose mentality of "I, Me, Mine" let's a few people dictate the their will over of every person on the planet who is not in their small circle.

Mind you, they believe that the bulk of humanity are not suited to dictate the course of the planet but hey; The same people who have chosen to guide the course of humanity's burst off the planet would keep us rhesus monkeys in small, manageable boxes while they romp freely around the globe with the bulk of our assets and the maximum amount of power to dictate further every aspect of our lives.

The real power they will not wield is to provide for the basic needs and education of the throw-backs of humanity who would rather perpetrate violence and promulgate fear to maintain arcane sensibilities and uncivilized backward ideologies which are anti-evolutionary and savage, using anti-evolutionary and savage people to enforce what looks like order, which is in actuality, the same barbaric practice of subjugation, imprisonment, and fear.

The solution is to limit expansion of population until these ideologies are stamped-out like the insectoid disease that they are, that of a limited perspective based on arcane patterns of thought. We could do this through compassion and education but the established powers see a different solution that will protect their interests-

People like Diane Feinstein and her ilk see the rest of humanity as dogs and cattle. Unprivileged, unworthy flesh with which to extort from them their labor, their minds and souls to their utopian ends, at the cost of our unique humanity.

The same virulence that atheist's have against the western Christan diaspora, these elites have for anyone not aligned with their totalitarian ends.

That they justify their courses of action with propaganda like this, fear-induced surrender to force and control, is against all that is humane and righteous.

Bombs in subways?? Solution: No one has privacy or freedom of expression or thought beyond that which exist behind their eyes and between their ears-Greeeeeat. Your world, not mine.

Next will come thought crimes, cordoned neighborhoods, etc.

Start now by getting some of the comparatively neanderthal segments of humanity into those boxes, limit THEIR freedoms through educating them to at LEAST the level of 17th-century socialization before turning the entire world into a forced labor-camp.

Bread and circuses only work for so long before the emperor's clothes are set alight by those less inclined to hear shit as well as being forced to eat it.

Anarchy would solve some of the discord in civilized countries.

Fucking China-Get those insects to stop cranking-out useless consumption items at an exponentially toxic pace as well-Their version of the world makes Orwell's look like a clam bake. How? Stop using it. Create artisans and craftsman again and develop in every human an appreciation for THAT WHICH LASTS, rather than I WANT NOW, FIRST!

Americans, Europeans drunk on technology, disposable clothing, instant gratification and entertainment are a herd of disposable mental midgets to the Diane Feinsteins of the world.

Sick dance we're learning....I just hope we can stand the dervish without blacking-out.

why exactly should we care what a "mystic" says?

I think it's extremely funny how theists arbitrarily determine what is and isn't a miracle in their obsession with appeals to emotion.

every single theist has a different idea of what is and isn't a miracle. And you wonder why we dismiss the idea of miracles? As braindonut already mentioned, there are countless things out there that don't require surrendering to an imaginary sky being to have awe and wonder about.