I think the public has unreasonable expectations. In order for him to do his job he needs to protect himself. He is not there to protect you.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
https://ehlinelaw.com/blog/do-police-have-a-duty-to-protect-me

Also: RadioLab No Special Duty - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-special-duty

I like Darren. He is my friend. I like you and him.

And he likes me.

And I like him.

He likes you, I HOOOOOPE!

I like his autograph. It is a nice picture.

HE. IS. NIIIIIIICE!

10 people killed versus one cop killed.

I imagine you would prefer those stats to be reversed, considering your animus toward cops.

The reason that stat is correct is because cops are called into dangerous situations with dangerous people, the cops have training and the responsibility to use deadly force.

If the cop does something wrong, he has to answer to his local prosecutor up to and including the attorney general of the United States and the resources of the entire Dept of Justice...which, by the way, was used on Darren Wilson, and Darren Wilson was found to have acted correctly.

You would prefer the criminal get the upper hand, which puts you well out of the mainstream of normal people.

Why is that?

You really need to use some critical thinking instead of just taking a statistic and trying to draw a conclusion from it. Especially when that conclusion is so blatantly specious.

Enoch does it again...posts a totally irrelevant video. Why? Because if there were a case against Darren Wilson, the feds would have made it. He had a whole platoon of FBI agents trying to make a case against Wilson and they couldn't do it, simply because all the evidence backed Wilson's account. There was no 'hands up, don't shoot'. All total bullshit.

But enoch sounds like he was there, he knows everything about what happened.

If you want to make a case for removing that prosecutor, that's fine. She screwed up. Every rookie cop since Tenn v. Garner knows that you can't shoot a fleeing felon simply because they are fleeing.

However, FYI, you can shoot a fleeing felon if in your judgment the person poses a threat to other people and that threat is immediate.

Most of the posters here, I think, would prefer to watch a video of the proceedings a week later, than make a studied response, mostly based on their hatred of authority and misunderstanding of law and law enforcement.

500 innocent Americans killed is total bullshit anyway. I want to see names, not just some strawman argument. 11 million people are arrested every year, and many of these 'American citizens' are mental cases, gang members, hardcore criminals, drug addicts etc.

The video states that 'the DOJ estimates that 500 innocent Americans are killed every year'. I would love to see where the DOJ determines their 'innocence'. I want to see the document on that one.

And if one example (Trayvon martin) doesn't invalidate their argument, how can a handful of other examples (as seen in the video) validate it?

If 'a black man is murdered every 28 hours', then ask yourself why so many black men are resisting arrest or engaging in conduct that leads to them getting killed.

You can listen to a police scanner in any major city and the majority of calls will involve police calls for assistance regarding a black man or men engaged in violent criminal behavior. Go ahead and listen, you might learn something. And these calls are generally coming from other black people who want to be protected from the criminals who live amongst them.

The video also states that police officers always get off scott free after killing people. Give me some names. The DOJ went after Darren Wilson with everything they had and eventually had to admit that he acted properly and within the law.

'This ain't a war zone!' the man cries. Did he search everyone in that crowd? How does he know they are unarmed?

The video also concerns an Australian police action. What does that have to do with American police, which is the subject of the video?

Furthermore, the police acting improperly on the video...what is the story behind each officer? Was he/she reprimanded, suspended, fired? There is no followup, it is just assumed that they all got away with improper behavior.

The whole system is racist, says the sign. Tell it to Eric Holder, the black attorney general! lol give me a fucking break

Where is the attention given to black on black crime? You don't hear about it. 2500 people shot in Chicago last year, look it up.

Charles Shaw, you are a fraud.

Hi RFlagg. God has given evidence of His existence through the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, by raising Him from the dead. You’re right, you could have a supernatural experience in any religion, because the devil is the god of every false religion and he can give signs too. He has never raised a man from the dead, however, neither did he ever pay for the worlds sins, yours and mine.

God revealed Himself to man from the very beginning. Everyone from the beginning knew who God was, but gradually the knowledge of God faded away as men chose to turn away and follow after their own ways. Therefore, God raised up a people for Himself who would prepare the way for His Messiah.

Darren brown doesn’t know that you have an enemy of your soul who is trying to destroy you. You seem to be saying that supernatural experiences are a phenomena of human consciousness rather than from an external power. But there is an intelligence behind those experiences; they aren't merely delusions in and of themselves. There is also a manipulative hand seeking to influence how you see those experiences.

You mentioned that you were a former Christian, and this is what you listed: you watched TBN, foxnews and voted republican. I hope you know that none of those things makes you a Christian. Jesus talks about true and false Christians; what makes you believe you ever really were a Christian? Going to church? Praying? Reading the bible? None of those things makes you a Christian either. If you never really were a Christian, you should know from the bible that you are unable to tell the difference between Christianity and any other religion without Gods help. He has to open your eyes because right now you are dead in trespasses and sins. Jesus Christ didn't come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people alive.

Yahweh has NEVER given evidence of his existence. No more so than any other god anyhow. They all answer prayer equally and randomly well. They all claim to have made the universe/world, they all claim to be the true one... Near death experiences differ by culture expectations of that culture and don't all conform to the supposed Christian expectation... he has done nothing to make himself stand out from the rest of the gods that Christians dismiss. Heck, I've never seen a Frost Giant or evidence they ever existed, so clearly Odin has one up on Yahweh.

In the 4,000 years or so from Adam and Eve's time in the Garden to Jesus, Yahweh couldn't or wouldn't make himself known to the other races. He didn't reveal himself to those in Africa, Asia, the Americas or Europe, just to one tiny specific group of people in the Middle East. If couldn't then he's not the omnipotent, omnipresent god he claims, if he wouldn't that makes him a racist ass not worthy of following by picking one people to be his chosen people.

The only reason Europe became Christian was forced conversion when the Christian armies of Rome forced them to, which setup a tradition of most Europeans and later Americans being born into a faith. Were the exact same people born in Saudi Arabia they "would know that they know" that Islam is the true religion, or same in India but applying to Hinduism.

And saying that atheists have had supernatural experiences and can change to theism when talking about it, ignores the whole point of the video, especially the part when he talks about the linked Darren Brown video, which demonstrates that it is easy to make a spiritual experience happen that has no basis on any real god.

By way of example: I used to be a heavy evangelical Christian, I watched TBN and Fox News religiously (pun intended, see this old post of mine here on the sift from an old account that I couldn't recover http://videosift.com/usercomments/Charon... heck see my Revelations from the Word posts on my blog, http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/religion/revelations-from-the-word/ or more embarrassing my older political posts http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/politics/ which while progressive now, go to page 4 or so around June 2008 and back and you see a Libertarian and further back Republican with some crazy anti-vaccine paranoia , climate change denialism, science denaillism and other things I'm deeply ashamed of now)... I've had deep and meaningful spiritual experiences with god. After Republicans ruined Christianity for me (as the Republican party is clearly 100% against every teaching of Jesus... and yeah we can tick that off as being humans, but god does nothing to correct them, he may have spoke to my heart or whatever one wants to say to have more empathy, but over half the Christians in this nation still vote for a party 100% devoid of the teachings of the Jesus of the Bible while claiming to do it for Christian reasons) and I eventually lost faith (while Republicans are the reason I initially lost faith, they aren't the reason I stayed away, god is a dick is why I stayed away). After I lost faith in the Christian god, I gave paganism a try, and I've had just a meaningful spiritual experiences while worshiping at a Druid rite as I have at any Christian church. This is why people pick a religion, first by accident of birth (most people are Christian in the US because their parents were, and back to Europe where going back further they were forced to convert by invading Christian armies), second by choosing one that connects more personally with them... for many they see the hypocrisy of Christianity (and its general lack of empathy) but do connect with some form of paganism, and pagans generally have a patron god they serve above most others, and that god is the one they have a deep connection to, the same deep connection that Christians claim to have with Jesus/Yahweh... One doesn't drive a plane into a building killing 3,000 plus people without a deep and meaningful relationship with their god, and to dismiss t hat relationship as being deceived is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Now, I will allow the possibility that god does exist, but not in the form Christians propose, but perhaps closer to what the US Founding Fathers believed, but perhaps expanded a bit with more modern knowledge. A Deist like view. That this god somehow this god, created the energy and set into motion the laws of this physical universe that spun out from the big bang, but he's had nothing to do with anything since then. Perhaps all religions actually worship the same god but with their own culture's expectations and interpretations. However this would mean that all religions and lack there of are equally valid, which most faiths (aside from most modern paganism) doesn't allow for as their claim rests on being the true one.

I've rambled on far too long already so I'll leave it at that.

The quote that Cenk tossed out about the sandwich doesn't apply to this situation. Basically what it means is that if a Prosecutor goes to the trouble of bringing a case before a grand jury, he is usually 100% certain that he can get a trial result.

However, I direct you to http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/ for a much better explanation. I'll try to sum up what the article says briefly.

Trials involving cops are much harder to get an indictment from a grand jury. People tend to trust cops and this could lead to fewer indictments. Prosecutors could be throwing the case rather than risk a hostile working environment. But the most logical reason is simply that in a non-high profile case, i.e. one other than a possibly racially motivated shooting that is being reported about non-stop, a prosecutor is typically only going to bring cases before a grand jury that he is certain he will gather an indictment back from them.

In a case like this, where a prosecutor is pretty much forced to bring an indictment due to public outcry, a weak case is not going to get past the grand jury. This was a weak case.

In the end, right or wrong, the officer faced due process and was considered by a jury of his and the victim's peers to be non-indictable. While I am sorry for the victim, his family, and friends, it was the victim's decision to assault a police officer and attempt to take away his weapon.

You remind me of David Mitchell on "Would I Lie to You?" when he pointed out that often people will think that something sounds so out-of-place and rehearsed that it inevitably has to be true.

Do you perhaps think that might be something you're doing? Would this shit really be satisfactory, based on your logic, to a grieving family? He wasn't a saint, neither are you, neither am i... but no one deserves to die for that, especially at such a young age... none of us know who we are by that age.. he had not made the decisions that would shape his life yet. Who does it benefit to have the rehearsed official police story relayed to us by the only man who could explain what really happened? It's more of a slap in the face to the family, is my point.

I tell you what i'd want if i was American - not to have to fear the American police. Because at this point it doesn't even matter if Darren was "rightfully killed" - because the arse-covering propaganda had already started; which is an admission to racism by way of feeling guilty.

And that SHOULD be enough for Americans to demand change - i.e. not every cop should be carrying a gun, because quite clearly not everyone is capable of knowing when to use it. But if it isn't enough, there's Trayvon Martin too. And another, and another, and another.

This isn't a one-off thing, so don't try to suggest that people should judge the video independently of the track history of American police which is to kill young black men, hurting the communities and individuals that they are designed to protect.

At the very least, the protection system is not working for the black community and needs fixing. At the most, there is a tendency towards racism and wild-west-justice in the American police, and that's not just a problem for black people.

P.S. American prison statistics for black people is a serious indictment of how black people are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. Who is really going to try and argue that black people are naturally, statistically more likely to be criminals to the tune of the prison imbalance? There is absolutely no way i am buying into that. The prison statistics remind me of this John Oliver video, perhaps police are being "fair" and stop/searching black people exactly as much as they do white people.. but that is an imbalance because they are not exactly 50% of the population.

(For the record: 60% of all prisoners are black but only 25% of total population. Incarceration at six times that of white people. 12% of the drug-using population are black, but account for 40% arrested for drugs and 60% in prison for drugs. Taken from the NAACP website, i've got to assume they're right. Don't get me started on antiquated drugs policies, or the history of slavery's affect on money/power in the modern world - meaning crimes committed in boardrooms and government go unpunished - let's not forget white leaders have led this world to the brink of complete collapse and we're not out of the woods - but let's stick to the issue.)

@newt boy: Out of curiosity, what jobs (outside of the military) are more dangerous than being a cop? There are certainly hazardous jobs out there, like repairing electric lines, but those are mostly predictable. With sufficient preparation and training, risks can be calculated and minimized. Being a cop, on the other hand, forces you to deal with completely unpredictable situations. A routine traffic stop can be a harmless affair or it can end with you being shot or stabbed to death. Cops bear the burden of risk when dealing with the public. Civilians can generally assume that cops aren't going to try to kill them. Cops can't make that same assumption. Their position of authority and responsibility to enforce the law puts them in an inherently antagonistic position. People don't like being told what to do and they definitely don't like being punished for not doing it. It's no surprise then that cops tend to be wary and defensive when doing their job. Some cops (the minority) simply take this too far and try to neutralize perceived threats before they become actual threats.

The ideal solution is to have all cops wear cameras while on duty. That way, there's objective footage of all their interactions, violent or otherwise. If Darren Wilson had been wearing a camera, the whole Brown debacle could have been avoided or at least minimized.

I like Darren. He is my friend.

I like you and him. He likes me. And I like him.

He likes you I HOOOOOPE.

-stimpy

In case anyone is wondering why they are making a semi-big deal about whether or not you can see the puck once it is across the line, I remember several years ago there was a play where a goalie covered up the puck with his glove (which should result in a whistle, but in this case didn't immediately) and in the split second afterwards had 90% of his glove, including the portion where the puck had been visible a split second before, pushed across the goal line.

The play went under review, and I believe Darren Pang (a former goalie) was confident that it would be ruled no goal because even though it was next to 100% obvious that the puck had crossed the goal line, you couldn't physically see it. The review came back and he had been correct, and he ventured further that even in a hypothetical situation where the puck slipped under a goalie's leg or something (out of sight of any camera) and then the goalie's entire body slid into the net across the line, it would be ruled no goal if the puck was obscured from vision until the play was whistled dead.

I thought it was interesting that the laws of physics can assert that the puck MUST be in there, but according to the rules it won't count unless you can directly SEE it across the line.

At least, that is how I remember the discussion going. Anyone care to confirm or set me straight on any details I may have screwed up?

You left out the most important part -- it's directed by Darren Aronofsky, which pretty much guarantees that it'll be more interesting than your typical overblown Hollywood blockbuster.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bible, Genesis, Noahs Flood, Gods Wrath' to 'Bible, Genesis, Noahs Flood, Gods Wrath, Darren Aronofsky' - edited by Sarzy

I'm guessing there are several devices working at different times, and while it appears one is being disproven, another is being used. This relies on the audience thinking it's a single trick rather than several.

First, there's a wire or some other physical device that moves the table around the floor when it's just the audience member touching it. From then on, notice Darren is careful to have firm contact with the table at all times while it's flying. There's a bar that Darren is holding under the cloth with his right hand, and he can use it to hold the table up and manipulate it. The wire is used again, but Darren is holding the table up and the wire is relaxed and droops down beside the table long enough for him to pass his hand over it (putting the whole table through a hoop would have discovered the wire). The name box is fixed to the table with magnets so Darren can manipulate the table holding the box, then at the end the wire is used again as he pushes the table down.

All speculation of course, but that's how it could be done.