Glen Ford on police training:

"A cop’s verbal exclamation, when characterized as a “lawful order” or “command,” becomes a license to kill. Once the order has been issued – no matter how outlandish, or even impossible to comply with – failure to obey is a crime and the basis for rapid escalation of the conflict. Individuals or groups can easily be maneuvered into non-compliance with police orders, followed quickly by death."

I liked this except I would have liked it more if they would have left out the turntable scratch/dub effects. For fun I decided made a list of all the songs I could identify. Not sure if this means I'm just a Bond fan or have crossed over to Bond nerd.

0:05 On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
0:14 James Bond Theme
0:32 Goldfinger
0:55 Moonraker
1:12 You Only Live Twice
1:40 Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Thunderball)
1:50 On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Propellerheads Version)
2:16 James Bond Theme
2:31 On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
2:39 Man With the Golden Gun
2:45 View to a Kill
2:51 Die Another Day
3:05 Diamonds Are Forever
3:24 From Russia with Love
3:34 License to Kill
3:55 Goldeneye
4:07 Live and Let Die
4:41 James Bond Theme
4:53 Nobody Does It Better

@vaire2ube tell you what, hand over the overwhelming power government gave to bankers to someone else, say farmers, workers, teachers, nuns, it doesn't matter, it will be abused eventually and social injustice will happen in a large scale. Will you be hating on nuns too for screwing up the country's finances?

You don't resent corporations or the power they earned. Like you said, they're not inherently evil. You resent the power corporations don't deserve that they can only get from government.

Why are bankers greedy? Because greed and fear of loss balance each other out, it's like that for every human being. Bankers don't fear loss because they know they can always get bailed out, so their greed goes rampant.

If a government agency gave you a "license to kill" with no repercussions whatsoever, pretty soon you'd be offing people left and right like a sociopath too (mostly bankers and CEOs, right? ).

Regulations are crafted by big corporations that lobby government. So why would you resort to the problem to supply the solution?

I agree that government is the solution, the solution being "protect our freedoms". Because the minute they do things like give a central bank monopoly over the money supply, that's taking away our freedoms and handing it over in the form of unjust power to some institution.

BTW, I'm sure GlaxoSmithKline isn't going for the "badass" reputation of killing people. Three billion seems like a pretty steep fine, no matter how much money they're making.

Ultimately, that's why I'm so upset about this whole mess. Republicans and ALEC have essentially decided that not having any meaningful control on gun ownership wasn't good enough, they needed to give gun owners a license to kill too.

This is a very high-stakes version of the burden of proof fallacy. Why is it that Zimmerman got to shoot and kill someone based solely on his suspicions, but we can't arrest him for it unless we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew Treyvon wasn't a threat?

Why does the unarmed boy not get the "innocent until proven guilty" treatment? Because Zimmerman has already executed him? How could that be right?

Why isn't everyone unanimous in saying that we have to get to the bottom of not only what happened, but how we can fix our laws and institutions to treat a situation like this in a just way?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

You can, under Stand Your Ground, follow someone, initiate a fight, and kill them if you "fear for your life," which the prosecution must prove that you didn't, indeed, fear for your life (And that's some proving to do... especially when there is a gun involved, even the assialents gun, that could be 'taken away.')
In fact, a judge ruled that even if the person killed was retreating, it didn't matter. The defendant could murder him in cold blood and be fine...
Face it, there is no cover up, only a flawed law created by a bunch of scared white old people.

Who knew Cube studied Architecture? When did that happen, when he was producing License to Kill? Haha, anyway its true LA is not nearly as bad as people make it seem and if you or I could live nicely in LA I am sure itd be a blast... as long as we didnt live in one of those many/silly gated communities, ugh.

And this is why dawkins and hitchens need to get a license to kill

dog has sight feels pain sorry
not quite as dumb as they seem
with or without god's poor judgment
screams just the same to me
leave it up to government
medicine speeds your life away
who shot the cat in the hat
to experiment is insane
fetching bones from the government food bowl
never was a dog's best friend
license to kill
look behind the sentient line
what's alive feels the heat of the flame
the fascist mask media blinds
what's perceived through the tunnel of pain
through slight of hand no one reprimands
the research gone astray
forgotten flesh we're bottle-fed
on a need-to-know basis
teaching lies the little dog cries
the tears of the quiet one's
license to kill
(cuts his crap?)
(cuts his dung?)
wisdom's race false delight
to kill time and time again
tube down the neck
flesh pulled back
to crawl underneath the skin
the corporate death no sentiment
the pain sustained at will
they preach on high morals lie
in this farce called vivisection
what research finds as the animal dies
never did a goddamn thing
license to kill

@NetRunner

There's nothing "small" about a government which takes 30-50% of a person's income and maintains military bases in most countries on the planet. You think the answer is giving more power to elected officials, but what you keep ignoring is that the private sector is made up of the same types of people. I mean, did you not watch this video which said that 85% of Serco's employees came from the public sector? Characters in both groups have the same ambition for power and wealth, so both will make similar decisions when faced with a given situation. The details will vary from person to person but invariably individuals in both groups will vote to increase their own wealth and power, not to make the world a better place.

The monopoly on force (government) should persist only to enforce the rule of law, nothing more. Cultural development is a personal choice and as such must be left to the people because a single person (or group) should not decide the culture of a nation. And yes, I would say that roads, education, telecommunications, healthcare and the like are all cultural characteristics. They have to be because they have only existed for small portions of our history - whereas the rule of law has (conceptually) existed, unchanged, ever since the first two humans learned to communicate with each other.

"Don't fuck with my life and I won't fuck with yours"

What you are effectively suggesting is that we take the same pool of greedy assholes, and instead of dividing them into camp A and camp B, we should put them all under the same command chain (even more centralized power). Worse still, you want to give the very same corporate guys you are angry about the monopoly of force over other people! Don't the likes of Serco, Halliburton, BP, etc. cause enough humanitarian damage as it is, without an explicit license to kill?

@bmacs27, I take it that you aren't proposing that making murder legal would reduce the number of murders, are you?

Let's take one step back. Let's say 1st degree murder stays like it is, but we legalize 2nd degree murder (i.e. paid assassins and hit men). Now we've brought the existing assassins into the light of day, and we can regulate and tax them -- make them take training classes, and give them literal licenses to kill. Maybe set up some rules about contracts (e.g. any assassin must honor their original contract, none of this "I'll pay you double what he's paying you" shit, or you lose your license), put together a regulatory enforcement agency, maybe a little interdisciplinary agreements between local law enforcement so hits can be done without harming innocent bystanders, let the CIA privatize some of their wetwork, etc. Oh, and we'll need to set up some laws that give hitmen contractor-assassin privilege so they can't be compelled to rat out their clients, otherwise they won't have a sustainable business model.

Now, if we did all that, would the total number of murders go down, because we legalized a type of murder, or would it go up because we massively increased the ease with which murder can be supplied?

Same with banning drugs. If you force providers to live outside the law, supply will shrink, even if demand stays the same. The shift in the supply curve means the price increases (especially if demand doesn't reduce!), and that means fewer people will actually make a purchase, and you end up with less drugs in the hands of people, and less drugs being used.

You still get all the other negative effects, such as lost tax revenue, no government regulatory oversight, a new contraband market for criminals to make a profit on (which leads to more people being drawn into the enterprise), and the secondary effect of more violent crime related to the production, transportation and sale of drugs.

Reducing the incidence of people smoking marijuana isn't even close to being worth all that. Reducing the incidence of murder is.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dylan, infidels, license to kill, 80s, 1983' to 'dylan, infidels, license to kill, 80s, 1983, knopfler' - edited by silvercord

>> ^blankfist:
Sigh. Why is it you always bring up extreme examples?

I don't. You do. Go back and re-read your comment that I was replying to. It's silly. Extreme. Baseless.

No group of people will allow unjustified murder.

I thought this was all supposed to be about individuals being free of constraint? Fucking authoritarian statist with your tyranny of the majority.

If it's unjustified murder that bothers you, what do I need to do to perform justified ones? Do I have to get a license to kill? If so, you're an authoritarian statist. I demand liberty to give death to whoever I see fit.


To just outright state my subtext, you're the one who constantly argues that all of governance can be boiled down to simple concepts that are clear cut. I vehemently disagree, and I'm happy to remind you of the messes that exist in the real world; like people who think murder is fun.

Lately you've become fond of insinuating that anyone who thinks the state should address societal ills is advocating violence. I believe most laws are there to protect people, and if you can provide a 100% non-violent alternative to our system that doesn't involve a state using violence to enforce a code of law that's created by some type of democratic process, then perhaps the accusation would make a lick of sense.

Until then, find some way to restrain your urge to throw rocks from within your glass house.

The truth is, I think you misunderstand what people like me and dft want. Those things you listed about what a "strong" government might be are mostly things that liberals are trying to fight.

Your quibble with us is mostly over economics, not over individual rights or inappropriate uses of violence.

Ah, with my luck, of course it's a dupe.

I went ahead and administratively modified mlx's embed and republished it. Please send your votes that way.

Perhaps something like *votemerge=http://www.videosift.com/video/Russian-Hooligans should be added in v3.3.

For now, I've got a *License to *Kill.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Payback:
Wow, this thread sure has people putting their heads up their asses. Jeez, this is a video rating site, not Capitol Hill...

Its a controversial video, in a political channel--what do you expect? If you're anti-intellectual, stick to the big boobs, nut shots, and fluffy bunny videos.


I'm sorry, do you have something to prove here?

From what i've read about your comments, you take things out of context and try to make some form of rebuttal against them.


"You clearly have no understand of the meaning of excessive force. Excessive force is judged, and is applied to the current situation only! It has nothing to do with past actions--it has to do with the current state of the arrestee. No matter how belligerent/criminal they were acting prior, if they are currently passive and cooperating you cannot apply force based on previous actions."

This seems to be a cover-up for the fact that you said that cops aren't allowed to do anything to someone who has been shooting cops.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

Of which, two things. First, you only furthered their point about "But that doesn't mean that it would be excessive in every situation."

See, what I draw from that is, That much force can be used in certain situations and not be called Excessive, and that seems to be what you're trying to lecture them about.

And the second thing, If you think cops aren't allowed to use lethal force to subdue a target that's been shooting at officers, no matter how innocent they were in the first place, THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 COPS. Lets even take cops out of the picture and replace it. THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 PEOPLE.

There.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^anyprophet:
These types of videos always bring out the crazies who think we live in some kind of police state.

What is that, a joke? Rights don't mean anything unless you have them when you need them and in every single case in recent memory when someone actually needed them, they were violated. How is that not a police state?
Examples:
Confiscation of firearms during Katrina
Japanese sent to internment camps after pearl harbor
The American citizen who was sent to Guantanamo bay for several years.
Inability to protest in public (freedom cages)
Un-prosecuted Police Brutality



Ooo, a fun one now. Lets start with.. Oh, The guns, during Katrina. Now, you can keep in mind I'm canadian, and maybe we somehow think differently about these things up here.. But during a state of mass panic of the people, where mass disaster is happening, looting, all that fun stuff, I don't think it's a smart idea to have any form of firearm. All that's going to cause is more potential panic and destruction.

Japanese sent to internment camps? wow, we're really digging here aren't we. You are right for that point, their right to freedom was compromised, but that somehow doesn't fall under the category of "Recent Memory" to me. That more falls under the.. "There was a war going on at the time" category of things where lots of bad shit happened.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^charliem:
Its legal to defend yourself against a cop...hell you can kill a cop if they are arresting you and you are innocent.
Happened a few years back, guy got off any charges at all.

Wait, what? You can't be serious. What country is that in?
"I knew I hadn't been speeding, but he kept writing that ticket anyway, so I shot him."

Jesus you're ignorant. What is the difference between a cop and a criminal who approaches you, while you are minding your own business and not breaking any laws, and tries to utilize lethal force against you? Nothing! Unless the cops badge number is 007, he doesn't have a license to kill. If your life is in danger--from cop or criminal--you have a legal right to defend yourself. What country are you living in?


ohh... an attempt at a joke! It really wasn't funny.
Why don't we backtrack here to show the point they were making originally, but YOU were too ignorant to see it.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

The main quote, by the way, really doesn't have anything backing it up, So far it's just someone saying "I heard once that..." which really has nothing to it. For all WE know, that's exactly what happened.

Other then that, their quote was a joke. That happens on the sift. a lot. They're usually funny... usually.

>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....
How hard is it to make a simple argument around here without a bunch of random, irrelevant crap spewed in response?
Yes gwiz665, I understand you would go to trial after killing someone. Yes I also understand shooting a cop who simply arrests you is not a valid self defense argument. Why are you even making these points?
And for the 10th time, SDGundamX, what would be the point of finding out what she said beforehand--are you just curious or something? Because it has no bearing on the argument of excessive force.


Who the fuck are you to stifle curiosity? For all we know she threatened the cop, she could have punched him in the face, she could have been weilding a tazer that miraculously got knocked out of her hands by a big boobed woman carrying a fluffy bunny, and then went on to hit some guy in the nuts. The cop, then seeing his opportunity finally struck back at the woman and saved his life and then went on to cure cancer.

We don't know every single detail of the circumstances surrounding the lethal force. You've taken up an "Innocent until proven guilty" stance, where as the rest of us are actually being optimistic.

Whatever your issue is, being it getting off by trying to correct people over teh interwebs, or thinking you're somehow superior to the rest of the sifters because YOU KNOW HOW TO USE BOLD! just save the asshole routine, and watch the video.

Oh, and just a P.S. don't bother quoting me and trying to make yourself seem like a big man. This post is long enough as it is without it being picked apart, also: I don't care about what you have to say in response.

And now, I'm going to go get some pie.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^charliem:
Its legal to defend yourself against a cop...hell you can kill a cop if they are arresting you and you are innocent.
Happened a few years back, guy got off any charges at all.

Wait, what? You can't be serious. What country is that in?
"I knew I hadn't been speeding, but he kept writing that ticket anyway, so I shot him."

Jesus you're ignorant. What is the difference between a cop and a criminal who approaches you, while you are minding your own business and not breaking any laws, and tries to utilize lethal force against you? Nothing! Unless the cops badge number is 007, he doesn't have a license to kill. If your life is in danger--from cop or criminal--you have a legal right to defend yourself. What country are you living in?


Your life is not in danger if a cop is arresting you and you are innocent, thus you are most definitely not allowed to shoot him. You are allowed to defend yourself, if you are threatened, but not for being arrested. Your second and first comment are not coherent, they describe two different examples.

If a cop fires at you and you shoot him, you will go to trial, but be acquitted. You can't just shoot a cop (or anyone else, for that matter) and just go about your own business again.

>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^charliem:
Its legal to defend yourself against a cop...hell you can kill a cop if they are arresting you and you are innocent.
Happened a few years back, guy got off any charges at all.

Wait, what? You can't be serious. What country is that in?
"I knew I hadn't been speeding, but he kept writing that ticket anyway, so I shot him."


Jesus you're ignorant. What is the difference between a cop and a criminal who approaches you, while you are minding your own business and not breaking any laws, and tries to utilize lethal force against you? Nothing! Unless the cops badge number is 007, he doesn't have a license to kill. If your life is in danger--from cop or criminal--you have a legal right to defend yourself. What country are you living in?