>> ^longde:

Wasn't the cop watching the guy's hands?
That quick draw is raw.


From what it looks like to me the gun was probably in the drivers side door jam and the driver was probably leaned over.

Maybe this is why sometimes I see state troopers approach from the passenger side?

>> ^hpqp:

Now where are all those who got their knickers in a twist over that video in which the cop kept the person pulled over at distance and at gunpoint, eh?


I notice something about the two videos and both the "oorah" brigade and the "police are assholes" brigade;

In this video, the policeman has no real view on the lunatic, he approaches him whilst he's sat in his car (he could have a fucking bazooka in there and he wouldn't know), he seems very relaxed as though he hasn't got a hint of guard up and even after attempted shot goes wrong he seems utterly surprised and almost as though he doesn't believe it's happening until he finally reacts. The policeman has no real alternative but to shoot at the guy because the guy's a clear and huge danger to everyone. And perhaps he always was a nutcase, but perhaps if the officer would have been more cautious no shot would have been fired and the nutcase would have ended up where he belongs.

In the other video, the man voluntarily gets out of his car and walks around, he takes his hands out of his pockets. The policeman is clearly expecting danger (perhaps a bit TOO much if you ask me), he's issuing clear commands and appears to be going to great lengths to minimise the risk to himself (and not necessarily others). Personally, i know there are solutions which are used by british police at times which involve letting a person *who is clearly acting outside the law due specifically to police pressure* escape (or think they've escaped) only to turn up later at their house and take them safely and calmly for everyone involved; i would have preferred such a solution but i don't know if it's feasible in that part of america.

Why must the nutjobs AND anti-police people live at the extremes? We don't have to have one or the other, we can have a nice mixture of safety and respect for both the officer AND the individual. BOTH videos are examples, imo, of it being done wrong by the officer. And i don't mean job-regulations wrong, i mean basic common sense/common decency wrong. You know, that thing everyone stopped having around 1970.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, one less a-hole in this world. And quite a savings to taxpayers! Excellent work, Officer.


My question is: which shot of his connected? And where did it hit?

Either way, nice shootin' Tex.

Gun to the face, 'splosion to the face, all in a day's work for the people who serve and protect.

>> ^hpqp:

Now where are all those who got their knickers in a twist over that video in which the cop kept the person pulled over at distance and at gunpoint, eh?


Have patience, they'll be around...

Hey Montana Boy.

I thought you and @NetRunner would enjoy the reasonableness and process of this cop confrontation.

No fireworks, just good ole common sense.

http://videosift.com/video/Slackline-or-Trees-Wait-for-the-ending

You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing

>> ^shuac:
Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.
Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.
BELIEF
theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).
Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)
While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).
An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.
KNOWLEDGE
gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.
For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.
The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.
One can be...
1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).
2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.

Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.

BELIEF

theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)

While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).

An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.

KNOWLEDGE

gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.

For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

One can be...

1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).

2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.

Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.

While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

This is muddle-headed bullshit by Ana Kasparian pretending to think about "serious issues" and trumpeting her E-Z Pik Progressive Opinion: that she's outraged by the awfulness of the War on Drugs only because blacks are getting arrested too much (and that she doesn't think taking drugs is a crime). Look how puffed up she gets, pausing for effect after repeating the statistic about more blacks in U.S. prisons today than there were slaves in (just to pick a date) 1850.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Anyone who watches the Young Turks when Ana is talking knows she is judgmental as hell. She normally advocates the harshest prison sentences, likes the work of Child Protective Services and wouldn't promote anything she didn't truly believe in — not even for (really) "a billion dollars." So you can believe her when she tells you Kim Kardashian's thighs are fat!

Cenk is clearer that the WoSD is the true problem and that poverty — not race — is the salient factor in who *does time* (as opposed to whatever Ana is officially pissed-off about) — that the results are cruel for everyone. I thought that might be why he tells the story of a (presumably white) Montana dude facing life for passing a bong in his car, except he makes a point of agreeing that the guy did do something wrong.

Ana rounds out her simulacrum of thought-provoking opinion by noting the injustice of blacks getting arrested for drug crimes even though violent crime statistics have been trending downward in urban areas. Sounds heavy. Dunno why exactly ...

Still, two and a half million people in cages across the USA rejoice to hear their story is finally being told and eagerly await Ana's future Social Studies Presentations. Upcoming Topics will include: "What is the Proper Speed Limit on the Interstate?", "Is Capital Punishment Bad?", and "Euthanasia, School Uniforms, Gun Control and Test Tube Babies: What I think for less than $ 1 billion"

Alas, I could not, Mr. Harpo. There is one that has a slightly better quality but is not as long and cuts off the last part of the line. Since it was the line that I wanted to sift I chose this embed.>> ^harpom:

Could you not find a better copy?

:52 is when I realized this is not a joke.

So what ? is she like the new Disney teeny bopper Hanna Montana replacement ?

Here's a few things that the Tea Party of my neighbor to the north, Montana, is pushing:

- Ban abortions
- Limit sex education
- Nullifying any federal law or right they don't like

Yeah, the party of 'liberty' wants to take away reproductive rights, restrict education about human sexuality, and nullify any other rights they deem unnecessary.

But I assure you, the Montana teabaggers have their priorities straight. They also want to:

- Declare global warming to be good for business
- Legalize hunting big game with a spear

You see, spear hunting is an urgent issue, and the Tea Party is going to make sure that it gets addressed by the state legislature because the state has oppressed spear hunters for far too long. This is important business, requiring tax dollars for the time and effort for this crucial debate.

Oh, and guess what they have to say if you don't like their agenda: "I say to you: 'This is America: Love it or leave it,'" shouted Rep. William McChesney, during the sovereignty declaration debate.

It's "liberty" on their terms, or get the fuck out.
>> ^Ryjkyj:

QM, how can you endorse people who want to enforce, by law, rules about who can get married, who can raise children, what women do with their bodies, and who should and shouldn't be able to negotiate the compensation for their labor...
But the president's wife suggesting that we might start a program to educate kids about the dangers and benefits of nutrition is just the height of tyrannical nanny-ism...

Rank↓ State↓ 2009↓ 2008↓ 2007↓ 2004-2006↓
1 Maryland $79,272 $78,454 $78,725 $77,985
2 New Jersey $68,342 $70,378 $67,035 $64,169
3 Connecticut $67,034 $68,595 $65,967 $59,972
4 Alaska $66,953 $68,460 $64,333 $57,639
5 Hawaii $64,098 $67,214 $63,746 $60,681
6 Massachusetts $64,081 $65,401 $62,365 $56,236
7 New Hampshire $60,567 $63,731 $62,369 $60,489
8 Virginia $59,330 $61,233 $59,562 $55,108
District of Columbia $59,290 $57,936 $54,317 $47,221 (2005)[3]PDF
9 California $58,931 $61,021 $59,948 $53,770
10 Delaware $56,860 $57,989 $54,610 $52,214
11 Washington $56,548 $58,078 $55,591 $53,439
12 Minnesota $55,616 $57,288 $55,082 $57,363
13 Colorado $55,430 $56,993 $55,212 $54,039
14 Utah $55,117 $56,633 $55,109 $55,179
15 New York $54,659 $56,033 $53,514 $48,201
16 Rhode Island $54,119 $55,701 $53,568 $52,003
17 Illinois $53,966 $56,235 $54,124 $49,280
18 Nevada $53,341 $56,361 $55,062 $50,819
19 Wyoming $52,664 $53,207 $51,731 $47,227
20 Vermont $51,618 $52,104 $49,907 $51,622
United States $50,221 $52,029 $50,740 $46,242 (2005) [4]PDF
21 Wisconsin $49,993 $52,094 $50,578 $48,874
22 Pennsylvania $49,520 $50,713 $48,576 $47,791
23 Arizona $48,745 $50,958 $49,889 $46,729
24 Oregon $48,457 $50,169 $48,730 $45,485
25 Texas $48,259 $50,043 $47,548 $43,425
26 Iowa $48,044 $48,980 $47,292 $47,489
27 North Dakota $47,827 $45,685 $43,753 $43,753
28 Kansas $47,817 $50,177 $47,451 $44,264
29 Georgia $47,590 $50,861 $49,136 $46,841
30 Nebraska $47,357 $49,693 $47,085 $48,126
31 Maine $45,734 $46,581 $45,888 $45,040
32 Indiana $45,424 $47,966 $47,448 $44,806
33 Ohio $45,395 $47,988 $46,597 $45,837
34 Michigan $45,255 $48,591 $47,950 $47,064
35 Missouri $45,229 $46,867 $45,114 $44,651
36 South Dakota $45,043 $46,032 $43,424 $44,624
37 Idaho $44,926 $47,576 $46,253 $46,395
38 Florida $44,736 $47,778 $47,804 $44,448
39 North Carolina $43,674 $46,549 $44,670 $42,061
40 New Mexico $43,028 $43,508 $41,452 $40,827
41 Louisiana $42,492 $43,733 $40,926 $37,943
42 South Carolina $42,442 $44,625 $43,329 $40,822
43 Montana $42,322 $43,654 $43,531 $38,629
44 Tennessee $41,725 $43,614 $42,367 $40,676
45 Oklahoma $41,664 $42,822 $41,567 $40,001
46 Alabama $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473
47 Kentucky $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466
48 Arkansas $37,823 $38,815 $38,134 $37,420
49 West Virginia $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227
50 Mississippi $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261
Puerto Rico $17,500 $17,000

i don't feel like there has to be a difference in the rhetoric and the reality. and find that statement kind of cynical.

my kids are allowed all kinds of crazy freedoms with their hair and dress and expression and creativity and language and their interests are almost always highly encouraged by me and my tribe.

princesses weren't a non existant part of playtime when my daughter was younger, at that point i thought it was an archetype and all little girls go through that phase. and i still kind of think that. but i think it can be overly nurtured in ways that are obnoxious. anyway, princess phase was short lived and generally took a back seat to her desire to be a fairy or a piano playing shark. i could think of million reasons to hate barbies, but i decided not to, she has barbies ... she just isnt real interested in them. bratz dolls are actually just amazingly whorey and negative and are just way overboard, so.. fuck no. she's too old for them now anyway.

my biggest issue is over commercialization, so we simply have no television. they watch movies and what not. and actually i feel like limiting the television and commercialization has helped them development loads of creativity. which is actively encouraged around here. it's totally possible to imbue your kids with your values without forcing your political agenda down their throats.

i'm extremely interested in how much of my kids personalities and social skills are due to their lack of exposure to what's "trendy" and how much of it is just inherent. . my niece is the same age as my daughter, she's been hooked on the disney channel since birth. "fitting in" and keeping up with trends and being "like" her peers is extremely important to her. my kid couldn't care less. but that was also the difference between her mom (my sister) and i when we were kids.

i used to worry more about my son being able to fit in with more mainstreamed peers. seeing as we have no television, he knows 0 about spiderman or transformers or sports, he has 0 male role model to emulate and has been raised entirely by a bunch of women. but he's having no trouble "fitting in" with other boys. my daughter on the other hand is having loads of issues with socialization. she has no interest in what other 8 year old girls seem to be interested in. honestly, at this point, if hannah montana would help her make friends, i'd consider getting cable. but she just thinks it's stupid.

i'm interested to know if that's her just being a mature, heavily artistic, tomboy, with a dose of shyness or if the persona's of little girls are just so entirely shaped by television and trends that she's finding it impossible to relate them without it. i suspect its probably a bit of both. and i find the latter extremely sad.

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://kids.videosift.com/member/spoco2" title="member since August 21st, 2006" class="profilelink">spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.
I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".