Grabbing at a gun is immediate grounds for deadly force in every case, law, home, etc. I only say this because the suspect obviously upped the ante to that zone with no regard for human life. Second, "witnesses" were there to see it all...that's not a good thing and ups the ante far, far more... witnesses are either friends or someone the cop has no idea who they are. That means they are potentially dangerous, especially in a city where blacks (by their own heartfelt admissions) HATE white police officers with a huge passion. I am not saying the racists are not justified, as they clearly have been profiled and such, but this is clearly the case. No confusion should ever arise in dispute of the fact that bystanders are different than potential dangers. If the officer does taze and someone gets involved, he is a dead mother fucker because now he is occupied with a screaming, shitting-self man who is 100% willing to murder him, as already displayed, and someone else. Lastly, the tazer does not always work. And when the tazer does work, immediately afterwards you are 100% capable of using your body to 100% again. Most people think that then tazer magically incapacitates someone for a long time. No--when you release that trigger the tazer's effects are over.
In my opinion deadly force is not the last option. It is the option right before you die.

Now the responses are, for certain, based on stupid choices. The chief trying to minimize was what we all do but pretty dumb. You ever comfort a kid that he might not be hurt so he doesn't feel pain or freak out? Happens, even if the kid is really really hurt and the ambulance is on the way. Stupid choice...and the releasing of the video is iffy at best. What pisses me off most is that it was not meant to calm down the violence, but to appease the nation's view of Ferguson's white people...

4.5 minutes!? jesus lads, calm down! your poor wives/girlfriends!

You never know who you're messing with. It's usually best to calm down first.

F that S. I'm the first to react even when it's not life threatening. srsly... WTF is wrong with people! I know I'm a person too, so inextricably linked with everyone else, but I just don't understand this...

About a month ago there was an earthquake here in California and NO ONE in my office except for me reacted. Literally no one except for myself... that's crazy. WHY!

One guy was from out of state and this was his first quake. Everyone from the leadership of my team was sitting in a conference room nearby my desk, talking about how used to them they all are now; and this ignorant out of state man was saying similar things like "I was watching you guys to see how to react."

After crawling from under my desk, I ran into their room and yelled at them saying they were NOT being very smart and told the guy from (Pennsylvania?) that he should go under a desk if he's in doors and yada yada yada. He scoffed at me.

He scoffed my good advice. Ooooh, ignore the crazy person who actually knows what to goddamn do in an emergency. Why? Well, mostly because I'm an asshole -- but that's the thing, I'm an asshole when I'm right (or believe I'm right -- I am always ready for education when I am wrong).

Of course, as always, for being a contrary and vocal minority I was ridiculed. Office politics and trying to be part of the swarm will get you KILLED. God, you'd think working in a creative industry would weed out fools, but it doesn't. Same dumb asses every where you go.

I'm considering becoming a reasonable person, but goddamn high blood pressure. I need to calm down or I'll die from a heart attack -- caused by fools! Ahh, how fitting.

Ridicule me after I save your fucking life, ingrates.

Alright alright alright. Let's all calm down and watch me eat these tasty pancakes!

I'm a little sad they seemed to have gone the way of Superjail with this...it could have been hilarious, but the constant need to be 'edgy' kind of ruined it for me. Maybe they'll calm down if they get picked up as a series.

Jeez, tough room. He's a Jeopardy contestant, he's not applying to be the next Rich Little. Calm down.

...and imagine all the ants killed with every road and parking lot and Wal-Mart and... calm down people. Ants are pretty resilient. They'll be waging wars for their queens long after they've helped compost the last of our dead.

I have a simple test for this one. If you can no longer judge what is an appropriate amount of time to maintain eye contact with people, your too high to drive! (anyone who smokes should know what I mean)

Up until that point however I honestly believe it can slightly enhance ones standard of (safe) driving, especially if one is prone to a quick temper or impatience/ "a need for speed". Frankly some people are more of a liability when completely sober! (I know I used to be till I made myself calm down)

Unlike alcohol Pot tends to make one objective about how impaired ones senses have become. If your too high the little voice in your head tends to think "I'm really high, maybe I shouldn't drive yet?" rather than "I'm not pissed, I'm amazing. We can totally pull this off!".

Pot can also be surprisingly self regulating too, your most comfortable road speed is pretty much inversely proportional to how high you are, unlike certain other fermented vegetable products which are known to have the opposite effect....

IMHO existing laws for driving without due care and attention etc. are perfectly adequate to deal with potential abuse. I'm not saying it can't be a problem but equating it with drink driving is foolish and necessary to me.
This advert seems to have hit on a nice way of approaching the subject by simply suggesting you think twice about driving when baked our of your tree, rather than some unrealistic draconian shock tactics (Like the us advert at the drive through).

Good work NZ! (Wish I could afford to live there, seems like an awesome place)

Calm down man, I realise that he hadn't outright condemned this in public, but let's face it, the likelihood that he had nothing to do with it is slim. And if you aren't used to audience-catching video titles by now, then where have you been?

Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out the facts so others don't get misled

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

Jimmims, there are generally four types of knowledge that exist in the world. Specialized, whereas only a few people highly interested in the subject would know. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to prove claims he/she makes. (E.g. What are each and every vitamin and mineral found in a GNC multivitamin?)

Then there is uncommon knowledge. Again the burden is with the claimant. (E.g. What are the names of twenty-five out of fifty-one Presidents, not including the last five Presidents. When did America go to the Gold standard—year and month.)

Then there is accessible knowledge. Not everyone knows, but many do and all can with a little research. The burden lies fifty-fifty, sometimes with the claimant, sometimes not, just depends on the situation. (E.g. Rain water is not pure water and contains parasites. Fermentation is a process that produces energy, not just alcohol.)

Then there is knowledge everyone should know—common knowledge. (E.g., Humans need calcium.)

Between the last two is where Stand Your Ground falls. The burden of this knowledge should fall on the reader to know. In no way should a claimant be responsible for providing it. Stand your ground is common knowledge or accessible at the least. It is in the newspapers, on the internet, court records, etc. When someone states, "He is going away for a long time," then it is on them to prove this claim, since SYG has commonly been known to acquit these types of cases. I find it strange, especially in light of this, that you do not ask other people to prove their claims.

I think the acquittal of Zimmerman proves that this was common knowledge in the first place. But wait, here is a link to the acquittal, in case you did not see the not guilty verdict, since I must prove even common knowledge. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/protests-george-zimmerman-verdict-gallery-1.1398497)

Second, and last, I was snarky with no one personally—I even stated that I was being broad with my comments and did not apply them to the poster. And yet you were snarky directly with me, personally. That is why I thought you were mad. In all reality you made it seem like I was ignorant. That is why I asked you to calm down.

Calm down, I'm not the one raging, and I wasn't making any argument, I simply stated facts, and based on those facts made a prediction that Zimmerman will be found guilty. Of course with a jury it's not really about the law anymore but which lawyer convinces the jury who was right. Still based on what I've seen of Zimmerman's defense, it's not looking good for him.

You claimed that Florida law "is pretty clear and many examples exist of it getting people off. You CAN chase someone down and start a confrontation, then shot them. Hell, you can be part of a drug deal gone bad and kill someone and get off. Someone can throw a beer bottle at you and you can shoot them." You provided no proof of your claims, and I simply supplied a link to the law showing that what you claim about the law isn't true. The law doesn't "get people off," lawyers do.

The problem is none of that which you highlighted furthers your argument. If Zimmerman hit Travon, you would be right. But "provoking" the fight goes far beyond just tailing someone and making them feel like a punk bitch as you profile them. That is in no way physical, and in no way deserves a physical response. If it did, I could have beat the fuck out of a whole lot of people, some defenseless.

Anyways, a drug deal in and of itself is in no way provoking a fight. It has happened where offenders get off doing these deals (or having done illegal shit and someone got shot.) Already been done. Shooter got off. He had a legal right to be where he was (I.e., not in the guy's home illegally) and there was a slight break in the drug deal before the attack. (I.e. he turned his back and took a step or two, and got hit from behind. Drug deal, turn around, fight, kill, but you are okay...)

Remember, there is always an exception that can be found in the law. And calm down Jimnms, no need to rage. Just read the law a bit closer and try to think like a pussy would, like Zimmerman would. It could one day get you off of murder charges.