Despite its random flaws, I had a lot of fun with this game. I felt it was well worth the investment.

There were some odd moments though, like in busting through a wall in Detroit and finding two gang members even though the only other way into the room was up an empty elevator shaft with no ladder.

Also, the last boss fight can be essentially skipped due to the laser gun's ability to shoot through glass.

Sh1t like this doesn't happen when you place the heads of gang members on pikes in the public square. Until then...

Pennsylvania is a shall-issue state. Do what must be done.

My God..

I don't even know what to say or think. I remember reading a small article on this very case in the Ottawa Citizen several months ago, I was disappointed, but they didn't really talk of this particular case in detail. I really didn't know what to think. After watching this footage I'm only left disillusioned, disgruntled and utterly speechless.

John T. Williams wasn't a thug or some kind of violent gang member, he was a troubled 50 year old man without a home, whom struggled with horrible bouts of alcoholism. He came from a family of woods carvers, which was just about the last output of livelihood the man could afford. He carried only a pocket-knife, one shorter than the legal limit which he used for carving.

So many of my friends and fellows insist on believing that racism suddenly "disappeared" across Canada and the United States.

They can go ahead and believe whatever the hell they want. Next time I go out drinking with my friends downtown, it sure as hell isn't going to be in Seattle.

Making hard drugs illegal solves nothing. It makes drug usage harder, but in doing so creates a problem much worse: a black market and the lives and resources that are destroyed trying to dominate or prevent it. It truly is no different from alcohol prohibition. Instead of dying of drugs because of parental neglect, now your children will have an opportunity to die:

1. in a gang from a cop or other gang members
2. from a gang as a cop
3. from a gang as a citizen who gets caught in the crossfire
4. from a gang as a citizen who was going to testify against a gang member
5. as a citizen who otherwise might have had a cop in the area to help them if not for their being busy with anti-drug enforcement

It also increases the chance of corruption within the police force because the confiscated substance are of such high market value from the artificial scarcity. Of course, we saw all of this from the 30s with alcohol prohibition, yet don't apply the same logic to all drugs. People are dumb when it comes to weighing cost/benefit ratios. Look at marijuana, marijuana is 1% as dangerous as even alcohol, and people still cling to its prohibition as being worth the costs incurred.

Then there's the philosophical part, which is that you should have the right to do to your body as you wish because you own your body from the day you're born. All rights derive from property. If you can be incarcerated against your will for doing something to yourself, then you are a slave of the state.

@IAmTheBlurr My name is gwiz665 with a g, not a q. Only assholes and dickheads so far has called me qwiz, and while we can disagree I don't count you among them.

Morally inferior? I don't accept that notion - morality has no tiers, view points are all equal unless evaluated from another viewpoint. You evaluate morality from a moral realism viewpoint, such that there are moral truths and that the examples you show are moral truths - I do not believe they are. I happen to hold the view that "slavery, child abuse, rape, or torture" are all despicable, but that does not make them immoral in any other way then the fact that I think they are immoral. Morality does not encompass others, only yourself.

Indeed, I believe in a descriptive sense of morality - normative morality is a crackpot theory, just as Moral Realism.

You can construct scenarios where they are justifiable, by making it a choice between that and something worse. Joker's ultimatum in the Dark Knight is an example - that undermines the idea that murder is never justified.

I would add though that from my point of view, there are certainly viewpoints that are better than others, but this is defined from my point of view - I am not saying that we should resort to nihilism because all viewpoints should be valued equally. I think morality evolves like biological beings do, in a direction - the direction is dictated by surroundings and different influences, but to say that there is an "absolute right way" is like saying that there is an "absolutely perfect animal" and that's just stupid - sure, land animals in general do not need gills, but that does not mean that it is "right" to not have gills for a land animal. It just has some definite advantages. A certain morality can also have advantages and disadvantages and those are always evaluated - murder has very little advantage and a huge disadvantage to most people, but some people have different values, like gang members getting advantages for killing enemies, or soldiers who value their duty more than their enemy's life.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.
And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.
And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.
If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: none; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> NetRunner said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/NetRunner-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)
</div></div></div></div>
The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?
My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.
Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.
If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.
It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: both; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Lawdeedaw said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/Lawdeedaw-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...
</div></div></div></div>
Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.


This is a long quote.

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.

And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.

And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.

If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.

>> ^NetRunner:

, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)


The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?

My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.

Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.

If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.

It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...


Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.

>> ^Porksandwich:
Although for myself the comment you are seeking stems from my desire to know that if someone who wasn't a cop had done this would they face the same or worse punishment as the cops in the end. At the very least it should be the same, but I think it should be worse for the cops simply because they used their authority to murder someone.
And we won't know that until the trial is done. Not sure why Obama would have a hand in it, unless he is pushing for police reform and using this as an example.
The kicking/stomping cop is guilty as hell if the testimony of the cop who flipped is to believed. But I think all the rest should face very similar charges unless they can prove they had no idea that they had murdered a bunch of unarmed civilians and that the gun had been planted. I just hope they don't allow guilty as hell cop assume more blame and let the rest play it off as he tricked them into believing the story. Because up until now, if the cop hadn't flipped on them...they would be nowhere still with this case and that MIGHT be because they didn't take the time to investigate it properly when it happened due to the assumed trust police have.
I just want to know that their punishment is the same as a non-police officer doing this to a group of people, and I hope it's worse because they used their authority to commit a crime. Which let's be honest, we know a lot of people in authority are committing crimes in front of our eyes and getting away with it...even if they do eventually get caught. Not sure how these police officers benefited from murdering a bunch of people, but if they've been paid since the crime..... or have been receiving retirement since helping cover it up.......
>> ^NetRunner:
I'm waiting for the chorus line of people who usually say "cops are never held accountable" to show up and explain to us that they're certain the cops still won't face any punishment for what they did...
Because, by their logic, if the video clip doesn't show Obama personally beheading all six officers, you know nothing will happen because the justice system never, ever works right. Ever.



Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.

Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.

If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.

A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.

Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.

Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.

I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...

"It's society's fault he was driven to desperation!"
"It's entirely his responsibility for making this choice!"

Why does it have to be one or the other?
All criminals are human beings. They're people. People who, because of their circumstances, have made poor choices. This is a statement that acknowledges the impact of their situation and their personal culpability.

The criminal here may have been driven to desperate acts by his situation, or he might just be a sociopathic opportunist. We can't be certain.
He may have been lured by the promise of easy money after hearing how someone else had gotten away apparently scot-free. He might feel that a few hundred or thousand bucks is worth a lot to him, but is effectively nothing for the corporation behind the counter, and that no one's really going to be hurt by his actions.
He might have been just high enough to talk himself into it, or be talked into it by someone else.
His starving family, or his kid that needs a kidney transplant, or the eviction notice that's probably coming in a few days, or the drug habit he's feeding - none of these make it "OK" to decide to commit a crime, but they're factors.

We're often very quick to picture someone who has committed a crime as nothing more than the crime itself.
It's a message I think gets a bit muddled in Eastwood's Gran Torino. We're shown how Thao is driven by peer pressure to attempt to steal the titular vehicle; he's not a criminal, but a person who made a very poor decision. A person who could potentially be rehabilitated from his "life of crime." At the same time, the gang members throughout the movie are vilified in typical "nothing more than criminals" fashion.

If this pharmacist was in violation of corporate policy by having the pistol at work (and I highly doubt CVS policy allows employees to arm themselves), then he'll probably be fired, or at least reprimanded.
I imagine he was probably "fed up" and angry about "these criminals preying on us and getting away with it." Does that make what he did right? Personally, I don't think so.
Here in Texas, I'm allowed by law to shoot someone if they're stealing my property. I don't think property is worth killing over. I do, however, think it's reasonable to use deadly force if my life or the life of a loved one is in imminent danger, or to prevent or stop a sexual assault against a loved one.
Beyond asking if he was "right" to do it, we can also ask if it was a responsible act. Unless the pharmacist saw something that convinced him the robber was preparing to shoot someone, I definitely think it was irresponsible, even if he'd fired one carefully-aimed shot that dropped the robber. The vast majority of robberies are bloodless affairs and criminals know that employees are typically trained to comply with demands. Confrontation with a firearm could have escalated the situation in an unpredictable fashion.

I'm not sure what the law is in Georgia, but here in Texas one of the clauses for use of deadly force is that the "actor did not provoke the person against whom the force was used." This clause gives me pause because it seems like displaying a gun in the first place might be considered provocation.

Am I the only one who wants to see Kirk mix it up with gang members?

oh dear
and yes, 'hardened gang members' are clearly the best test of ...
hell, i can't even come up with a word that doesn't directly conflict everything they're trying to say and equal in any way a repectable human being

any chance of the full video?

Glenn Beck proves again that he has zero street knowledge

I have studied gangs for many years, and there isn't one statement in Glenn Beck's video that you can take for a fact. He states that the kid was killed with a railroad tye - totally false. Anyone with a half an ounce of street knowledge could guess that is a board off of a park bench. How many skinny gang bangers can swing a 100 lbs railroad tye? He states that this happened because we took prayer out of the public schools and off of money. Not even a nice try - Beck - the seed for gang violence was planted in the 40s and 50s. The Chicago gang - the Cornell Square Rebels - killed two people and beat up two Chicago Police Officers all before the year of 1959, when their was prayer in the public schools. A 1957 New York Times article listed the words used by gang members so parents could listen and see if their kids were involved in gang activity. Beck - a little research before making a commentary goes a long way.

It goes to prove that I have forgot more about gangs than Glenn Beck knows.


Have fun listening to nothing! A brain is a terrible thing to waste!

you guys don't think those gang members (if that's what they even were) weren't all hardcore atheists????

Cholos are a certain type of gang member, usually associated with but not limited to male Hispanics. I knew lots of white, black, Asian, and female "cholos" in my youth.

IMHO, it's acceptable to wish ill against a class of people if that class is specifically grouped together based on their willingness to commit crimes and injury against innocent people and not based on their ethnicity or gender.

You may strongly disagree with cherokee's passionate sentiment and that's completely fine, but it's not necessarily race that's fueling their fire. Anyway, that's just this reporter's opinion.

>> ^blankfist:
Overly sensitive Jew alert. Nazism really gave some of them an unwarranted sense of entitlement. And, FYI, that "gangly superfluous gang member" they were floating in the air was actually a member of the Black Eyed Peas, so, yeah, not superfluous.


He said a "gangly superfluous band member." Yes, that was superfluous... why was a band member just floating there?