Um….what!?
All that…public drunkenness as a minor, obstructing, disturbing the peace, disorderly conducts, ignoring a lawful order, and identity theft (technically)/using another person’s ID…and it took 15 minutes to finally decide to arrest her and then she got ONE charge that was DROPPED! Holy shit, white girl privilege is STRONG. Her boyfriend would be denied bail if he acted that way, and likely get an assaulting a police officer charge added for fun. *wtf

You’re always so worried about federal money being wasted….do you have a clue how much Judge Cannon’s illicit “defense” of Trump from the bench as a political delaying tactic cost America?
It was never a defense, nor was it legal. It was blatant political nonsense always destined to fall apart, as it has.
It certainly cost at least tens of millions. For nothing but political theater and a delay in prosecution.
I would bet you a million dollars that doesn’t bother you one whit nor change your opinion of Trump….if you hadn’t already welched on bets before.

I also bet Trump getting caught with MORE STOLEN CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS last week after swearing he didn’t have any repeatedly…and evidence he ordered them hidden during pre-announced searches (contrary to his lies that the feds broke in unannounced, they actually set up an appointment, giving multiple hours notice before showing up) makes no difference to you. Another nothing burger. You are so delusional you don’t even see you chose Trump over America, truth, law, order, democracy, or the constitution. He is 100% against all that.

Your video, Law & Order: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"anti-family & pro-terrorist?"

wtf just happen at the Capitol? in the Senate? killing men & women is as anti-family* and terroristic AF.

as far as terrorist groups, the GOP is a far greater threat than RATM. sanctioning anyone in their group voting against the president?! having self-respect, voting your conscience, being principled, standing up for law & order - no place for them in the party.

brown-shirts were held to the same standard.

the mobsters, doing the don's bidding, defecated & urinated on a national landmark yet only they get any punishment?

turtle mitch said dimwit donnie was guilty and should be punished - but not by them. they were sworn to uphold the Consitution...but he violated the Consitution so long ago...too late for recourse.

as if the incoming AG will be rooted on by the GOP?

that orange turd said he could shoot a person on 5th Ave with nothing happening to him. he got 5 killed and nothing is happening.


~~~~~but the video was great.

got sidetrack.
damn me for caring.

*antifam

When I first saw the crash, it looked like that police helicopter was totally at fault and just fucked up that first copter without provocation.

It's good to see the incident in context with the preceding footage. Because that clearly shows the first copter was verbally assaulting the police copter and then was belligerent, resisted lawful orders and finally, got violent.

People are too quick to jump to conclusions when they see footage of a helicopter incident that's cut to make the police copter look bad. You have to see the whole story, people!

Fuck that makes me angry. What "lawful orders" did he actually give?
Someone needs to get fired ASAP and they need to get their house in order.

To be pedantic, yeah, typically a lawfully ordered killing, but execution typically means that you kill someone where they don't really have an ability to fight back.

eg. killed "execution style" usually means bullet to the back of the head or temple, gut doesn't require legal endorsement.

In the case of being pinned down and then shot, yeah, it's pretty much an execution.

Aside from annexing your lands and turning them into leisure worlds for retired Legionnaires, they also brought central heating, exotic goods, plumbing, roads, law, order, popular clothing styles -- but only for the wealthy -- and at the cost of maybe raping your children to teach your village a lesson to obey Roman rule.

Generations later hardly anyone even remembers and you're now part of the empire. And when you're invaded by other "barbarians" your ancestors will protect their Roman culture as if it were always theirs to enjoy. Fight the other barbarians for us, you barbarian!!

You almost get the feeling they defined the entire future of western civilization. Every nasty bit; confusingly superior customs that are required otherwise you become a slave -- and maybe you'll become a slave anyway, even if you follow the rules. After all, once a bitch, always a bitch and so an entire legion slowly blots out your cultural and genetic existence.

Yay, Roman Empire!

Anyone who's read my comments knows I'm not a big fan of the police these days, but they were totally in the right here, and the description is absolutely ridiculous BS IMO.
People who try to make a police misconduct case out of this should think first and realize that offering this as evidence of police misconduct/abuse minimizes ACTUAL misconduct/abuse. There was NO "brutal beating", no choking seen, no stomping, no 'swarming by 9 officers', no 'slamming to the concrete', no 'arrested for jaywalking', just a teenager acting a fool and ignoring commands, pushing and kicking officers, and grabbing their weapons, all of which didn't end well for him when he's arrested for resisting arrest and refusing to comply with a direct lawful order from a peace officer...he'll be incredibly lucky if another charge for assault on a police officer isn't coming.
I wonder, what alternative actions do those complaining about this think the police SHOULD have taken? Just let him walk away indignantly? The law simply doesn't work that way.

Jaywalking may not be an arrest-able offence, but refusing/ignoring an officer's lawful command to stop certainly is, so is resisting when the cop tries to control/arrest you (like pulling the cop's hand off your arm, pushing the cop, or grabbing the baton that has yet to hit you).
The kid only gets hit with the baton (in the video) when he grabs it with both hands and tries to wrestle it away from the cop, as the cop wrestles for control of the weapon, the kid gets grazed in the face. When the other 4 (not 9) officers take control, he continues to fight with them and is taken to the ground.
As to his being a kid, he certainly thought he was adult enough to ignore/fight with the police. As far as I could tell, they all used restraint (compared to the normal dog pile and face kicks we've seen in the past in this kind of situation). I really don't think this video is going to help that 'kid' in court.
I'm somewhat surprised they didn't go after the woman screaming for interfering with a police action, or at least command her to move away. Telling the kid to stay seated (and ignore the command to get on the ground) sure seems to meet the criteria in my eyes.

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."

@bobknight33
here is what i don't get about you or lantern:
1.you state that you are a conservative with a "tea party" flavor to your politics,
YET...
you consistently defend the power of the state to authorize our ever-increasing militarized police force to engage in violence and brutality which often leads to the death of a citizen,often with impunity (such as this case).

this is neither conservative nor tea party,it is fascist.

2.many of your arguments point to obeying a lawful order,be polite and respectful and much of the brutality and violence would end.on this point i totally agree,
BUT....
you totally ignore how "equal under law" has been perverted to only serve the elite and those who can "pay for justice" and how the system of "justice" has been corrupted to target minorities and the economically insolvent (poor) and feed them into the largest prison system on the planet.

they are commodifying the poor,blacks,latinos in the name of profit,all for the same elitist fucknozzles who perpetrated fraud,theft and outright lies,walking away with trillions of our money and not a single indictment.(check that,ONE indictment of a low level banker..whoopdy-shit).

yet i see you consistently BLAME the poor,black and latino.

this is not conservative nor tea party....it is racist.

3.many of your posts deal with a corrupt government.how it is bloated and inefficient.you decry the 'welfare/nanny state" and the horrible misappropriation of funds.

this is a typical,and necessary argument.that is the way of political dialogue and while i am not debating here the finer points nor the validity of your position,i am,however,saying the discussion is a necessary one to engage in.

however,

you,almost without fail,disregard and will actually DEFEND:police brutality and military action on foreign soil.yet BOTH of these institutions are exclusively government controlled,operated and executed.(which is why many of lanterns posts make me laugh).

this is not conservative nor tea party ......... it is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

my point is:
your arguments and positions are not philosophically harmonious.
they are in direct opposition.your posted philosophies are a direct contradiction to what you espouse.

here is an example of late:
@newtboy tends to post cops behaving badly videos.
you will chime in,almost always,siding with the cop (in one fashion or another).
newtboy will make an argument about exercising your rights.the rights as a citizen in a situation with a representative of the state..
AND YOU WILL ARGUE WITH HIM.

in that instance..newtboy is more a tea party conservative than you are bob.

think about that for a moment bob....
newt is MORE of a patriot and constitutionalist than YOU are.
maybe you are just being a contrarian?
maybe just a bit of trolling?

but...in the end,your arguments make no sense due to their contradictory nature.
you can't be for a smaller,more accountable government and then look the other way when that very same government is over-stepping it's lawful directives.

1st amendment says the government shall make no law abridging people's right to peaceably assemble. That's a supreme law, that no lower laws can supersede.

There is no 'lawful' order to make that particular woman leave that particular spot.

Police commands are not obligatory simply because they are given by police.
They could command you to strip naked, bend over and present yourself for an a$$ F'ing.

-scheherazade

The straw man argument is that you claim/imply that someone claims that the laws of nature will always be the same, and so forth, then you say that that's not a possible claim to make. But nobody claims any such thing.

I didn't claim or imply anyone did..I was pointing out that Dawkins failed to justify the scientific method because he did not overcome the problem of induction. I then further elucidated the argument by pointing out what the problem of induction is, and why pragmatism could not be justified in light of it.

If the underlying intent behind the question is: "

Listen carefully to what the man is asking and the responses; they're speaking in philosophical terms. The questioner is asking about justification, and Dawkins understood exactly what he meant when he framed the question as "what justifies the faith that science will give us the truth?" This is exactly the intent behind the question. It's a philosophical question, and Dawkins gave an inductive argument as an answer.."it works", but the inductive argument has its own issues which I have already pointed out.

Science has worked incredibly well so far within its domain, so I'm curious why you think there's any reason to even raise the possibility it won't continue to work in the future.

I believe that science will continue to work until the end of time, because there is a God who upholds His lawfully ordered Universe. This isn't really about whether science will work in the future; it's more about the nature and basis for truth claims. Empiricists claim, for instance, that knowledge only comes from sense experience. Empiricism is of course the cornerstone of the scientific method. Because most atheists trust in science to explain the world to them, they are empiricists by default and they think empirical evidence is the measure of everything that is true and real.

In a round about way, this is getting at the core reason for the question. It's cutting to the heart of a major problem that people have, which is that they are only skeptical to a point. They fail to see the assumptions inherent in their own worldview, or that they even have a worldview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

Everyone makes certain assumptions about reality, consciously or unconsciously, in order to function in it. This is something we have discussed before. You think it is unreasonable that you should ever have to justify something like your existence. I happen to agree with you here; it's completely pointless to argue about whether you exist or not. I don't think you should be skeptical of your own existence, and therefore it is justifiable to make that leap. This is an assumption you must make, and there are many more..such as the world is real. That, for instance, the Universe didn't pop into existence 5 seconds ago and all of our memories are false. You must assume that your history is real, and that the people you are meeting are not actors like in the Truman show. All of this sorts out to form the foundations, or basic beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief) of your worldview. A world view is like a pair of glasses you put on to interpret reality. My worldview is Christian, for instance..I interpret everything through the revelation of God. Most atheists are naturalists and so their worldview is naturalistic atheism. They interpret everything in natural terms, but this is also informed by their lack of belief in a God. A belief in God or a lack thereof is the cipher which will determine everything you believe about the nature of reality. It is the one truth that informs all other truths.

But here is where things go wrong, and why the question is necessary. People assume things about the nature of reality, and about logic, morality, and science which they cannot justify, and then they falsify truth claims on those topics with reasoning based on those assumptions. For instance, people will say that something isn't real unless there is empirical evidence for it, but this is based on the unjustified assumption that empirical testing is the only method for determining the truth. They will justify this claim like Dawkins justified the scientific method "science works therefore empirical testing". But pointing to the results to justify the assumption is logically fallacious reasoning. I could get out of debt rather quickly by murdering all of my creditors, but if I promoted this to you as a sound debt management plan, would you agree that being debt free justified the assumption inherent in the premise, that murder is acceptable? If you wouldn't, then you can see why no one should agree with the idea that because we sent a man to the moon, the scientific method has been justified. Results don't justify anything; the methodology used to get the results must itself be justified by a higher reasoning process. The idea empirical testing is the only way to obtain truth itself must be empirically tested; and how do you empirically test that idea? This is where the inductive argument completely fails.

Unfortunately for most people their skepticism has already turned off long ago and they are blind to the leaps of logic they make in their own reasoning process. They are only skeptical of what challenges the core assumptions of their worldview, not the assumptions themselves, and they evaluate all truth claims through these assumptions. It would be like if I wore glasses that saw only two colors and you wore glasses that saw three. Everything you told me about seeing three colors I would evaluate in terms of seeing two. I would be utterly blind to the third color because of my assumption that only two were possible. No matter how articulate your argument was, unless you could get me to take off those glasses (put down the assumption that only 2 colors were possible) I would never see it.

So this is the essence of the question..why should we trust science for the truth and not something else? To answer that we must challenge the assumptions that make science possible and see if they are coherent with reality.

Bollocks.

Not once has a scientist made a discovery and gone "shit the bible was right about this the whole time".

If there are theologians on the top of that mountain,
1. they got there on the backs of scientists
2. they refuse to believe they're not still in a field
3. they're so blinded by their faith that they're missing the awesome view all around them

The conception of being able to uncover the laws governing the Universe by investigating secondary causes is an idea advanced by Christian scientists. It was the belief that God created a lawfully ordered Universe that we could investigate with our reason which led to what is called the scientific method today. Every discovery we've ever made confirms the regularity of the Cosmos and the intelligibility (which is evidence for intelligent causation)

“The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”