In http://wtkr.com/2013/08/01/video-shows-virginia-state-police-car-hitting-skateboarder/ you can see a less-edited version of the video. The cop did not casually drive off after intentionally running the guy over. Rather he was making an illegal u-turn and wasn't paying attention. He got out to see if the skater was injured.

So not police brutality. At worst police reckless endangerment. More generously a stupid mistake.

(and I am certainly not someone who will excuse police aggression)

What's funny depends on who you're telling the joke to. I tell all my jokes to myself, therefore all of them are funny.

Seriously, you need to pay attention where you say what to whom. Rape jokes aren't funny if being told in a rapevictim support group, no matter who you are and how clever the joke is. In that situation it's not ok. Being alone in an elevator with your best friend? Hilarious as shit. Mind your audience. Don't be cruel, don't be reckless.
That said, you can't go to a Luis CK show and be surprised when he makes such jokes. He gets paid for it. So does Carlin although his rape jokes are mediocre. He so much better with blasphemy.

Race aside, i think this law is shocking.

Zimmerman knew he had a gun on him, you obviously don't carry one by accident. He threw himself into a situation which eventually allowed him to use that gun, and if you ask me that is utterly fucking reckless. If you're allowed to carry a gun, then you sure as shit better do everything in your power to avoid using it, up to and including extricating yourself from a situation before it even escalates. You see someone walking around that you think looks suspicious? Ok, phone the police; your job is done.

No life was in danger until he followed that kid. Even if he thought that the kid was out trying to steal, or sell drugs, or whatever, it matters not to me. Until someone's life is clearly in danger, the addition of a gun to the situation only makes the situation more dangerous. Having a weapon did one thing here - it gave someone the confidence and feeling of safety that allowed him to put himself into a situation which he otherwise wouldn't have put himself in, and that is dangerous to everyone.

This law will always favour the shooter because that person will be the only person left standing.

and here I just was commenting and defending us officers on the other "police state" video (where law enforcement handled it properly) and then here comes a video like this.

Only thing to say is the cop made a mistake and obviously become completely flustered by it as he probably knew he was being filmed. This does not give him the right to be an asshole. I have to ask what is the age of the male that is taking the PAS (preliminary alcohol screening) test? If he is under 21 there is a no tolerance policy towards underage drivers with alcohol in there system. He could of blew .01 and still be arrested. Anyone under the age of 21 should not be consuming alcohol (I know I know, we all did it) but if you do, DON’T DRIVE.

That being said, just a few notes so everyone knows (may only apply to California). In California (and I believe everywhere) you can be under the legal limit of .08 BAC and still be arrested for a DUI. There are two subsections of the Vehicle code for a dui, VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b) which are usually both charged. The B section is only for if you are over .08 BAC. The (A) section can be used if you are driving erratically or unsafely even if under the legal limit. That section is also used for when driving under the influence of a drug (pot, prescription meds, etc..). 9 Times out of 10 in court the charge of VC 23152(A) will get dropped to a wet and reckless which is treated like a DUI but with fewer consequences.

Now, please do not take the advice of these other people and refuse all testing (in California). In California, there is a law called Implied Consent, please read here:

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm

but to sum it up, you have to give breath, blood, or urine when arrested with probable cause for a DUI. This may not sound fair but it was put in place so people could not refuse all testing then go to court and argue there was no proof of their intoxication. There are penalties if you do not give samples so please read that link. This law can help both ways, as an example if you really are not under the influence of alcohol or at least under the legal limit, then the blood test (most accurate) will show this. This will either liberate you in court showing you were not intoxicated as the officer said or at least get your DUI dropped to a wet and reckless if you were under the influence but at a legal level. Of course, if you were really under the influence or got into a DUI crash nothing is really going to help you but a good lawyer.

Just as an example, a woman was stopped for making an illegal U-Turn. Before this officers admitted she had been driving ok. Once officers pulled her over to issue a citation they immediate smelled alcohol coming from the car and her person. The female agreed to a breath test and blew a .38 BAC! For most people including guys, you would be unconscious if you had that much alcohol in your system. The woman was charged for a DUI but more importantly got alcohol counseling because the court ordered it. This is just an example of times where people who drink on a regular basis (alcoholics) may not show signs of alcohol impairment. They are such sever alcoholics who can function to an extent while intoxicated. That DUI arrest probably saved the women’s life.

All I am trying to say is I know it may seem unfair or prying to have an implied consent law here in California. All it is meant to do is to encourage people when they go out to drink to please GET A CAB or SOBER driver to take you home. Sober does not mean you “feel” sober, sober means no alcohol or you have followed the guidelines issued by California DMV on how many drinks / how many hours it takes to be sober enough to drive.

Lastly, I will say there are ways of helping yourself during a DUI situation so educate yourself and do some research (not that rusty penny or mustard or barely blowing your breath crap) if you are really worried that one day you’re going to be pulled over after consuming alcohol.

My father tried to drill into me pretty early that should some small animal run out into the road, reckless swerving is way more dangerous than just hitting it. Cruel, but on a scale, what's a this dogs life compared to everything else? By all appearances he was passing legally, unless the other car was going way way over the limit as well.

@Jerykk said "gross generalisations based on no evidence and a complete lack of understanding of how society currently works (or, in this case, does not work)."

The mentally ill: I live in Switzerland and, while our politics are far from perfect, you will not see mentally ill homeless people because they are cared for and given work by social institutions. If the mentally ill are homeless, it is society's fault.

The uneducated: almost unequivocally poor as well; it is the responsibility of any self-respecting, "civilised" society to make sure their entire population gets proper education. This doesn't mean everyone should have a PhD; learning a trade is also an education (& no useful job a human can do should be denigrated).
The way you say it, it's as if you're blaming uneducatedness on the uneducated, but would you know anything about how our societies work, you'd know that is completely illogical.

The irresponsible: considering what you follow up with, you basically mean here "the poor/uneducated", and you regurgitate the Fox News cliché of the dumb and reckless poor person wasting money and making all the wrong decisions. Yes, people with limited-to-no education (see above) will be easier to dupe into debt, bad credit/mortgages, etc, and they will also be less likely to know of (or accept the use of, you asshole Christianity) contraceptives, nor be able to afford abortions should they need one.

Second chances and recidivism: there's an interesting quote from an article on recidivism (taken from the Wiki): "Former criminals rose to become some of America's greatest leaders in law, industry, and politics. This possibility seems to be narrowing as criminal records become electronically stored and accessible."
The fact that, the more you treat a person who has committed a crime as a criminal, during and after hir internment, the more that person will have hir choices narrowed to exactly that. Especially when, on leaving detention during which nothing was learned (countries with the lowest recidivism have their inmates work and learn trades), society still brands them as criminal and refuses to let them survive in a legal fashion. Not to mention the ridiculously out-of-proportion rates of incarceration in the US, and for a number of non-crimes as well; what a great way to harden and anti-socialise your youths.

Are there lazy moochers and irreconcilable criminals out there? Definitely, but they are not the norm.

Getting a warrant to search a house isn't that simple. It takes more time than they had plain and simple. I can't fathom how anyone could think that police, having reasonable grounds to believe that an armed suspect who had committed several murders of innocent civilians in the previous hours is contained in a specific neighborhood, should stop, contain and commence writing search warrants for every house they want to search. Each one taking at minimum 1-2 hours to type, and additional time to be read and approved by the Judiciary. In fact, it would be reckless and irresponsible to do this and allow any other people to be killed in the meantime. This is why exigent circumstances clauses exist. It has never been seen on this scale before and that is due to the extraordinary circumstances.

To argue there shouldn't be an "exigent circumstance" clause, is also ridiculous. If police believe on reasonable grounds, that a suspect is in his house they need a warrant. If they believe he is currently destroying evidence of the crime for which he is a suspect, they do not need a warrant. But rest assured, the police MUST articulate their use of exigent circumstances every time it is used and the scrutiny from lawyers and judges will be fierce. People seem to think that it is a free pass for police to do what they want with no recourse. It is not.

was implying that fist bumping while driving is a bit reckless.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

On one hand we have a dick cop. On the other a reckless driver that could cause an accident that might result in your child's brains being splattered on the roadway...

My sister in law is law. She got pulled over doing 110. The cop was like this one--kind of let you off...then he looked in the backseat and saw the child there. "Ma'am, step out of the car, you're under arrest." It was fucking great. Point is, which one is worse in this video?

The camera was in the passengers lap and the officer came up on the passenger side. On a freeway it is standard procedure to come up on the non-traffic side in case someone sideswipes the car.

I just wish I could see his badge number because he should be on write-up for that crap. It's people like him that give other DPS officers a bad reputation.

The reason why he let them go is because Reckless Driving in Texas is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine and/or 30 days in jail plus the speeding ticket. Most officers will not bother with this if the person is foreign because they will most likely not be in the country long enough to show up for trial. If he had been a long time resident, it would be up to 200 dollars for the fine, up to 300 for the ticket (depends on location, we have some different scales in certain cities), 2 points on his license (doesn't block you from keeping it, just means that you have to pay extreme renewal fees), and the possible jail time. Anything over 10 days would be served at County, so I guess it is possible for anal violation, but I've never seen someone get more than 10 for RD.

I agree with you most of the way. I have nothing against gun owners or people having guns in a responsible way. It seems there's a definition question about what is "a responsible way" though -- I don't think being able to carry weapons in public is a responsible way. Sure, taking them to a gun range in a secure case or firing on your private property (as long as the projectiles don't leave your property when you shoot) is just fine by me. Even in certain areas you should be able to carry it for protection from wild life (this does not mean the bronx..). I'm cool with you having a rifle with you in a place where you could reasonably run into a bear or mountain lion.

If you have a proper permit, you can even be allowed to hunt for deer or some stuff like that.

These are all reasonable to me.

Carrying a pistol concealed or otherwise in a city seems reckless and dangerous to me. If nothing else, you can scare other people into doing things they should not do - since they may not have proper gun training. It's the same reason you don't run around with a broadsword in public - a gun is basically, point, click, dead. That tend to make people antsy.

The law is plain on the matter.
Unless there is a minimum speed limit, you can stop at any time.
You can stop as quickly as you please.
Traffic behind you is REQUIRED to keep a distance large enough to stop safely, REGARDLESS of whatever happens in front.

Also, a motorcycle is not required to be in the center of the lane. He has domain to adjust left/right as needed or desired. Unless signaling or turning, you can't exceed the lane markers, but you can be anywhere between the lane markers.

Most people don't bother to keep a safe distance. Fine. Most people have zero regard for others and are so self important that they even take personal offense when you call them out on their own transgressions.

Just because ~everyone is reckless and follows too closely, doesn't mean that they are all excused.

A car is serious business.
People should think of it more like an airplane, and less like a bicycle.

The fact that people can blame the biker here, simply demonstrates how little regard for traffic rules so many people have. A driver tailgates or drives inattentively or too closely (all things he's REQUIRED not to be doing), and people actually think it's fine. Simply crazy. This is what gets people killed.




Heck, imagine the conversation if the roles were reversed.
*Biker cop gets bumped by a car.
Do you really think the cop would be looking at the situation the same way as in this video, and apologizing for stopping?
Good luck with that.

-scheherazade

I see nothing wrong with a cop telling someone off for being an asshole driver. Who gives a shit whose "fault" it is in the eyes of an insurance company. You brake suddenly for no reason, that makes you a *dick-head*. It's called reckless driving. Smarten the fuck up.

Yeah maybe the cop was too close, but the biker has mirrors. He has eyes. He has/should have common sense. He can see there's a car behind him and no one in front.

The biker's a shit driver.

What's with his description anyway, how many times did he re-work that *gem* until he felt it made him seem like he was totally innocent? "It wasn't me! It was judge Dredd!" What is that an excerpt from a novel?

Which is what I have where I live - strict regulations. If you were to accidentally harm someone, break someone's property, intentionally or recklessly scare someone with a firearm then you will be charged and you will lose you firearms license and firearms.

A firearm is not designed to kill. It is designed to accelerate a projectile out the barrel. It is used most often (by an order of magnitude) for paper target shooting. It is also used to kill animals. There is an obvious difference between design and use.