Oh! I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the video. LOL!
Predictable 'officers are always right, even when they're wrong, and you should simply allow then to screw you hard and dry and hope for the best in court' mentality and suggestions, though.
Cops are trained on how to act. They ignore that training, or abuse it, to act improperly.

EDIT: I would disagree. I believe that the majority of people have official police contact at least one point in their life, either as suspects or victims.
It depends on your definition of 'civilly'. Most police contact is legally proper, that doesn't mean the cop acts civilly. From experience, when they think you've been criminal or non-compliant, police civility goes right out the window and the inappropriate violent threats, name calling, and angry cursing starts instantly, before the 'suspect' has a chance to react at all. That's why I was pulled out of my car at gunpoint and thrown violently to the ground by a screaming cursing officer when he misread my license plate and thought my car was stolen.

Yes, the vast majority of police contact is done properly....just as the vast majority of contact with murderers, rapists, thieves, and child molesters is done with proper conduct. That does not excuse it when they act improperly, just as the previous good conduct doesn't excuse a murder/rape/theft/molestation later. Duh.
Yes, most people know that if you don't cow tow to cops, kiss their ass, and allow them to violate you in whatever way they like, they'll further abuse their power to fuck you hard and you'll pay the price. (I learned that lesson, 'respect authority even when it's wrong or you pay the price', at 4 years old when my dad closed fist punched me across the room for saying 'NO', but being a learning experience didn't make his actions acceptable by any means). Funny how you turn violent abuse of power and violation of civil rights into 'won't make you happy' and assign the blame to the victims of abuse for not being subservient enough. It's a bit more than 'won't make you happy', dude.
It's not a 'small number' of contacts that end up with abuse and/or murder, it may be a 'small' percentage, but once is once too many, thousands of times per year is unacceptable by any reckoning. How can you ignore that? It's unconscionable. It's also near 100% of the time that the 'blue wall' closes in around the offending cops and protects them, so that makes you ALL accessories after the fact. You also know this well.
This guy could easily have ended up dead, he did not instigate or even participate in the violence. He was incredibly lucky his buildings security system caught the incident or he would be in prison for years to come, based on cops lies and abuse.
'We people' expect cops to act according to the laws they swore to uphold. We expect them to follow procedure and work to de-escalate violence, not to go rogue and act violently as a first resort, especially true when there's been no crime committed.
This guys behavior, sitting unarmed, without contraband, calmly and quietly, led to his fate, beaten and arrested over nothing at all, (for asking why he was searched in the first place, or contempt of cop, neither being a crime) and charged with serious felonies based on cop's lies. You once again put the blame on the victim, because it can't possibly be the cops acting improperly in your myopic viewpoint, even when it's on video. Fortunately it's a tiny minority viewpoint not held by many.

I have two girls and I have taught them that they deserve equality with men in all things. I have told them that, short of self defence, they should never take advantage of their femininity by resorting to violence against anyone because the "victim" of their violence would be justified in retaliating. Going by what this vid shows it appears the woman, not once, but twice, assaulted the man. Maybe he could have restrained her, but it appears he just lashed out in self-defence. Your comment implies woman have the right to do this with impunity and without consequence. You are wrong. Equality means just that, it does NOT mean that in selected circumstances some are more equal than others. All violence is, when perpetrated without just cause, wrong. But your comment that; "It doesn't matter if she's slapping you, punching you, charging you, strangling you, stabbing you or shooting at you," is ridiculous. If a woman - or anybody for that matter - attempts any of the above, then self defence is totally justified. To deny this is to give woman the right to resort to violence in the belief that misguided opinion, such as yours, will be on their side.

and that is why you fail.

instead of providing evidence, you resort to ad homs.

again.

and again.

and again.

you were doing so well until you resorted to ad homs again.

pepper spray can't hurt you? tell that to the people who have died from it: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-18/news/mn-14572_1_pepper-spray-manufacturer.

There's a reason it's called less-than-lethal. Suppose you're going to next claim a taser never killed anyone? Look, I can't blame cops for using pepper spray, the risks are far outweighed by the potential benefits, but know your facts.

once again you demonstrate that you are so comfortable with casual violence that you're indifferent to the harm you can do.

Interesting that you bring up Sowell. I have a way right wing brother in law who wanted a Sowell book for X-mas. I got it for him and read about 2/3's of it before I gave it to him. Anyway, Sowell demonstrates the same flawed arguments that you do. And he also completely contradicts himself through the course of his essays (like you). As pointed out, you state that anyone that resorts to name calling loses the argument and in your very first post, you reference to Jon Stewart acting like a Nazi. Can you not comprehend this contradiction?

I don't believe in you being banned for your opinion. But, I do get a good laugh at how easily you are collectively torn apart time and time again. I also believe that deep down, you know that you are wrong in all of these comments. And admitting you're wrong ruins the utopia you live in where there's no racism, inequality, etc...

@lantern53
did you just compare a famous nazi warmongering propagandist (who got his playbook from an american *edward bernaise*) to a political satirist?

a political satirist who is skewering actual so-called "journalists"?

jon stewart is NOT a journalist and this segment is not about reporting on ferguson but rather pointing to the absurdity of some news outlets and how THEY propagandize.

nobody knows for certain the details of what went down,mainly in part to "news" outlets such as the daily show is revealing to be muppets rather than journalists but ALSO how the police department is handling the situation.

the news outlets are also ignoring the under lying reasons why there was rioting and looting.

or do you actually believe that people in this community just decided to blow up businesses and take to the streets.as if it were inherent to their nature and that rioting is fun!
yaaay rioting! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEE!

but maybe...
juuuust maybe.
there had been an ongoing persecution brought on by years of flagrant abuse of authority and a disproportionate focus on this poor community?
think that could be possible?
not only is it possible but probable,because thats exactly what many of the residents have actually said.

a few decades of bad policing will have that effect on people.

who is the blame?
do we blame the residents?who after years of police stepping on their necks resorts to violence?
well,they do hold some responsibility.though we may understand,we cannot condone.

or do we blame the police?

well,several weeks ago you made the argument that it was actually those in command that set the tone for the entire force.

that was a good argument.
i agree with that argument.
being former military i understand the chain of command and how vital it is to a working and successful force that wields immense power.

so here is my basic problem with your commentary:
you chastise stewart for ignoring the violence,rioting and protesting,while at the VERY SAME TIME ignore the REASONS why that that violence erupted.

you appear to be very vocal in your support of the police,ANY police,which commendable...even noble,but you,yourself,noted that those in command could be corrupt,vicious and incompetent.

so my question is this:
why would you defend those cops?

@lantern53

Since it is glaringly apparent you don't know what a straw man argument is, here's the definition from Wikipedia:

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Your very first comment in this thread was a straw man argument. To paraphrase, you argued that the idea of everyone who has the same job title must receive the exact same amount of pay (without regard to how much work they actually do) is stupid . Which it is.

Except (as has been pointed out to you several times) that's not what this video is saying.

That's CLASSIC straw man. Wikipedia could use your comment as as a prototypical example of the straw man fallacy.

Now, let's talk about trolling...

Several times on this comment thread people have shown how your arguments are flawed (strawman, not based on evidence, etc.). Instead of conceding, you resort to ad hominem attacks--or to use the more common phrase: insults.

It would seem then that your purpose in this thread is not to have a meaningful discussion with people but simply to enrage them instead.

That is, by very definition, trolling.

I'm curious what your endgame here is. Keep insulting people until they stop replying? Convince everyone how dumb they are because they don't agree with you (despite the fact you haven't provided any evidence for why they should agree with you)? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish?

The BBC News Magazine had an article on this exact subject, and pointed out that:

When it comes to US police officers firing their weapons, the rules - on paper - are very clear.

"Ultimately you come to your firearm as a last resort," says Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

"You would only use that weapon in a situation where you felt your life or the lives of civilians in the area were in danger."

[...]

While there is no national standard, the state rules and regulations regarding officers' use of deadly force is mostly consistent throughout the country.

It's absolutely based in reality. I can say that with 100% certainty, because that's how the NZ police do it every day. They don't even carry guns*.

I know all of this, because a friend of mine recently became a cop and he's had to deal with situations like this.

The US is blinded by their obsession with guns. They're useful tools but they should be the last resort.

And while I don't believe that officers should be trained to get themselves killed, there is a level of risk that is inherent to the role of policing and they must be prepared to accept that.

I am not one of the rabid anti-police libertarians on the sift. If you look at my comment history you'll see that I support police more often than not. They have an incredibly hard job, but it should be a hard job. When you give some one the states monopoly on force, I expect them to be held to a high standard. In a civilised nation, "shoot first" is not an acceptable policing practice.


*they have guns available in the car and there is a special Armed Offenders Squad, but front-line uniformed police don't as a rule carry side-arms.

There are a couple of good points about this video, a couple of bad ones, and several things he didn't mention that he should have.
The good - yes people usually use too little, and don't reapply as often as they should, they also don't realise that water resistant doesn't mean water proof, and don't reapply after going in the water.

The bad - he didn't debunk that study at all - conducting perfect studies are next to impossible, that doesn't mean this study was not useful in guiding decision making. Then he turned around, and without even referring to a study, said that sunscreen is "good", as if we should completely disregard a large study done across many years, but take his word for something 'because he says so'. There is actually no proof that sunscreens are good, only that they reduce the rate of burning if used as directed, and they may reduce the rates of some cancers, but the important thing is that the wavelengths that are causing the burning are not necessarily the ones that are doing the most DNA damage - so sunscreens should only be used as a last resort, the DNA will still suffer UV damage no matter what SPF you use if you stay out too long in the hot part of the day (usually 10-4).

Things he didn't mention - if you leave sunscreen on too long and continue to stay out in the sun, the UV rays react with the sunscreen in the deeper layers of the dermis to form free radicals (which can be cancer forming compounds). So using it improperly could potentially increase your risk of getting cancer.

This is not even to mention the numerous dodgy compounds that are often in sunscreens that have had very little testing done on them over the long term to ensure they are safe for human use. Or the fact sunscreens (even broad spectrum ones) provide very little UVA protection, and little to no infrared protection (which also causes damage).

So in my opinion, sunscreens have the potential to be good, but a far better option is to get your sun when the sun is not at it's hottest so you get enough vitamin D, then the rest of the day, cover yourself with effective clothing/wide brimmed hat if you are outside. If you absolutely have to be outside and it is impossible to wear proper clothing then follow his advice and make sure you use the sunscreen as directed, as this is far more important than going for an SPF higher than about 15. Just be prepared to buy a lot of sunscreen because you will be very surprised how much you have to use to cover yourself properly.

Hello lucky760,

I am blacklisted ! / ? / !? / ?!

...at least at/on my primary puter or my DSL connection or its IP.

If you were not aware I'm sure you are now, I am not computer savvy.

Best guess...deading vids I had a particular porn site come up several different times yesterday. I expeditiously exited and continued. Upon returning home last night I sought to continue. My screen locked up, I received the spinning beachball of death, could not force quit or restart so resorted to "pulling the plug." I backed up and retired.

This morning I resumed and was quickly treated to an 80's video, blacklisted.

Is malware a good guess?

(in a little voice meekly) help

Too many assumptions in this thread.

You have no idea what was going on in the semi's cab. We only know he was drunk after the fact. Guy could have had a seizure or stroke, been fighting a hijacker, or simply had multiple, innocent people as passengers. The only reason you can condemn him for bad judgement is because you, the viewer, knew the verdict before you even clicked the link.

I was surprised that they elevated the situation to trying to shoot the tires out.

I laughed at the fact that the passenger of the cop car looks like he's playing a video-game for the first 1/3rd of the clip (probably prepping his gun).

I was tickled that Russian highway patrol has mauve-colored seats.

Anyway, I agree with force-when-necessary, and corporal punishment as a last resort, but if you don't exhaust all other options first: Fuck you, your government, and whatever laws you think support that.

There already are reasonable restrictions.

(I can't really ask to be exempt from laws that don't even exist. But I can ask for those new laws to not be written.)

Consider this.
Maybe /you/ are not special.
Maybe /you/ are not in this world to do with other people's lives how /you/ see fit.
Maybe /you/ should take the very advice you would give to violent offenders, and just leave people in peace.


Yes, this country has clusterfuckish problems.
But guns are not the cause.

We have a very high percentage of uneducated people. For example, my high school, in one of the nicest areas of the entire country, with the super easy U.S. curriculum, with the super relaxed and curved U.S. grading policy, 30% of kids that entered never graduated. And that's one of the better examples in the country.

The problem isn't even the education system. It's cultural. Kids show up to socialize, and smart kids get made fun of. Often they have no parental pressure to perform either. No amount of money can fix that kind of schooling, because it's not a schooling problem.

They don't just miss out on an education that helps them obtain gainful employment. The concepts of empathy and solidarity are essentially omitted.

There is a proverbial horde out there, many under strong financial pressures. Having the same consumer impulses that most people here have, they resort to augmenting their incomes with questionable activities.

The median *individual* income in the U.S. is around 26k / year. Half the population makes less than that... The cheapest unassisted rent in my area is ~800/month. Go to new york, and you could be paying 1600/month each with 3 other people for a rat hole. After water, electricity, food, fuel, you'd be wiped out. Any emergency (broken down car, medical expenses, whatever), and you are in the hole.

The nice areas you see on TV are a minority. Most of the country is a po-dunk shit hole, full of people that get desperate the moment things go bad. Which leads to restricted activities, and that tends to lead to violent encounters.

We have a very high percentage of arrested/jailed people.
When you're arrested, even if not convicted, you're not acceptable by a large proportion of jobs. The police even call your employer right away to let them know you've been arrested. You are essentially marked.

Like I said, 1 in 18 men are in the system. That's a LOT of people. Other than those on parole, they aren't working. Those that are working aren't making much money (on account of the undereducation and arrest record), and will likely be back in the system.

BTW, more than half of them are in jail for an activity that never even involved another person.
Most are there for harmless stuff.

Once these people do get out of jail, if they weren't already under financial pressure, they likely now are, and will stand a good chance at reinforcing the problem population.

(eg. Person with their life more or less in order goes to jail for having a bag of drugs, then they get out, can't get a job, and they need to resort to sketchy crap to make ends meet. Maybe get into violence, but often just return to jail.)

But, it's not by accident. Our jails are for-profit, with people in government making money from the jailing industry. Either by campaign contributions, lobbying, or by having financial stake in the companies.

The most self-serving thing the government can do, is keep the problem going, and tell people that they should rely on the government to fix it by getting tough. Then the govies make money on the jailing side, and they reinforce their public mandate.

The jailing companies themselves put inmates to work making cheap goods (ever bought a t-shirt that was made in the U.S.? It was probably inmate labor.), and then 'charge the inmates rent', effectively paying them a penny a day. Modern slavery.

All along the way, the taxpayers are paying the bills, and it's just a giant trough to feed from.

I hope you can imagine why I'm averse to making more ways to jail people that aren't being a problem.

It's also why I'm inclined to make drugs legal (pretty much try Portugal's approach). So as to bring that trade into the light, and end the gangster turf wars (which are a high proportion of the gun violence).

A lot of this could be fixed long-term by social engineering, using media to elevate the prestige of education and productivity. But we know that that is not going to happen when there is no money to be made on it.

-scheherazade

I stop to think about things all the time.

What he's representing and what it represents to the passerby are worlds apart. In this case, he's clearly in a neighborhood where the average citizen sees the police as a protection against a non-uniformed man with a gun, rather than an activist or educated individual upholding their rights.

Gather several hundred open-carriers and visit capitol hill, or go to the nearest politician-laden golf resort with your assault rifle. Don't march up and down neighborhoods (http://goo.gl/5lhLnG) looking for trouble.

From the mostly-benign situations such as this, to the people who've had their fill of shit and gun down a crowd of innocents: making openly aggressive statements in this way is addressing the wrong audience. This is not the way to make the point.

Lastly, even though I agree with you, you can't tell me I'm lumping someone into a perceived fairy land when you title videos "Student Prevails Over State Robot Thug".

Legally, it's probably a fairly gray area with differing rules in different jurisdictions. I imagine most laws would say something about a reasonable threat, although I don't know how "Stand your ground" laws would affect that.

Morally, if someone is "in your personal space" on public property, in theory you would ask them to back off and then call the cops. Violence should be a last resort, and if they persisted, I'd probably just walk away.