You may find your answer here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_8

Let his friends help him.
It would be great if we lived in a society where assisting the police didn't end in charges and lawsuits or worse more often than not. Sadly, that's not the society we have.
It's unfortunately likely another officer could mistake the help for an attack and shoot the citizen helping, then have zero consequences for his deadly mistake thanks to blanket immunity and a blue wall of silence and lies.
Besides, police have squandered any good will they once deserved with self serving lies covering almost daily deadly or life ruining abuses by their group. Just as I wouldn't help a Medaine cartel member, even though some do help the community too, I wouldn't help a policeman today. They're all part of a violent gang, better to keep your distance until they clean house, which is unlikely. Cops that don't back criminal cops are driven out of policing with death threats and retaliation top to bottom every time.
Furthermore, shouldn't kindness logically begin with the civil servants instead of their victims?

Sadly, while I agree about helping fellow citizens, that's also not without risk. If you try to help and fail, often you might find yourself liable for the damage you couldn't prevent. Even if you succeed, you may find yourself at risk. Years ago, my brother gave CPR to a stranger who collapsed nearby, when the man died he was nearly charged with homicide even though he had done it correctly and not injured the victim. Had he not had thousands to spend hiring a lawyer, he certainly would have been charged and sued. To this day, he can't find out what the man died of or if it was contagious. Civil society is breaking down, and civility is becoming increasingly risky. If you're going to help, get a liability release first. ;-)

Check through this Demeter Fragrance menu. You may find something to accent the sound. Might I suggest, Mildew or Popcorn scents?

https://demeterfragrance.com/classic-a-z/

There is also a Funeral Home fragrance.

We'll begin with box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.

Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

The cow in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.

I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
If I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth, and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

If the singular is this and the plural is these,
Why shouldn't the plural of kiss be named kese?

Then one may be that, and three may be those,
Yet the plural of hat would never be hose;

We speak of a brother, and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.

The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim!

So our English, I think, you all will agree,
Is the craziest language you ever did see.

I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?

Others may stumble, but not you,
On hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?

Well done! And now you wish, perhaps
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word,
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.

And dead; it's said like bed, not bead;
For goodness sake, don't call it deed!

Watch out for meat and great and threat;
They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.

And here is not a match for there,
Or dear and fear for bear and pear.

And then there's dose and rose and lose,
Just look them up, and goose and choose.

And cork and work and card and ward,
And font and front and word and sword.

And do and go, then thwart and cart.
Come, come, I've hardly made a start.

A dreadful language? Why, man alive,
I'd learned to talk it when I was five,
And yet to write it, the more I tried,
I hadn't learned it at fifty-five!

just to add what @Asmo rightly pointed out,is that addictions are a symptom of internal and external forces.

when we consider the state of our society and it its inherent social structures,and we compare addiction rates and suicide rates,i feel there is sufficient evidence for concern.

just look at americas suicide rates.
http://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

we can see a steady increase.
when we factor in military suicides,which have been averaging one,to up to 22 a day since 2009.the larger picture becomes incredibly disturbing.

my point,which is right with asmo,is that while one group kills themselves due to hopelessness,emotional stress or an inability to cope or adapt in these trying times.

the addict is doing the same thing,for the exact same reasons.just on a slower and more precipitous path of self-destruction.

when asked as a child what they wanted to be when they grow up.no child ever answered that their desire was to become an addict.

the "war" on drugs,
is a war on people.

and treating this as a legal/criminal problem is missing the point entirely.
this is a social issue,that can be treated by providing social solutions.

dr bruce alexander discovered some amazing results in rats you may find interesting @MilkmanDan:

http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/rat-park/148-addiction-the-view-from-rat-park

@ChaosEngine
so spurr makes a mysoginistic assholery game,(which we agree) and to defend the response he receives.you point out that there was/is immense hatred for sarkesian which could translate to real world violence.

am i correct so far?

so we have sarkesian who has a large population that hate her guts.have posted the most vile threats towards her in the form of death threats and i can only imagine other very imaginative physical threats.basically a band of the most repugnant,online thugs and bullies.(i agree with you this is repulsive and disgusting).

am i still on the right page?

ok ok.lets assume your position is correct and lets also assume that sarkesian feels a real threat from this online harassment.

how does this group of vile and despicable people who hate sarkesian connect with a face-punching game? how does this game (distasteful as it is) translate to real physical harm? are you suggesting that this face-punching game somehow would CAUSE physical harm?

if so,please explain how that could be.

furthermore,you gloss over the jack thompson game (also created by spurr) as somehow being irrelevant.yet thompson does not have a security force to attend to his needs,and thompson was making the very same spurious and unsubstantiated claims that sarkesian was making.thompson was actually taking it a step further by trying to bring legislation proving the video games promoted violence.

same argument.
same reasoning and the same impetus for creating a face-punching game.

so why was it a moral imperative to expose spurr as a mysoginist in regards to sarkesian but not a misandrist in regards to thompson?

to take a stand on one and not the other is morally inconsistent.

but ok...not a big deal in the long run right?spurr didnt pay too much of a price for his poor taste,he was working poor to begin with and of little consequence.

and as i have been lectured over and over the past few days:choices/words have consequences.a position i totally agree with,just wish there was a tad more consistency in its execution.

so ok.spurr got what he deserved for putting this distatsteful,or in your words "mysoginistic assholery" of a game out there in the first place.suck it up buttercup..you got what you deserved.

ok fine.

but again,you either willingly or unwittingly ignore that the only person who is facing charges is greg elliot NOT spurr.

you would think that the man who created the actual game would be the focus of the indictment,but no..that goes to greg elliot.

who,by YOUR own standards,was a victim to a massive online group of hateful bullies who targeted him for disagreeing with the political position of guthrie,a well known toronto feminist.guthrie filed charges against guthrie for harassment.while at the very same time her followers had uncovered elliots private contacts and began a smear campaign against him,accosting and berating his family and friends. costing him job,80k in legal defense and is STILL awaiting a verdict after 3 years.

the mans life is in ruins.

and here is a little caveat that you may find interesting.in canada you do not have to prove actual harassment.you just have to "feel" harassed.

so this guthrie woman,along with her minions are abusing a court system to make a political point and using elliot to set a precedent that should disturb us all.

if you cannot see how easily this can be (and IS being) abused to control opinion and silent dissent.i dont know what to tell ya mate.

how many examples do we need where the accuser did so out of pure malice and/or revenge only to pay zero consequences for that abuse?

i implore you to read the link i provided.karen breaks it down quite succinctly.

I'm not sure that Sarkeesian and Lewinsky's situations are all that similar. Lewinsky was never looking for public attention to begin with, she was shamed (wrongfully in my opinion) for something that goes on between average people all the time, but because it involved a President that makes it national news.
Sarkeesian needs publicity if she want's her message to be heard and so she does whatever she has to to get our attention. Once you have it however you may find that it cuts both ways, your message may be well received by some while inflaming those who disagree with you.
I agree with some things Sarkeesian says and I disagree with other things, but for me it's about her words and her actions, and her ideas, not who she is personally.

I hear your frustration - that is coming through loud and clear.

I've seen Bob make comments that are out of line - I have also seen him just share his perspective and opinion. Granted it is very different than my own or yours and generally not well represented on these forums.

Goading him isn't helpful. It won't serve you or him at all.

Consider that you could have a good open dialogue with someone you fundamentally disagree with and gain valuable insight into why he thinks the way he does. He may, in turn, begin to understand the way you think. That doesn't mean that either of you will change your opinions, but you both may understand the issue(s) from a different perspective. Most importantly, you may find common ground.

@A10anis
i do not understand why chomsky confuses you so easily.you pretty much have the same criticism on every video you watch of him.

his premise is fairly consistent and self evident:he is critical of power.

while i do not disagree with your assertions on personal responsibility and i suspect most people would agree with you on that point.i do not see chomsky making an argument against personal responsibility.so your point in that regard is moot.but to ignore massive monied and powerfully influential political and corporate institutions and their affects on society is naive' at best and venal at worst.

you appear to be made uncomfortable by the criticizing of the power structure and institutions of the west (i do not know where "here" is for you).which suggests to me that you have confused ideology with reality,made clearer by your suggestions:
1.taking advantage of an education system that more and more translates to debt peonage and a high percentage of not even working in the field utilizing that education.
2.free thought.
ok i have to admit this one made me giggle.
everybody has free thought but the irony here is relevant to the very video on how that thought is manipulated and your comment reveals in ironic delicousness.
3.certain rights.
yes we do have certain rights.rights that have been systematically chipped away at due to abstract wars on:terror,drugs,immigrants etc etc.rights are becoming more a suggestion than actual rights.

your conclusion has the suggested flavor that since chomsky benefited in this society that he should just shut up,sit down and behave like a good little boy,and that those who admire his courage to criticize the most powerful country on the planet are "followers".

since you do watch the videos of chomsky( you do watch them dont you?),yet have the exact same criticism every time,maybe it is time you actually read one of his books?
just an idea...
you may find much of your confusion in regards to chomsky will be clarified.

@bcglorf
this assumes there will be no consequences for breaking the rules or no structure in place to enforce those rules.this implies that if their WAS no enforcement,everybody would spend the entire day robbing,raping and causing mayhem.

so you are right,the base argument is indeed intellectually dishonest,but is also not an argument FOR a militarized police force.the real arguments is the laws themselves.

start with more humane and common sense laws and the need for a massive police force becomes irrelevant.

in an anarchal system it is the people who are the representatives who create legislation.
lets take the iraq war of 2003,where the american people were overwhelmingly against going into iraq..yet we still invaded.representative democracy? not a shot.
or in 2008 when the american people,in a massive majority,rejected the bailout and wished to see the perpetrators held accountable.well? what happened? i think you know.

anarchism is a varied and dynamic political view.its not just one simple flavor.do you see trance and i agreeing on much?my politics over-laps with trance but it does with @newtboy and @ChaosEngine as well.

the basic gist is individual liberty trumps everything and that the structures put in place should be temporary and be directed from the bottom up,not the top down.we realize that we live in a society populated by people and it should be the people who direct where that society should be going.we have no need or use for "leaders" or "rulers" and when the "representatives" have obviously jumped the shark to whore to their donors,it is time to question/criticize the system and not just replace the crack whore with a meth whore.

anarchy is simply a political philosophy,thats it.

so we would see:
zero wars of aggression
no more criminalized drug addicts or poor people
no more corporate welfare
and most likely the people would vote out the federal reserve and print its own currency.

anarchists prefer direct democracy but will accept representative if they are actually being represented.(though begrudgingly).

you should read up on some anarchy.you may find some very food ideas and while not a perfect political philosophy,the one thing it does offer that i find most appealing:if it aint working...vote it out.

If you feel strongly enough to capitalize (i.e., "shout"), then I suggest you take up the point with Gruber, himself, who obviously believes otherwise.

You may find it tough to get a dialogue with him, though, since he sems to think that most Americans are uneducated idiots, so why would he lower himself to argue his point with the likes of you?

Alas, you'll just have to settle with trying (in vain) to convince your fellow sifters by shouting.

EDIT: Are you implying that public opinion has no sway over what Congress does?

You may find your answers here

@lantern53

jesus hung out with the prostitutes,the beggars,the sick and the broken.

basically the freaks.

you would not find him in your station house,nor having cocktails in the posh businessmans house but rather you would find him in the crack houses,the whore house and maybe sleeping on a park bench with the homeless.

you know...the people you arrest on a daily basis.

there is actually a reason why many gay folk are flambouyant,gregarious and do not fit into a societal norm that you may find comfortable.

the process in coming to terms with ones sexuality can be arduous and takes immense courage.it is an experience a heterosexual human never encounters...ever.

so while you may find their decisions and behavior abnormal,and it may even make you uncomfortable if too much in your face.you should respect the fact that they lives their lives with a freedom you could never match.

societal norms have you firmly shackled to the wall.
they are free.
and you ridicule something you have little understanding of,but at its heart...you envy.
and what you envy.....you ridicule.

these folks are not moved nor influenced by your (or others) opinion of how they live.
can you say the same?

I'll explain who's expense they each are at....
1. the stick's expense edit: and the reader's
2. ET's expense edit: and the reader's
3. mathematician's expense
4.your and/or the DR's expense
5.zebra's expense (edit: but riddles aren't really jokes, even though you may find humor in the consternation of others due to your trickery)
6. penguin's expense

I never said they were all offensive, horrible, or nasty, only that there is always a target for/of the joke/misunderstanding.
I suppose puns may be an exception, if you call that a joke, but they are still at the listener's expense to a degree (as they are intentionally misled and made to look the fool).
7. at Bob's(and the reader's) expense
8. fish's expense
9. bad magic trick at the magician's expense
10. bad piano at the player's expense
11. fictional character's expense
12. Lebowski's expense
13. fish's expense
14. your expense
15. doug's expense
16. listener's expense
17. skeleton's expense
No one said they would be offensive, only at someone's or something's expense. Play's on words hardly count as "jokes" but they are still at something's expense, even if it's only the listener who was tricked by the teller.
I could go on and on, but I'm not being paid for this either. I hope I opened your eyes to the idea that all humor IS at someone/thing's expense.
Now dread away. I'm not embarrassed that you didn't read my post/comment closely.

EDIT: ...and when I was begging for air, I was under water...and you just laughed and said "I see air".

@ChaosEngine

i guess i was not clear.
so let me clarify.

i was not defending an artists right to discriminate on the basis of:sexual orientation,gender,race,class etc etc.

i WAS,however,defending an artists right to refuse a commission on their own personal grounds (whatever those might be) and they could do it without making a big deal about it.no need to be specific WHY you refused the commission.just that you wont be able to do the job to the best of your ability and that maybe joe-artist down the street could serve you better.

so you may find darkhands analogy trite and contrived but the basic heart of his comment is true.if his heart aint in it you are gonna get crap as a result.

being an artist for hire is nothing like owning a bagel shop or selling t-shirts.

if i aint feeling it...
i aint doing it.

if you want to project that i refuse because you are gay,or because their is a vagina involved..well..thats on you.
my reasons are my own.
i may share those reasons with you,i may not but i have that right to refuse the commission.

and the artists who DOES share a reason of homophobia or sexism is just dumb and probably not worth hiring anyways.

as for calling out artists who "whore" themselves.
i wasnt thinking of artists who accept money for the work they do.we all have to eat brother and if i used your example,each and every one of us are whores in one capacity or another.

i was actually thinking of the artists who lend their pen,brush,camera and instrument to create propaganda videos,commercials etc etc.

basically anyone who would sell their integrity for a buck.