Snowden =hero. What is our fourth amendment for if not exactly this?

@Velocity5

Oooh... aren't you my intellectual superior now?

I know what pain compliance is. I've had plenty of training in it. What you see is not pain compliance. The officer kicks the man at 1:15 and doesn't even attempt to handcuff him until 1:24. He kicked him, bent over and presumably said something about "are you going to let me hand cuff you now?".

Yet.



And I mean that. >> ^bcglorf:

This can't be overstated. Abhorrent as the Tea Party may be, they aren't actively executing their political opposition and they aren't trying to institute death by stoning for women convicted of adultery(eg. being rape victims).
>> ^messenger:
"EDITOR’S NOTE: While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction." --moveon.org

I'm sorry, but I don't give a fuck what he's wanted for. If you think he's dangerous, bring fucking backup.

Also, that wasn't a distracting blow. It could have been called that, had the officer actually attempted to handcuff the man, instead of smiling at the fucking camera.
>> ^Velocity5:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Appartently he was wanted for several (weak) charges, excluding threat of violence, of course. http://www.startribune.com/local/167902675.html?refer=y>> ^Velocity5:
Didn't they hear him say he didn't do anything? I don't understand the case file they were working from that made them arrest him.


The article says he was wanted for felony charges, so it can't be too weak. It's probably best to avoid the various conditions that led to those felony charges, and it's bad form and illegal to threaten a romantic partner with injury or murder.
The "distracting blow" (the kick) used by the officer to enforce compliance with his order that the suspect place his hands behind his back seems possibly unnecessary. But the suspect was known to have resisted arrest a few months ago, so officers are probably more wary in such cases.
Distracting blows are standard procedure, so the best advice for peacefully managing an encounter with law enforcement continues to be: comply with orders and take up complaints after the fact. Choose as you will.

>> ^Velocity5:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Appartently he was wanted for several (weak) charges, excluding threat of violence, of course. http://www.startribune.com/local/167902675.html?refer=y>> ^Velocity5:
Didn't they hear him say he didn't do anything? I don't understand the case file they were working from that made them arrest him.


The article says he was wanted for felony charges, so it can't be too weak. It's probably best to avoid the various conditions that led to those felony charges, and it's bad form and illegal to threaten a romantic partner with injury or murder.
The "distracting blow" (the kick) used by the officer to enforce compliance with his order that the suspect place his hands behind his back seems possibly unnecessary. But the suspect was known to have resisted arrest a few months ago, so officers are probably more wary in such cases.
Distracting blows are standard procedure, so the best advice for peacefully managing an encounter with law enforcement continues to be: comply with orders and take up complaints after the fact. Choose as you will.

<duplicate comment>

Appartently he was wanted for several (weak) charges, excluding threat of violence, of course. http://www.startribune.com/local/167902675.html?refer=y>> ^Velocity5:

Didn't they hear him say he didn't do anything? I don't understand the case file they were working from that made them arrest him.

Makes me want to fucking vomit.

At least he used the cross walk.

How do people this (presumably) stupid afford such things?

*isdupe

Yeah, but the instant you start talk of repealing or restricting the right to own weapons, you put forth an image that you want them unarmed for your own gain.


Oops, meant to reply in the video. Oh well.
In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.


I'd be ok with armed open carry civilians..if crime really was that rampant. But it's not! We're just not fighting for our lives on a daily basis here. We have a gov't that allows for peaceful change and we vote for a president every four years. These people who casually throw around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" just haven't really experienced a truly oppressive gov't Oh crap, the price of a latte went up. Time to lock and load fellas!! First world problems.

If I'm just walking along and I see these kids openly carrying, How am I supposed to know that they're going to protect me if some armed robber magically jumps out from the bushes? How do I know these kids aren't the robbers themselves? I'm sorry, we don't live in a world where we can easily identify our protectors with their shining auras and perfect teeth and the bad guys can be identified with their black top hat and their furled mustache.

I'm ok with an armed citizenry. Just not to this degree. It just shows how insecure and paranoid we are.

I just feel the 2nd amendment serves more of a symbolic function than an actual practical one. All it really says is that you have a duty to do something if your gov't truly becomes oppressive. By who's judgement? Again, we have people throwing around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" whenever a vote doesn't go their way. That's not oppressive gov't people. Come back to me when we actually can't vote anymore. Any successful revolt is going to need large popular support. If you don't have that, then maybe your revolt wasn't meant to succeed.

Here's the thing though, when has the lack of a 2nd amendment ever stopped anyone from overthrowing their gov't if enough people thought it was oppressive throughout history? if an oppressive gov't revokes your right to firearms. Do you just go home and twiddle your thumbs? No, you revolt anyway. Oppressive gov'ts don't just sit around and wait to be overthrown. If they make you an outlaw for having a gun and revolting...so what? being labeled an outlaw never stopped a successful revolt. If they take away your guns...you steal them back. To me it just doesn't seem to make a difference if we have a 2nd amendment or not. A modern military is not going to be deterred by dad's old shotgun. so even if you were allowed only home defense weapons and you needed to revolt. The first thing you do is that you steal some military weapons and/or you find sympathetic members of the military to side with you. if the gov't really has gotten that bad, you'll find entire outfits willing to defect I'd be willing to bet. You're going to need military training for your revolt in any case. 2nd amendment just tells you that you aught to revolt if gov't gets bad. Doesn't say anything about whether or not revolt would be easy. 2nd Amendment or no, ANY revolt is going to be massively bloody.

So hey..maybe we should put down the guns and solve our problems like adults in the 21st century. No one wants a revolution on their hands.

Yes, you can be prosecuted for that. It's a threat to someone's life. Those are illegal.>> ^hpqp:

I have a question for Americans: do threats like the one at 1:05 fall under "free speech" or can you get prosecuted for that?

I know that feel, bro.

I love my dog to pieces and I know he'd LOVE a ride, and now I have an idea to make that happen!>> ^Gunter:

I often wish I had a sidecar for my 4 legged friend to rock out in. When he barks @ me as i leave for a ride from the window. I feel like such a selfish asshole lol.

I wonder if he has some sort of sensory cross-over synesthesia, like Daniel Tammet, who sees numbers that have their own unique shape, color and texture.



Maybe this guy just "sees" the words written backwards as he hears them, and just reads them.



Also, these guys are high as fuck and the way that moron was holding the shotgun with his finger in the trigger well makes me want to slap him. Not for being high, but for (poorly) dealing with firearms in an altered state of mind.

On behalf of the people in America that don't subscribe to ancient myths and backwards thinking:



I'm sorry.

>> ^bareboards2:

Thirteenth century. THIRTEENTH CENTURY.