>> ^bcglorf:

Wouldn't it be great if the police force planned for that kind of requirement and had a specific department specifically for that purpose. They could call it something catchy like the Department of Internal Affairs....
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Matthu said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/m/Matthu-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> bcglorf said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/b/bcglorf-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">blankfist
bcglorf, I'm not sure you completely understand what a conflict of interest means in terms of law. It has everything to do with impartiality.
If you sued me for stealing your TV, and the judge was a cousin of mine that would be a conflict of interest. If I was a cop and stole your TV, and the investigating party was my boss that would also be a conflict of interest.
I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.
I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).
When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.
</div></div></div>

Ya man, that'd be awesome. Friggin' hell, videosifters should be running things. If they were, the world would be awesome.

Also, "This Department of Internal Affairs" should be made up entirely of cops and retired cops. I mean, obviously, they're the only ones who can judge crimes committed by police officers. Obviously regular humans are incapable of the empathy these angels of justice require.

>> ^bcglorf:

blankfist
bcglorf, I'm not sure you completely understand what a conflict of interest means in terms of law. It has everything to do with impartiality.
If you sued me for stealing your TV, and the judge was a cousin of mine that would be a conflict of interest. If I was a cop and stole your TV, and the investigating party was my boss that would also be a conflict of interest.
I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.
I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).
When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.


Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.

@Shepppard I don't hate anyone who wears a badge, I have a great amount of disdain for the system which trains cop to manipulate citizens out of whatever rights they deem a hindrance to them discovering crimes.

I have a grandmother with Alzheimers, she wanders occasionally. My mom, foolishly, called the police on one such occasion. I found my grandmother snd brought her home, the cops show up again after she's home and want to see her. They asked if they could come in, I chuckled a bit because I thought it was presumptuous of them to come inside my home, being the strangers that they are. I tell them no, they can't, but I'll go get grandma if you'd like to speak to her.

Then I try and close my door only to realize this cop put his boots on my door frame making me unable to close my door, it was a bit of a mindfuck tbh, as I was nervous, I was just like, wtf door won't close. I guess I was too intimidated to push the issue far enough to ask the cop to remove his boot. So whatever, I go get my grandmother and when I return they're right inside my house, imposing and uninvited. Probably having used some "door is ajar" rule letting them enter. What a joke.

So whatever they talk to my grandmother, all is well. I couldn't shut my mouth though, I had to ask don't I have the right to refuse you to enter my house? And they said, yes you do but it usually means you have something to hide(the, like, 25 y/o chick cop tells me). Which is bullshit. Exercising your rights doesn't mean you have something to hide, it means you know your rights, appreciate them and wish to make use of them.

This anecdotal evidence is worthless, though, in the grand scheme of things. The videos speak much louder. Using your figure of 250 videos a year, how many abusive interactions with police officers go unrecorded? Given how strongly opposed the police are to being recorded, probably a lot more. Why are they fighting the right to record them? What do they have to hide?

I worked as a drug deliveryman for about a year, good times, at least back then when my interactions with police were adversarial, it was justified. Funny thing, never had any problems with police while driving on the street with a dashboard full of weed. Was stopped multiple times, was fun/intense. Had to keep my cool and jump through their hoops.

As for your story of being let go while driving without a license, pretty surprising, was this in a big city or small town? Also, it's not the best example because honestly, you should've been given a ticket at the minimum. Normally, they tow your car and impound for 30 days which is pretty expensive. Letting someone come take the car is really nice of a cop, but I wouldn't have a problem taking a ticket for driving w/o a license. That's never been my problem, I've always been respectful of cops when stopped for a traffic violation where I'm actually in the wrong.

Anyhow, tl;dr cops aren't serving the citizenry, they're serving the government who's orders are to control the citizenry by any means necessary.

This is a long post, but I wanted to add that the lack of accountability for a cops actions are just disgusting. Cops have murdered citizens with barely a slap on the wrist.

>> ^lantern53:

If every police officer in this country acted this way, there would be armed revolution.
But these are two shitbirds out of hundreds of thousands of honest cops who risk their lives to keep the peace and try to preserve justice.
Don't judge thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots who should be canned...or caned.
Would you like to be judged by the action of one of your co-workers?
Don't be a knee-jerk clone and try to paint all police officers by the actions of these two.


Lol... Getting so sick of hearing this bullshit copy pasta. How many videos of abusive cops need to be put up before they're considered evidence of a flawed justice system.

You're the clone, open your eyes. If police officers continue to act this way there will be an armed revolution.

And I'm not judging hundreds of thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots. I'm judging the system which creates an unacceptable amount of abusers.

Rapists, murderers and other violent offenders should, just about, never come out. The problem, imo, is when you lock away small time pot dealers, or even cocaine dealers, for as long as rapists and murderers.

But there's a clear conflict of interest. From my understanding there is motive to incarcerate as many people as possible, since prisons are a private industry and prisoners are subject to slave labour while in prison. This sounds all well and good, the guy's a rapist, put him to work while he's locked up and maybe he can actually pay off that debt to society by building things.

But then the conflict of interest arises...

>> ^mentality:

>> ^Xax:
Looks amazing... why don't games look anywhere near this good?

Because consoles are holding us back. Not much you can do with 512mb of ram and 5 year old technology.


Funny, as I was watching this video, I was thinking that I'm just about ready for the next gen. Anyone else? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure we have another 4-5 years wait.

>> ^chicchorea:

Pretty impressive.
What is your affiliation with the development and video?


Awesome accusation is awesome!

Really interesting debates going on here...

I was reading about property and possession the other day while trying to find a label for myself, might be libertarian socialist, not sure yet hehe

Anyhow, it seems there is this idea of eliminating property, essentially replacing it with possession. But what if I had plans for that pen a couple of hours from now?

Eliminating property in favor of possession means no one would 'own' anything anymore. The word mine would disappear? I could never say about something: This is mine?

Not sure how I feel about that.

Fox news hitting new lows?

No. That guy should be put in jail for fraud since he's selling a book about this bullshit.

>> ^blankfist:

^Yes, because a belief in an omnipotent god is exactly the same thing as belief in individuals interacting without coercion.
You forgot one: Democrats pray to an intelligently designed, centrally planned society.


Let me see if what I'm inferring about you from your sarcastic post is correct:

Your arguments against, what I think is pretty much socialism, don't have to do with not wanting to subsidize your dying neighbors cancer treatments, or believing big business should run wild and free, or an appreciation for the American dream wherein any man has the, albeit statistically irrelevant, chance to become a billionaire.

No, your problem with the idea of a strong, controlling, altruistic government that bends over backwards to improve the lives of it's citizenry, is that it's simply impossible.

You would insist that humans are too savage, animalistic and competitive for this kind of cooperation to last?

It's probably the best argument against wasting our time trying.

Meh, I dunno. I think we'll get there someday. I mean, we're already so much less savage than even 500 years ago.

P.S. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouths. DFT, NetRunner are socialists, yes? blankfist is the opposite, which is a capitalist? It's funny, I think I've heard the term socialist used as an insult before. As in, you bastard socialist. Sup wit' dat?

Up vote cuz I want my free packet of miracle manna bread!

>> ^gwiz665:

Pfff.. I could do that. In fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0


Fucking guy.. I haven't been rick rolled in a long time. Just long enough for me to be able to enjoy the gotcha feeling.

Someone needs to invent an addon for firefox to warn about rick rolls.

Maybe if we would ALL grow up and face our histories we could move forward with this fucking word and maybe 50-100 years from now the word could go back to meaning what it originally meant. Ignorant. That's what the word originally meant.

The reason why the word is offensive to black people is one of two reasons:

A) As a black person, they have been conditioned to be offended by the word. Literally. You think Lebron James was born knowing what nigger meant? No. He was told, hey that's a racial slur and it should -REALLY- fucking bother you to hear it, or

B) They knew family members who were slaves and that's shameful to them and the n-word reminds them that their entire race was enslaved a short time ago.

That's the thing. It's embarrassing and shameful to think that your race was enslaved. But tbh, it's also pretty fucking embarrassing and shameful to think that my great, or great great grandfather might've owned slaves and seen nothing wrong with that.

Well too fucking bad. As much as it might be uncomfortable, we need to face our histories. The altruistic approach, I think, would be to move forward with the word and that's not going to happen if we play make-believe and instead use "The N-Word".

So, I guess 4chan is on the right path. If everyone used the word nigger like 4chan does, in no time at all the word would be as offensive as calling someone a dumbass or a clown or a douche. Black people need to relinquish the word and realize they're not niggers.

>> ^Fantomas:

>> ^Golgi:
someone should really tell the authorities 4chan about this.

Are you kidding? They would find this hilarious. 4chan uses the N word like candy.


Unfair...

/b/tards also willingly call themselves fags. I'm not entirely sure how to describe what goes on with those 2 words, faggot and nigger, but it's not biggotry and racism. /b/ might be insensitive, but I'm sure the vast majority are for gay rights. Prejudice against black people is a little different and I think goes a lot deeper, but I think most of them know right from wrong.

I do believe there is evidence that weed can trigger schizophrenia, but only in people who are genetically predisposed to the ilness. Schizophrenia is genetic.

I used to figure that smoking anything can cause cancer, but there are many ways to enjoy marijuana. As far as I know, there is no link between marijuana and cancer.

If you roll joints mixed with tobacco, then you're smoking paper, glue and, of course, tobacco.

But you can use a vaporizer which is different and I don't think causes cancer at all.