First the constitution does grant these rights. No right is "inherent" or else we would not be having this conversation. Second, when a law is put into place that someone feels violates their constitutional rights the correct way to challenge that law is in court, where the law may be struck down as unconstitutional. Lastly when the rights of an individual may impose on the rights of another individual, whose rights win out? In this case it can be argued (and I'm sure has been) that commercial filming impedes on the individuals right to privacy for commercial gain, which is why their is a specific law against it. Adam can argue that we cant prove that he is filming for commercial purposes but if they have cause to suspect that he is they have every right to arrest him. the fact that his film did end on youtube for commercial purposes means they were absolutely right.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to break the law. Clearly he is placing the video on youtube for commercial use. If freedom of speech granted you blanket permission to do what you like, a person could commit murder and define it as free speech.

Also Marissa left the situation completely to get a gun and then returned and fired the shots at her husband to get him to leave. Her case was not a model for "stand your ground" as she proved that there was not immediate threat if she was free to go. Also she very well could have hit one of her children (she was apparently a lucky ricochet away). Lastly she was offered three years in a plea bargain because the prosecutor knew she would get a minimum of 20 years if it went to court, but she was stupid and went to trail to collect her minimum of 20 years.

Whiter than he is black, sadly that is what is important to some people.

"The NSA is listening to you!" Kay.... We all should have already known this. Snowden didn't say anything surprising.

As much as I am not a fan of ICP, what did they expect. This guy came down looking for an easy assault case, with open and shut evidence so that he could attempt to collect a paycheck. As hard ass as ICP wants to talk they are not idiots, they are not going to let their image write a check that they literally cant cash.

The four shots are fired in relatively rapid succession. The video shows an officer moving slowly to attempt to restrain the dog when the dog lunged, at which point the officer fired. Watching the video, the last shot was fired before the dog began to falter sideways, and even from the good side angle (from the original video) I would have been unable to be certain that the dog had been hit until after the fourth shot was fired. The cop gave deliberate pause, it would be hard to say that he approached with the intent to fire his weapon.

Okay, so you don't think there is a right way to eat it? Let me put it like this, the chef is creating a dish with a specific flavor in mind that he wishes you to experience. When you eat your sushi with a large amount of soy and wasabi, you are getting a completely different experience than what is intended. While this may be the experience that you find most enjoyable, it is still not the experience that was given to you and thus you have taken that experience away from the artist. Finger painting the Mona Lisa may be fun, but its not the picture Da Vinci gave us. By "wrong way" we are saying not the way intended by the artist. While you may feel this is incorrect, it is technically the intended way to experience the dish, and thus "right way" would be the correct phrasing.

You're missing the whole point. You are intent on this idea that the cops are are to blame in any way for this. They are not. They did not bring the dog, they did not fail to restrain the dog. They did not place the dog in a situation where the dog became aggressively defensive. The owner of the dog did all of these things. The points you "conceded" were never points I was arguing. The cops will not be "in a shitload of trouble" because they acted in the best interest of their safety.

If you wish me to stop being all "he wins the internet" then stop being a snarky ass and declaring that I "win" when I moderately challenge you by presenting evidence (or rather mxxcon does) that confirms the exact shit I just said.

Congrats on editing the first post to "not have me win" after declaring me the winner. And yes, despite your reversal of my victory, I still stated exactly what had obviously happened in this video, only to be verified by what the press release said. The only people who want to continue to say "nu uhh" are people who are denying the obvious (not unlike yourself).

Any way that this resulted in a officer looking at a mouth full of dog teeth was justified ending the same way. You say the cops have an obligation to keep the pet alive? I say the cops have an obligation to keep themselves and other people alive first.

If the guy had walked into the house where the armed suspects were to get his video footage, would you have thought he crossed the line? Their were numerous other people around who understood the idea of acceptable distance, and one guy who did not. No amount of excuse can justify that.

Also caps work better if you are making a point with them.

No, what you mean to say is "you're right".

And if the guy had, maybe, stopped trying to get into their business, the cops would have left him alone, just like the other people around. You insist on blaming the cops and don't seem to think for a minute that the pet owner was to blame. Lets get this straight, NO ONE IS BLAMING THE DOG.

This is not true, a hamburger for example is a experience of its parts. The toppings on a burger define it as much as the meat used, which is why we have burger joints littering the US with each having its own unique take on the burger.

Sushi is an experience of the fish, it is defined at its core by the delicate preparation and the art that goes into creating it. Each piece is created to stimulate the palate, and slopping on soy and wasabi would be the equivalent of saying the Mona Lisa would look better touched up with finger paints.

Eat it however you "like it", but don't begin to argue that its the right way to eat sushi.

Also Hipster implies that sushi is not mainstream, which isn't true, its very common in any areas with an ounce of culture and is easier to find that foods of other cultures (turkish and indian food are actually harder to find in my neck of the woods).

So the cops should have rolled up the car windows for the guy and made sure their police perimeter was farther from the guy causing problems? I'm sure you also think that cops should have waited until the dog was chewing on one of them before accepting that the 80lb dog might be dangerous.