article on msnbc.

I think they'll win the lawsuit, but no tasers anymore? you're as likely to get guns outlawed.

Though I don't like what happened, she really should have shut her mouth and stayed in her car.

Whatever! She posed no threat to him, and leaving the children alone in the car was inexcusable!

She should have stayed in the car.

*law

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by gwiz665.

>> ^rougy:
Though I don't like what happened, she really should have shut her mouth and stayed in her car.


the fact of the matter is, she did attempt to get back in the car after the initial reluctance. the fucking pathetic excuse for a cop then got her back out and shot volts through her, all because she didn't respect his authority for a few seconds. using a taser should be the last fucking resort, not punishment for disobeying an officer who can't take some lip from someone. if she'd been exiting the car wielding a machete i'd think differently about his obviously retarded actions.

what a tosspot.

after watching the video it isnt readily apparent what video she is referencing (the one she wanted to see). After reading the news article she wanted to see evidence of her speeding.

Some people just refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.

Was she speeding? Who knows and who cares. The side of a road where a police officer is issuing a traffic ticket is not the place to contest a traffic violation.

This is what courts are for.

Three things to remember when you have been pulled over.

1) Dont get out of the car unless asked to do so

2) Do what the officer says. Again if theyre asking you to do fucked up shit, remember it, record it if possible and TAKE IT TO COURT. You will lose almost every time if you try to settle out of court (read: on the side of the road where you are pulled over)

3) If a police officer informs you that you are under arrest, you are under arrest. If you think you have been wrongfully detained then take it up in court.

really, this couldve been handled better on both sides. The arresting officer couldve at least allowed her to make some sort of arrangement to get the kids home.

The subtext of this video: The officer wants obedience. She didn't get back in the car when he asked and did get back into the car when he wanted her out. In his eyes, she's like a trained dog that is ignoring her master's commands. The bitch's pups are incidental in the eyes of the master. Obedience is the first priority.

What would he do if he had no taser? These tasers are making pussies out of cops. There used to be a time when the cop had to reason with the other person. Now they shock them into submission.

^He would have pulled a gun on her without the taser. She should have stayed in the fucking car and not gotten up in his face.

>> the fact of the matter is, she did attempt to get back in the car after the initial reluctance. the fucking pathetic excuse for a cop then got her back out and shot volts through her, all because she didn't respect his authority for a few seconds. using a taser should be the last fucking resort, not punishment for disobeying an officer who can't take some lip from someone. if she'd been exiting the car wielding a machete i'd think differently about his obviously retarded actions.

She didn't respect his authority, and only tried to return to the car when she was under arrest. The thing is, the cop didn't know what she was going to do. He wanted her out in the open where he could see she wouldn't do any harm. He Tased her because for all he knew, she was going to pull out a machete or gun.

Taser use should be a last resort. When an officer arrests you he should have to provide you with a reason. not just say "you're under arrest."

"Police Officer killed by single mom with machete. Kids cheered on."

That's a quality headline.

>> ^Squidhat:
>> the fact of the matter is, she did attempt to get back in the car after the initial reluctance. the fucking pathetic excuse for a cop then got her back out and shot volts through her, all because she didn't respect his authority for a few seconds. using a taser should be the last fucking resort, not punishment for disobeying an officer who can't take some lip from someone. if she'd been exiting the car wielding a machete i'd think differently about his obviously retarded actions.
She didn't respect his authority, and only tried to return to the car when she was under arrest. The thing is, the cop didn't know what she was going to do. He wanted her out in the open where he could see she wouldn't do any harm. He Tased her because for all he knew, she was going to pull out a machete or gun.

>> ^gwiz665:
^She should have stayed in the fucking car and not gotten up in his face.


She got in his face? That's odd, I missed that part of the video where she gets in his face and provokes him. Oh that's right, I missed it because it's not actually in the video.

I think cops should be required to experience a taser before they can carry one. Then they might not view it as a remote control for people.

Meh, she obviously misunderstood his coded order for a blowjob.

bf: She did what no one should do, she got out of the car. And when he told her to go back in the car, she refused continuously and demanded to see "the tape" (of her speeding, I would gather). Only when he said, "I'm placing you under arrest" did she return to the car, again doing what she should not have done, adding to the tension and what might even be seen as provocation. When he after that drags her back out of the car, she resists again.

Tasing her was likely over the top, but if she had gone back to her car for a shotgun, as a cop, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Of course he wants "obedience" if you want to call it that - cooperation would be a nicer spin to it. They are enforcers of the law - if you start arguing with a bouncer at a disco, you can expect to be bounced too. If you're interacting with a police officer, assume he hates you and be super nice, then they will play nice too.

Leaving the kids unattended for that period of time is obviously not OK, though.

My point in so many words is, if you are in any way a dick to a cop, no matter if you don't think you are "I just wanted to see the tape", they will be dicks back.. And that sucks, 'cause they push back harder than you.

>> ^smooman:
after watching the video it isnt readily apparent what video she is referencing (the one she wanted to see). After reading the news article she wanted to see evidence of her speeding.
Some people just refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.
Was she speeding? Who knows and who cares. The side of a road where a police officer is issuing a traffic ticket is not the place to contest a traffic violation.
This is what courts are for.
Three things to remember when you have been pulled over.
1) Dont get out of the car unless asked to do so
2) Do what the officer says. Again if theyre asking you to do fucked up shit, remember it, record it if possible and TAKE IT TO COURT. You will lose almost every time if you try to settle out of court (read: on the side of the road where you are pulled over)
3) If a police officer informs you that you are under arrest, you are under arrest. If you think you have been wrongfully detained then take it up in court.
really, this couldve been handled better on both sides. The arresting officer couldve at least allowed her to make some sort of arrangement to get the kids home.


Your mom doesn't listen to what I say so I punch her in the jaw...

>> ^rougy:
Though I don't like what happened, she really should have shut her mouth and stayed in her car.


Rougy, I voted you down for "she really should have shut her mouth", and that led to the following post below. However I do agree that she should have stayed in the car.

When I get pulled over I only roll the window down half way, and keep my doors locked.


<font size = 1>V for Vendetta - People Should Not Be Afraid of Their Government - The funniest movie is here. Find it

Aside from the exploding parliament, "People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people."

There is a difference between a criminal and a moving violation. IF you cant handle an angry citizen peacefully then you shouldn't be a Peace Officer. The officers actions were cowardly, and he should be stripped of his authority.

Every day citizens should not have to worry about getting electrocuted like this, and they shouldn't be afraid to question "the man".

>> ^gwiz665:
Of course he wants "obedience" if you want to call it that - cooperation would be a nicer spin to it. They are enforcers of the law - if you start arguing with a bouncer at a disco, you can expect to be bounced too. If you're interacting with a police officer, assume he hates you and be super nice, then they will play nice too.


If I disagree with the bouncers, I am not forced to pay for their "services". Bad analogy.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe she was requiring his cooperation in demonstrating what exactly she did wrong? Maybe showing her the tape or some form of proof of her violation could also be considered cooperation?

It's mind numbingly aggravating to think people consider her to be belligerent and unruly if she is nonviolently resisting the cop's orders, but the cop, on the other hand, is considered to be reasonable and justified in exhibiting violence. One is violent. One is nonviolent.

I don't think this gives a bureaucrat a right to violence just because something is the "law". You know, Nazis were only following the rules when they took the Jews off the train.

RE: "Aside from the exploding parliament, "People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people."

"The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." The ultimate powers in a society, therefore, rest in the people themselves, and they should exercise those powers, either directly or through representatives, in every way they are competent and that is practicable."
-Thomas Jefferson

I think we're moving too far from this idea. The power is overwhelmingly on the government's side- and btw the police are part of the Executive branch.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cop, police, prick, weapon, syracuse, traffic stop' to 'fascist cop, police, prick, weapon, syracuse, traffic stop' - edited by therealblankman

I think cops have very difficult jobs and are lucky to stay sane. The cop, once the traffic offender has demonstrated disobedience, needs to be conscious of the fact that the situation is then unstable and he/she could panic and jump in the car and take off (not necessarily grab a gun), running from him and potentially causing MUCH worse problems in the process. There's a lot for them to think about when responding to people of all kinds that's why the rules exist, if you follow them you don't get tased. You don't have the right to contest on the spot. As others have said, the place for what she was trying to do is in court. Lesson hopefully learned.

>> ^blankfist:
>>
Did it ever occur to you that maybe she was requiring his cooperation in demonstrating what exactly she did wrong? Maybe showing her the tape or some form of proof of her violation could also be considered cooperation?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the cop is not required by any stretch of the law to provide proof of ones alleged wrongdoing during a traffic stop? Maybe thats what courts are for?

>> ^smooman:
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the cop is not required by any stretch of the law to provide proof of ones alleged wrongdoing during a traffic stop? Maybe thats what courts are for?


Yes. Maybe. I wasn't arguing procedure. I was making a discerning comment about cooperation versus obedience as it pertains to gwiz's comment above. Did you not glean that from my comment?

>> ^dougb22:
I think cops should be required to experience a taser before they can carry one. Then they might not view it as a remote control for people.


While every police service is different.... I would feel confident saying 95% of officers carrying a Taser have been tasered. I know I was and it was the worst pain I've ever felt, which thankfully goes away completely the second the taser stops. That is what makes it such a useful tool. More painful then a baton strike or pepper spray, with none of the lasting damage. That being said... there was no reason for it to be used in this case...

>> ^blankfist:
If I disagree with the bouncers, I am not forced to pay for their "services". Bad analogy.

Sure you are. Bouncers are employed by the club they work for. The money they get to do that comes from people purchasing the services of the club. You don't have the option to say "reduce my cover charge and bar bill, because I don't think that bouncer over there treated me with the proper respect I think I'm due."

You can try to talk to the manager of the club, but he's not really under any obligation to look into the facts or deliver an objective verdict, so he'll probably just tell you to stick it.

At which point, you have the choice to leave the club and not return, if you so choose.

It sucks singular cop abuses like this mean the entire population thinks cops as a whole are like that.

Makes their work even harder and more prone to stuff like this occuring because people instantly think OMG A COP FUCKING FASCIST.

Oh look, NetRunner missed the point. Again. He's adorable.

She's an idiot for getting out of her car and an idiot for demanding to see proof of her speeding. She's watched to many videos like this if she thinks cops are required to show proof before issuing a ticket. The cops an idiot for escalating the situation to tasering. After reading further on this incident it appears the officer wanted to ticket her for using a cellphone and when he realized that probably wasn't going to stick he switched to speeding. He told her he didn't have her on radar but had paced her for a couple of seconds under circumstances where its unlikely he could have. He subsequently ticketed her for cellphone use, speeding, resisting arrest and the old standby disorderly conduct. All charges thrown out.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fascist cop, police, prick, weapon, syracuse, traffic stop' to 'fascist cop, police, prick, weapon, syracuse, traffic stop, taser, arrest, police camera' - edited by Eklek

Man, this is tough. I see everyone's point of view on this. "They were both stupid" seems to sum it up.

Having said that, I would like everyone who has jumped all over this officer for reacting so strongly to imagine that their brother or father or sister or mother is a police officer. The point that someone under arrest gets back into a vehicle, with the possibility of getting access to a concealed weapon, is probably why he got so hopped up.

What are the statistics on cops getting killed/attacked during routine traffic stops -- even if there are kids in the car? I know that domestic violence situations are very dangerous for police officers. I have the impression that traffic stops are, too.

If that was your loved one in a potentially lethal situation, I think you might be more forgiving of the over-the-top behavior.

Stay in your car. Keep your hands on the 10 and 2 positions on the steering wheel. Follow instructions. Remember that the police officer might be as scared of you as you are of him/her.

De-escalate, don't escalate.

[I just went and read the MSNC article. The 15-year-old son knew she was being stupid -- he yelled at her to get back in the car. At least one person in the family has some smarts.]

>> ^Farhad2000:
It sucks singular cop abuses like this mean the entire population thinks cops as a whole are like that.
Makes their work even harder and more prone to stuff like this occuring because people instantly think OMG A COP FUCKING FASCIST.



It is happening entirety to much, the people have reason to believe every cop is corrupt.

It is safe to assume that now, and as such I always dot my Ts and cross my Is when interacting with a cop.

Ask any black person whether or not you should get out of the car.

As with most of these types of videos that have flown through the Sift, both parties are at fault, and both parties should take responsibility for their actions. And seeing as both parties won't, lawsuit. Sigh.

It's hard to believe that there are people here sticking up for the cop.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
It's hard to believe that there are people here sticking up for the cop.


My sentiment exactly! One is violent and demands obedience. One is nonviolent and vocally angered at being pulled over.

Read the MSNBC article linked above, that officer really screwed the pooch on this stop. From the cellphone-no-I-mean-speeding switchup, to him jerking her back out of the car, it has all the marks of abuse of power. People like that officer have no place in law enforcement.

>> ^blankfist:
Oh look, NetRunner missed the point. Again. He's adorable.

Not so much missing the point as much as trying to highlight that the way a cop and a bouncer gets paid isn't really any different, and has little to do with the overall discussion.

I don't think this gives a bureaucrat a right to violence just because something is the "law". You know, Nazis were only following the rules when they took the Jews off the train.

This is clearly a cop behaving badly.

However, I suspect that this cop will find that his behavior is not supported by police procedure, or law either.

I think it would be good for you clarify what you think the takeaway is from the clip. Is it that a single officer did something bad and we should join in calls for him to be held accountable, or are you trying to make some sort of comment about police in general?

>> ^NetRunner:

Officers are put on administrative leave and an investigation is launched by the very cops that work the force. Don't for a second believe Internal Affairs Division isn't run by the same people who work the force, because it is. Those investigating the police are also police officers. Read the independent Christopher Commission report on the LAPD after Rodney King and the Rampart incident...

It is alarming, therefore, that no outside review, including our own, has found the operations of internal affairs divisions in any of the major U.S. cities satisfactory.cited

internal investigators conducted group interviews of the police involved. As the Christopher Commission noted, this allowed officers under investigation to "get their stories straight."cited

Internal Affairs divisions are often reluctant to push for criminal prosecution of fellow police personnel...cited

So, I think this sort of behavior, although probably frowned upon by the department, won't be treated with sufficient punishment (i.e., expulsion, jail time).

^ I like what the Christopher Commission's recommendations were.

Looks like they did a 5-year follow-up, and while the statistics had shown improvement, there was little in the way of structural reform that might help prevent new flareups.

Is there an advocacy group that's trying to push for some sort of legislative reform?

I'm not crazy about their recommendation. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will only serve to produce obfuscation instead of transparency. The Internal Affairs Division was brought about to enable transparency, and it only served as a means of covering up illegal police practices.

The answer isn't more. The answer is less.

But if you can find the CC report anywhere online, it's certainly worth the read. It's eyeopening.

It's hard to believe that there are people here sticking up for the cop.

It's harder to believe the number of armchair anarchists who refuse to acknowledge police represent lawful authority and should be obeyed. Yes you have rights, but the streets ain't the place to suddenly become a lawyer.

No cop can ever afford to underestimate the lethality of a "harmless-looking" person.

Around :36, at that distance, had she a knife she could've slashed that cop several times before he could draw either Taser or gun. Thirty percent of cops during training against a knife-wielding suspect didn't even know the suspect had one.

Click around the sift for knife videos.

^This is the same kind of logic that now has grandma getting cavity searched at the airport.
What happened to reasoning and assessing a situation? Well .. why bother when you can just tase someone.
More and more we see that tasing has become the default action, not the last resort that it should be.

What percentage of "knife-wielding suspects" were pissed off soccer moms with kids in the car?
What happens after 0:36? The cop drags her out of the car, raises his weapon and is in ZERO danger when he fires it.
This woman was an asshole and should have been arrested for not complying, but she posed no threat whatsoever and was only tased for expediency of the arrest.

[redacted]

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:
...The cop sees this and knows that had he not pulled the tazer, she would have kept resisting, so he places her under arrest...


So he arrested her because she would have kept resisting if she didn't stop resisting because he pulled the taser? What?

He placed her under arrest before she got in the vehicle. Not when she resisted getting out. Try watching it again.

[redacted]

Obviously arguing should be resolved by tasing someone .. you're right about that. Can't tell you how many times I thought the same thing here at VS.

[redacted]

>> ^blankfist:
I'm not crazy about their recommendation. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will only serve to produce obfuscation instead of transparency. The Internal Affairs Division was brought about to enable transparency, and it only served as a means of covering up illegal police practices.
The answer isn't more. The answer is less.

Okay, then let's just drop Internal Affairs. That should make things more transparent, because it's less bureaucracy, right?

While we're at it, let's stop asking officers to write reports. Or have dash cams.

Yes, think of all the transparency we'd have without those bureaucratic dash cams...

>> ^NetRunner:
Okay, then let's just drop Internal Affairs. That should make things more transparent, because it's less bureaucracy, right?
While we're at it, let's stop asking officers to write reports. Or have dash cams.
Yes, think of all the transparency we'd have without those bureaucratic dash cams...


This must be a touchy subject for you. I like dashcams just fine. I'd prefer money to be spent on dashcams rather than red light cameras or tasers, to be honest. And if we're going to have an Internal Affairs Group, why can't it be (at the very least!) part of something entirely other than the Police Commission? That's like placing the health inspector under the management of the food distributors.

It's cops like this that give the whole profession a bad name. The lady wasn't being smart, but was she really being dumb enough to warrant a taser? Don't they teach these guys control techniques anymore? Arm-bar/wrist manip->ground->cuffs. I don't see any part of that requiring a taser.

>> ^blankfist:
And if we're going to have an Internal Affairs Group, why can't it be (at the very least!) part of something entirely other than the Police Commission? That's like placing the health inspector under the management of the food distributors.

Sounds good to me. Like I said, I'm open to specific reforms, I just contest the notion that there's a way to make police more accountable by way of just dropping some existing law or procedure, or by cutting certain aspects of its funding (which is what "less government" always translates into).

Invariably, there always ends up being comments saying that "it was both their faults" or "they were both stupid". Are we forgetting about the concept of responsibility here? They were both "stupid", sure. She was stupid in that she could have prevented it. He was stupid in that he caused it.

She may have not gotten out of the way, but he was the one who pulled the trigger. That does not bestow equal resonsibility or blame.

If the soccer mom wasn't so fat, the cop wouldn't feel so threatened!

I totally agree with everyone who said that both sides could have acted a little better. Seriously, mom, just chill and let the guy do his thing so you can take your kids home. It's cold outside.

Having said that, I'd also like to add f*ck the police.

>> ^Lieu:
Invariably, there always ends up being comments saying that "it was both their faults" or "they were both stupid". Are we forgetting about the concept of responsibility here? They were both "stupid", sure. She was stupid in that she could have prevented it. He was stupid in that he caused it.
She may have not gotten out of the way, but he was the one who pulled the trigger. That does not bestow equal resonsibility or blame.


Wife beaters the world over know that it's all her fault.

You know I see things like this and, aside from adding to my disdain for law enforcement, I sit here wondering, why do we even bother with stopping a speeder? If tickets can be issued from cameras, why can't they be issued the same way by a patrolman without having to confront the offender? It would be simple enough to acquire the plate number and issue the citation/summons via the mail, like they do with speed and red light camera traps.

^Because the car isn't speeding, the driver is speeding.

>> ^bareboards2:
^Because the car isn't speeding, the driver is speeding.


I love fortune cookies.

Most of those cameras for this purpose that I've seen are actually several cameras that take pictures from multiple angles so you can see who the driver is in addition to the vehicle itself. This assists with avoiding the "Sure I own the car, but I wasn't driving it" responses to tickets issued this way.

Of course, I read about someone who made an iPhone app that uses GPS to warn you when you were close to one of the cameras. I forget which city it was in...

>> ^NetRunner:
Like I said, I'm open to specific reforms, I just contest the notion that there's a way to make police more accountable by way of just dropping some existing law or procedure, or by cutting certain aspects of its funding (which is what "less government" always translates into).


No, you're right, we should pay even more to the police and add more laws the already impossible to keep track of number of laws on the books. That's been working out so well for us thus far, why stop? More is better!

^ You certainly do get petulant when it turns out there's a problem you can't solve by cutting taxes and regulation.

Be glad it's just a taser. Whatever you do, don't speed in Norway!

alright i watched it again......everything that happened to the lady is 100% her fault. She gets out of the car demanding evidence and bullshit. She is told to get back in the car (I imagine more than once, much more). She refuses and persists with her bullshit demands, until after about 30 seconds of her shit, the officer has had enough and informs her that she is under arrest drawing his tazer gun simultaneously. She then decides to play it off and get back in the car at which point the officer is probably telling her to get the hell out of the car and to place her hands on the car. But noooooooo, she decided that she was, in fact, not under arrest. Unbeknown to her, its not fucking up to her if she is under arrest or not.

It is then that she physically resists arrest. Big no no. On top of this, after struggling with the officer for a few moments, she actually makes a threatening advance with a very aggressive posture towards the officer. He is most certainly telling her over and over that her ass is gonna get zapped if she doesnt knock it the hell off. She goes to get back in the car for the second time upon which the officer forcefully pulls her out probably giving her one last warning that she's about to get zapped if she doesnt fucking cooperate.

It appears she may have motioned for the door one last time but it is difficult to tell. In any event she gets zapped, taken down, and handcuffed. Boo-fucking-hoo

If you'll permit me a tangent, let me tell you a thing or two about American military men. The ones I've known are typically rapists and murderers who cannot fit into society without the occasional jail time, and they also need an outlet to channel their overblown machismo which typically is a result of their latent homosexuality.

I'm not saying that's what smooman is up there, but... man, does that tool fit the goddamn bill. And with a name like "smooman" it's not too difficult to bridge the gap between his name and something akin to "smoochman" or "sploodgeman". He may just be the catcher in the rye, if you get my meaning. The barrel boy. And is angry to admit he likes it.

Personal attacks aside, he's still a douchebag for attempting to place the blame squarely on the woman in this scenario. Tangent, but that's another sign of latent homosexuality: blaming women for the dregs of society.

smooman, you're fucking hilarious.

'she actually makes a threatening advance with a very aggressive posture towards the officer'.

where? tell me the exact second it begins because i sure as hell can't see it. you know what aggressive means, right?

the rest of your reasoning is equally as absurd.

i'm just glad your job doesn't involve carrying a weapon aroun... oh wait... fuck.

>> ^Ornthoron:
Be glad it's just a taser. Whatever you do, don't speed in Norway!


Got any backstory on that? Is it for reals?

>> ^calvados:
>> ^Ornthoron:
Be glad it's just a taser. Whatever you do, don't speed in Norway!

Got any backstory on that? Is it for reals?


The photograph is from the northern part of Norway, home to many of NATO's winter exercises.

1. You can't tase and arrest someone because they're stupid.

2. Unless the mom threatened the cop in the missing audio, the first two acts of violence are from the cop, first when he draws his taser, and then when he states that she is under arrest.

3. Cooperation means "work together". Obedience means doing what you're told immediately, and without question.

i'm not trying to suggest cops can do whatever they want but I still find it mildly amusing that a few of you think that you dont have to do a damn thing a cop says especially after you've been pulled over.

Or do you just hate all authority figures?

and the threatening advance and aggressive posture happens while the cop is trying to pull her out of the car (at 1:06 and 1:09 respectively). I'm beginning to see a bias when a certain few of you can readily pick up on the cops aggressive body language and not the womans

but what do i know, i'm just a murdering gay rapist who's in and out of jail.

Haha. Smoochman.

Smooch men.

smooman derives from the show Dinosaurs (remember that show?) there was an episode where Baby was watching TV and all the shows had foul language in them (albeit made up Dinosaur foul language). Smoo was one of those words, along with flark, glimp........and another I cant remember.

I just thought it was a funny word and i plugged it in my online handle and it stuck ever since.


But secretly it means Smoochman which is a euphemism for homo-ass-to-mouth

>> ^blankfist:
If you'll permit me a tangent, let me tell you a thing or two about American military men. The ones I've known are typically rapists and murderers who cannot fit into society without the occasional jail time, and they also need an outlet to channel their overblown machismo which typically is a result of their latent homosexuality.
I'm not saying that's what smooman is up there, but... man, does that tool fit the goddamn bill. And with a name like "smooman" it's not too difficult to bridge the gap between his name and something akin to "smoochman" or "sploodgeman". He may just be the catcher in the rye, if you get my meaning. The barrel boy. And is angry to admit he likes it.
Personal attacks aside, he's still a douchebag for attempting to place the blame squarely on the woman in this scenario. Tangent, but that's another sign of latent homosexuality: blaming women for the dregs of society.


What the fuck?

^Sorry, I thought it was funny. I'm ex-military, so I guess I'm a gay criminal rapist, too.

i knew it! hypocrite!!

>> ^messenger:
1. You can't tase and arrest someone because they're stupid.
2. Unless the mom threatened the cop in the missing audio, the first two acts of violence are from the cop, first when he draws his taser, and then when he states that she is under arrest.
3. Cooperation means "work together". Obedience means doing what you're told immediately, and without question.


1. You're right, you cant. But you CAN arrest and taze someone for disorderly conduct/obstruction of justice and resisting arrest respectively

2. you could argue that drawing a tazer/gun on someone is an act of violence, however, I fail to see how placing someone under arrest is an act of violence in any sensible definition of the phrase.

3. an arguement on semantics.