Very interesting. I've pondered this question myself many times. I know 2 good cops personally and cannot imagine a firefight with them but really WHEN is enough enough? I think I would go out in a blaze if they tried to f with me but maybe that is my ego talking.

Who is supposed to be policing the police?

>> ^Buck:

Very interesting. I've pondered this question myself many times. I know 2 good cops personally and cannot imagine a firefight with them but really WHEN is enough enough? I think I would go out in a blaze if they tried to f with me but maybe that is my ego talking.
Who is supposed to be policing the police?


They keep stealing your donuts?

Like he said, I really wanted to answer "never" to this, but he makes a solid argument: there does have to be a line beyond which a responsible citizen should resist a police officer, and when that happens, the only two results possible (in everyday life, not using mass protest techniques) are the death of the officer, or that line being crossed. I hate the idea of killing anyone, but... man. This is tough.

Thanks for the thought-provoking sift @Fletch.

It's easy, we kill the Bat Man.

>> ^messenger:

Like he said, I really wanted to answer "never" to this, but he makes a solid argument: there does have to be a line beyond which a responsible citizen should resist a police officer, and when that happens, the only two results possible (in everyday life, not using mass protest techniques) are the death of the officer, or that line being crossed. I hate the idea of killing anyone, but... man. This is tough.
Thanks for the thought-provoking sift @Fletch.


I thought it would be received much more negatively here than it has (so far). I have been somewhat vocal here about my dislike of cops, but I had a similar reaction ("never") as you when I saw the title. After viewing the video, though... yeah, it is a tough question.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Buck:
Very interesting. I've pondered this question myself many times. I know 2 good cops personally and cannot imagine a firefight with them but really WHEN is enough enough? I think I would go out in a blaze if they tried to f with me but maybe that is my ego talking.
Who is supposed to be policing the police?

They keep stealing your donuts?


lol nope but last speed trap I passed I stopped and yelled to the cop, "why don't you go find some missing children or something, instead of picking on normal citizens doing 10 above the limit!"
I was given a very dirty look and continued on my way.

@Fletch

At times I've chosen to just take all sorts of abuse from cops. Other times I've resisted the abuse, and the cops have made it worse. I hate myself when I just take the abuse, and I am bitter and resentful towards the cops and my government when I suffer the "worse". I prefer the latter feeling, so fuck those cops. Abusive cops are on a list with child sex abusers of people who do incredible damage and should be eliminated from society. The good news about cops is that their fuckeheadedness is institutional, so that can technically be changed without killing. Society is becoming more and more aware of civil rights due to Facebook and the like, so I don't think bad cops are going to be as prominent in the near future.

I had an incredible encounter with a perfect cop last night, for instance. I was taking part in a civil disobedience protest screwing up traffic downtown, and when the cops were finally able to get through, the supervisor just came up and chilled with us a bit, asked us what was going on, what we were protesting, started helping us out, and then really politely asked some of us if we could do it a little bit differently. We were mostly happy about his respectful stance and complied. It was fantastic. Hopefully this kind of behaviour will become the norm.

*promote a good sift.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, November 9th, 2012 4:29pm PST - promote requested by LarsaruS.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, November 9th, 2012 4:29pm PST - promote requested by gorillaman.

Could only watch 10 minutes of it then I had to stop.

To be honest unless you're going to start a revolution and overthrow the government it really doesn't matter what we do in our personal lives. I'm just happy that when there is absolute government control over EVERYTHING I'll be dead before then.

False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.

Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.

Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?

Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:

One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.

Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...

...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.

Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.

Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.

If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.

I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

Ok, I'll start with a few things that most people would probably agree with, but the police force currently would fight like hell to avoid. How about we decide to actually punish cops who break existing rules and laws. Use testing to weed out unbalanced power hungry or corrupt types from becoming cops. QUIT hiring COMBAT veterans to become PEACE officers. I'm sure there are many things that could be done to fix the problem with the police, its just that it's not being done because the police think the only problem is that we, the lowly people, dont always follow ALL commands,and sometimes we need to be put in our place. >> ^shveddy:
False dichotomy, among other things. There are innumerable intermediate steps between "allowing them to do whatever they want to you" and "shooting the motherfuckers." I'll admit that there is a point where armed resistance is warranted, but if you think that we have arrived anywhere near that point with enough frequency to warrant armed resistance, then you are crazy.
Yes, there are plenty of instances of people's rights being violated - but in 99.99% of those occasions, I think the problem can best be solved through other means.
Do I think that the students who got peppersprayed at UC Davis had their rights violated?
Yes, I do. But this guy seems to suggest that the proper response is for the students to pull guns and start a shoot-out. Let's imagine what that would look like for a second:
One of the students peers through the caustic mist with righteous fury and a wet t-shirt over his mouth. He can feel the comforting weight of his Barretta, held close to his heart in a chest holster, and he knows that this is the moment to act. He stands up tall despite the onslaught of bright orange asphyxiation, reaches for his piece and takes aim. Somewhat startled, the officer is suddenly defenseless with his canister and it is not long before he crumples to the ground in an ever expanding pool of blood. He basks in a brief moment of clarity before chaos reigns. His fellow students are quick to bear arms themselves, but the training, body armor and poise of the officers allows them a significant head start and the students suffer heavy casualties in this initial volley.
Not to be deterred by the deaths of their friends, the occupy movement takes up refuge in the life sciences building which, designed in the late sixties with a brutalist aesthetic, is mostly concrete and as such is a perfect fortress from which to outlast the ensuing siege and inspire innumerable citizens on the outside world to take up arms as well. Guerrilla warfare is the only tactic effective in such asymmetrical circumstances, and after a few weeks of violence the powers that be succumb to international pressure and agree to negotiate with the 99%...
...or we could launch an official investigation, fire the guy as a scapegoat after an admittedly long, expensive and cumbersome process, and let the public outrage that ensued lead to a more cautious approach to future student protests. Bloggers and editorialists collectively write millions of words on the subject, increasing awareness and generally shaming the agency that allowed it to happen.
Not perfect, but a whole hell of a lot more civilized.
Any time you use guns against a government entity in he US, you will eventually be caught and put in jail. Period. The only way to avoid this is to be a small part of a large popular movement that eventually overthrows the US government, and I don't see that ever happening with citizen gun-owners unless it involves guerrilla tactics. Imagine gunfights erupting at your local municipal buildings. Imagine pipe bombs at your local police station. People need to realize that this is what they are advocating when they argue for second amendment rights as a fourth check and balance.
If you disagree with that statement, feel free to fill in a reasonable sequence of events to span the gap between "guy whose fourth amendment rights are violated guns down cop" and "said guy is vindicated, and massive changes are made to our law enforcement policies." I suspect that we are far more likely to see a greater militarization of the police in response.
I humbly propose that we join the civilized world and come up with more creative ways to correct our problems.

It is a pickle.. Luckily i live in a country where police is much more civilized to handle situations by peaceful means. Even thou we have really fucked up search&seizure practices. Cops can't come to your house unless it's an emergency or they have sufficient proof that a crime that's happening in that residence is at least 6 months worth of prison. Mind you, we have very relaxed sentencing so 6 months is actually pretty big crime committed, for ex i got one case thru quick search: 7 times of break&entering, car theft and two attempts of car thefts resulted to six month in prison..

But.. So cops knock on your door and you open it (if you don't open the door, it's automatic warrant if they can see you're in but refuse to answer..). They say that they want to come in and search the place. They really don't have to have any evidence, just a suspicion of any petty crime will do. You deny their entrance. They have now sufficient proof that a crime is being committed right now since you refused a look-around (it's defined in the law, they can enter but not touch anything, can't open doors or drawers etc.) and the previous six months minimum limit is thrown out of the window...

You have a right to ask for a warrant and deny the search. But.. they can apply for 24h quick warrant by phone while keeping you detained and search the premises. If they find nothing, tough luck, you can't complain (or you can but it's tedious, long process that most likely will result to nothing..). If they find something, huuray for them, the search was justified.

Those are not cops fault, i understand that it's very effective practice and has a high percentage of success. But it's wrong in principle and opens doors to frightening methods for totalitarianism. It's the law that needs to be changed. It's the attitude "i got nothing to hide" of the majority that supports that practice, they can't see anything wrong with it. They are the one that needs a radical change in their attitude of privacy and freedom. But they are the ones most likely to follow to the bitter end and never lift a finger, ie the same masses this guy is talking about.

>> ^CreamK:

You deny their entrance. They have now sufficient proof that a crime is being committed right now since you refused a look-around (it's defined in the law, they can enter but not touch anything, can't open doors or drawers etc.) and the previous six months minimum limit is thrown out of the window...


The "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind being searched" people you refer to don't understand how the state/cops/browncoats/whatever can abuse that law. They don't understand that even though they are law-abiding citizens, they can still be victimized/harrassed by police. I don't trust cops AT ALL. They are revenue-raising, lying pieces of shit as far as I'm concerned, and the last thing I would agree to is a voluntary search of me, my car, or my home, whether I have something to hide or not. Here, we can refuse searches, unless they have a warrant.

Here's a case where cops right here in Oregon were using thermal imaging to detect homes that had heat signatures that indicated pot growing. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. Even though the police didn't enter the home, the action was considered an unreasonable search, and therefore unconstitutional. Scalia actually got one right.

September 1, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A South Side Chicago man who admitted shooting and wounding two Chicago Police officers has been found not guilty and released from custody. In this Intelligence Report: How did the shooter's lawyer manage to win such a case?

Twenty-one-year-old Kenneth Green was asleep in his Roseland apartment two years ago when a Chicago Police team showed up with a search warrant for drugs.

Cops used a battering ram to get in.

When police kicked through the bottom of Green's bedroom door, he shot through the door wounding two of the officers. Despite admitting all that, Green got off claiming self-defense.

The early morning raid by police on Green's Roseland apartment building ended in almost three dozen shots fired, mostly by police, after veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O'Toole were wounded through the door. The officers would survive, but that day in 2009, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis used the incident to take a stand.

"People are trying to murder police officers left and right," Weis said.

After he shot two policeman, Green was arrested on the spot and charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery with a gun and held without bond.

Last week, after a several day trial, Green was found not guilty. His attorney, Marcus Schantz, told the I-Team that he convinced the jury that Green didn't know they were police outside his door executing a legal search warrant.

Sure, a few people have probably gotten away with it. But as for me I'll place my bet with not pointing a gun anywhere near an officer. Of course these are incomplete lists, but it gives you an idea of what typically happens when you try to threaten a cop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2009

>> ^shveddy:

Sure, a few people have probably gotten away with it. But as for me I'll place my bet with not pointing a gun anywhere near an officer. Of course these are incomplete lists, but it gives you an idea of what typically happens when you try to threaten a cop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2009


So if they come for you for real or imagined crimes you will go peacefully. Just like a typical sheep.

Yes, I would go peacefully. I would film the encounter. I would be respectful. I would tell the officers how they are violating my rights. I would contact media outlets, maybe become an activist and I would certainly have my day in court - maybe the ACLU or some similar organization will help.

I'm not sure what sort of Rambo delusions you have, but reality has long shown that any of the above options have a better (admittedly imperfect) track-record of protecting the rights of citizens.

Again, other than a few rare outlyers, the vast majority of people that decide to take up arms against the state end up dead or in jail. Nothing gets solved, public opinion typically favors any fallen officers, and your local SWAT team has just a little more incentive to buy bigger guns.

But go ahead, Rambo, come out guns a'blazin and let me know how that goes for ya.




>> ^Buck:


So if they come for you for real or imagined crimes you will go peacefully. Just like a typical sheep.

My right > your right > my right > your right. Madness. From where do any rights come from? Our imagination.

*discuss

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by shveddy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

If your going to send something to Sift Talk, it's a good idea to tell us your reasoning. What's your thinking here?>> ^shveddy:

discuss

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Ok, it's been o er 10 hours with no explanation. I'm *returning this with a verbal warning to @shveddy that you don't just fire off a * discuss without backing it up.

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by dag.

Oops, I figured that sending something to the sift talk is pretty self explanitory. I find a topic interesting, and I'm randomly in the mood to talk about it. I thought that my previous comments would indicate how I feel about it.

And hey, I don't necessarily log into videosift every ten hours - especially when I'm cramming for an analytical chemistry exam.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

That's OK - but you misunderstood the meaning of the * discuss invocation. It's used for when there i a problem. A video that violates a guideline, or something similar in the comments. Ta. >> ^shveddy:

Oops, I figured that sending something to the sift talk is pretty self explanitory. I find a topic interesting, and I'm randomly in the mood to talk about it. I thought that my previous comments would indicate how I feel about it.
And hey, I don't necessarily log into videosift every ten hours - especially when I'm cramming for an analytical chemistry exam.

Oh, well that won't happen again. My bad.