Oh, I'm looking forward to how this plays out.

This is something I didn't expect -- the pushback from the police on using cameras by ordinary citizens.

Things are beginning to escalate, I'm thinking. Court cases will ensue, I predict.

Plus cameras with longer lenses, so you can stand farther away and record events. That'll be here soon.

"Anti police" is his argument against her. Ah the ever present cycle of violence. We're all pawns to its insidious nature.

"A woman was arrested for videotaping police from her front yard in Rochester, New York.
Emily Good, 28, was recording a traffic stop where police had a man handcuffed on May 12th. The video was uploaded to Blip TV today. The cop who arrested her has been identified as Mario Masic"
- http://www.pixiq.com/rochester-police-arrest-woman-for-videotaping-them.html


"Emily Good, 28, was arrested about 10 p.m. May 12 and charged with second-degree obstructing governmental administration. She is scheduled to appear in Rochester City Court for a proceeding on Monday, police said."
- http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110622/NEWS01/106220324/Emily-Good-arrested-while-videotaping-city-police?

Nice facting.>> ^Sagemind:

"A woman was arrested for videotaping police from her front yard in Rochester, New York.
Emily Good, 28, was recording a traffic stop where police had a man handcuffed on May 12th. The video was uploaded to Blip TV today. The cop who arrested her has been identified as Mario Masic"
- http://www.pixiq.com/rochester-police-arrest-woman-for-videotaping
-them.html

"Emily Good, 28, was arrested about 10 p.m. May 12 and charged with second-degree obstructing governmental administration. She is scheduled to appear in Rochester City Court for a proceeding on Monday, police said."
- http://www.democratand
chronicle.com/article/20110622/NEWS01/106220324/Emily-Good-arrested-while-videotaping-city-police?


Also I feel like they arrested Jenna Fischer, judging by her voice.

Then don't stand behind, stand in front of the cop,

Also what was said before she started taping?

Oh as for the cop feeling unsafe. Fuck that he has a gun, teaser, body vest and 2 other cops are there. Yea he "feels" unsafe, it took all of 2 seconds to get the girl under his control.

He is either insecure or oh a power hungry power trip. I'd say power trip.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html

Here's an article posted a month after her arrest.

Somebody is in trouble, nanner nanner. And it ain't Emily.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I'm looking forward to how this plays out.
This is something I didn't expect -- the pushback from the police on using cameras by ordinary citizens.
Things are beginning to escalate, I'm thinking. Court cases will ensue, I predict.
Plus cameras with longer lenses, so you can stand farther away and record events. That'll be here soon.
"Anti police" is his argument against her. Ah the ever present cycle of violence. We're all pawns to its insidious nature.


Police have been aggressive toward photographers/videographers for a long time. It's not something new.

What's new is how many video cameras there are now. No place to hide for the cops to hide, even during a routine traffic stop.


>> ^marbles:

>> ^bareboards2:
Oh, I'm looking forward to how this plays out.
This is something I didn't expect -- the pushback from the police on using cameras by ordinary citizens.
Things are beginning to escalate, I'm thinking. Court cases will ensue, I predict.
Plus cameras with longer lenses, so you can stand farther away and record events. That'll be here soon.
"Anti police" is his argument against her. Ah the ever present cycle of violence. We're all pawns to its insidious nature.

Police have been aggressive toward photographers/videographers for a long time. It's not something new.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Cops, Abuse of powers, Unlawful Arrest, Police, Lawn, Fresh air right now' to 'Cops, Abuse of powers, rochester, Police, Lawn, emily good' - edited by bareboards2

*quality statism.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.

...till then, it's just a bunch of shitty cops. You've been flinging that word around way too much and I think the burden of proof is on you to show us that this is a systemic problem at the higher levels and not just a bunch of individual cops with fragile egos.

bunch of static statist statists stating statistics on stately stationary...

>> ^VoodooV:

it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.

Nope. Not true. It's statism regardless. You're just making parameters up.

Ahh...cuz you say so. Got it.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^VoodooV:
it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.
Nope. Not true. It's statism regardless. You're just making parameters up.

>> ^VoodooV:

Ahh...cuz you say so. Got it.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^VoodooV:
it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.
Nope. Not true. It's statism regardless. You're just making parameters up.



No, because it's the definition of statism. Feel free to google it yourself. The police are a part of a statist apparatus. Whether or not the state deems its own actions illegal or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's statism or not. It just is statism.

Problem still understanding that?

Without some form of state it would only be the strongest oppressing the weaker.

I was interested in anarchy so I read Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist". It's just a dream (but a very good read). Everyone living in cooperative harmony will only work until someone stronger, and better armed, wants what you have--then you might want a state (in some form) to protect and serve you and yours.

Our state needs to be readjusted to focus on the middle class, but no-state is stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

Proves my point.
(Edit: An invisible downvote on my previous comment which has now been countered, but the point is still valid)

If you have the ability to downvote my comments--and I can't downvote yours--you can smack me around for not agreeing with you. I have no recourse.

Who wins?

That isn't actually proving your point. Blankfist is neither bigger nor stronger than you, he has just contributed enough within the site. Those contributions did well within the community and thus his opinions (more importantly his negative opinions) are trusted, and you ended up with a downvote.

On the other hand, I upvoted your comment because I happen to agree with it. But when you compare how much I have contributed to the site versus how much Blankfist has, it almost seems unfair to let me upvote.

If this proves anything, it's that the "weak" have more power because I (or you for that matter) don't need Blankfist's reputation just to upvote.

Long story short: The sift wins.



>> ^Boise_Lib:

Proves my point.
If you have the ability to downvote my comments--and I can't downvote yours--you can smack me around for not agreeing with you. I have no recourse.
Who wins?


>> ^Boise_Lib:

Without some form of state it would only be the strongest oppressing the weaker.
I was interested in anarchy so I read Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist". It's just a dream (but a very good read). Everyone living in cooperative harmony will only work until someone stronger, and better armed, wants what you have--then you might want a state (in some form) to protect and serve you and yours.
Our state needs to be readjusted to focus on the middle class, but no-state is stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

>> ^sme4r:

That isn't actually proving your point. Blankfist is neither bigger nor stronger than you, he has just contributed enough within the site. Those contributions did well within the community and thus his opinions (more importantly his negative opinions) are trusted, and you ended up with a downvote.
On the other hand, I upvoted your comment because I happen to agree with it. But when you compare how much I have contributed to the site versus how much Blankfist has, it almost seems unfair to let me upvote.
If this proves anything, it's that the "weak" have more power because I (or you for that matter) don't need Blankfist's reputation just to upvote.
Long story short: The sift wins.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Proves my point.
If you have the ability to downvote my comments--and I can't downvote yours--you can smack me around for not agreeing with you. I have no recourse.
Who wins?

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Without some form of state it would only be the strongest oppressing the weaker.
I was interested in anarchy so I read Kropotkin's "Memoirs of a Revolutionist". It's just a dream (but a very good read). Everyone living in cooperative harmony will only work until someone stronger, and better armed, wants what you have--then you might want a state (in some form) to protect and serve you and yours.
Our state needs to be readjusted to focus on the middle class, but no-state is stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin



Okay. He just pissed me off and I used an inept analogy.

Thanks sme4r.

Blankfist is right, violence doesn't happen where there is no government. =P

On another note, several states have made it illegal to film cops in public without their consent... now that's screwed up.

@Psychologic & boise_lib

You're missing the point. Bureaucracies are ponzi schemes of power.

You know ponzi schemes don't work, so why invest your power in one.
At least in a free market, there's an ebb and flow of power

So while, yes, the strong can push around the weak; the weak can also gang up on the strong. Two strongs can flank the weaks. One weak can poison the well of the strongs. You get the point, yes?

In bureaucracies, power only moves one way. Up.. away from you.

What if you don't see a return from the scheme and want out?
You truly don't have any recourse then @Boise_Lib
~~~
I'll put it this way.

"Free market violence" - for lack of a better term - is random and fair. You can always gain lose or remain neutral in your power.

State sanctioned violence is worse because the power you forfeit for a false sense of security is inevitably be used against you to control your life.
The deck is constantly stacked against you.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Psychologic & boise_lib
You're missing the point. Bureaucracies are ponzi schemes of power.
You know ponzi schemes don't work, so why invest your power in one.
At least in a free market, there's an ebb and flow of power
So while, yes, the strong can push around the weak; the weak can also gang up on the strong. Two strongs can flank the weaks. One weak can poison the well of the strongs. You get the point, yes?
In bureaucracies, power only moves one way. Up.. away from you.
What if you don't see a return from the scheme and want out?
You truly don't have any recourse then Boise_Lib
~~~
I'll put it this way.
"Free market violence" - for lack of a better term - is random and fair. You can always gain lose or remain neutral in your power.
State sanctioned violence is worse because the power you forfeit for a false sense of security is inevitably be used against you to control your life.
The deck is constantly stacked against you.


People form groups either way.

The world is libertarian by nature, but people tend to form societies because it's stronger than an individual. If that society can't protect itself (from within or without) then it will be replaced by a stronger one. Get rid of government and new ones will emerge (or "annex").

I certainly have my complaints about the various types of governments around the world, but those are critiques of the implementations rather than the idea of government. I'd much rather live under a flawed representative government than whoever happens to amass the most individual power from the vacuum.

I can't help that assholes can get hired as police officers, but I still value law enforcement. I feel that abuses can be addressed without throwing the entire system out. I've known plenty of bad cops, but I've known far more cops that hate people like that and see cameras as a protection rather than a threat.

@Psychologic

I actually don't see the world as "libertarian" by nature. I actually see the world as more like the world of the lion, where the rule of might is the order of the day. You aren't free unless you have power of tooth and claw to demand your freedom. Rational existences based on social orders apart from strength is unique and rare, even in man. Even democracy employees the strong man position where many > few in terms of decision making.

Perhaps that is the best we can hope for in our current animal state. However, I see the entire system of laws as flawed. Laws don't (rarely) stop crime, they just establish was is a crime and a punishment. A time is coming where a single person can destroy the entire world. A day where technology and information advance and disseminate at rates that will make the laymen capable of great harm. No amount of law will offer protection. If we want to survive our rational infancy, we have to individually seek to eliminate the need for laws all together. One has to be able to have to power to destroy the universe and decide not to, freely. Freedom is the only answer to the end game of humanity. I don't think you can get there by bridging the gap with authoritarian structures. Rationality might actually be inferior to animal carnage. It might loose. Rationality might be fighting a battle it can't win. We could, point in fact, already be doomed. That a being both carnal and rational, can and will only lead to its own destruction.

@Psychologic

Look, when you wanna learn the truth.. we can talk.

If you wanna keep pretending like you're a citizen that an officer or congressmen or president is obligated to protect, go ahead.

But you're going to have a ruin awakening when the system turns on you.
~~~

Think about this.

If Congress passes a law that ruins your life, how do you force them to take responsibility & correct it?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Psychologic
Look, when you wanna learn the truth.. we can talk.
If you wanna keep pretending like you're a citizen that an officer or congressmen or president is obligated to protect, go ahead.
But you're going to have a ruin awakening when the system turns on you.
~~~
Think about this.
If Congress passes a law that ruins your life, how do you force them to take responsibility & correct it?


It seems you're assuming quite a bit about my beliefs. Perhaps more question marks would prove useful.

What are you proposing as an alternative to the current forms of existing government? Are there any existing examples in the world of a system you like?

@Psychologic

Voluntaryism. Check it out

http://youtu.be/vX2TqXT8GcY?t=4m9s

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Psychologic
Voluntaryism. Check it out
http://youtu.be/vX2TqXT8GcY?t=4m9s


Voluntaryism is a wonderful ideal, but I still go back to my assertion that associations/groups/governments will be formed as a result of natural human behavior within such a society unless there is a fundamental shift in the way humans perceive and react to the world around them on an individual level.

I tend to agree with you on what kind of world would be great to live in, but I think we have dissimilar views on the realistic behavior of people. Government is not an exterior construct forced upon the unwilling people, it is simply the result of large scale human behavior.

As far as police, I'm personally fine with their existence. There are quite a few changes I would make to the structure of police forces if such a decision were mine alone to make, but I still hold that the current situation is better than the result of throwing the entire system out... we do actually have existing examples of what happens in that case.

Emily Good case dismissed

From the article linked above^^

From a joint statement issued by Mayor Tom Richards, City Council President Lovely Warren and Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard: "We believe that the incident that led to Ms. Good's arrest and the subsequent ticketing for parking violations of vehicles belonging to members of an organization associated with Ms. Good raise issues with respect to the conduct of Rochester Police Officers that require an internal review. A review into both matters has been initiated."

@Psychologic

Now this I agree with. "Gangs" or tribes of people dominating other people is the more natural condition, not libertarian ideals. The notion of individual rights is very new, and defies the natural order of our evolution. The drift towards collective authoritarian systems is only natural, as a result. This is why, often times, I overstress the need for liberties and freedoms, because they are destined to erode, it is our natural tendency.

However, I still see the only answer to the plagues that humanity unleashes on itself as personal, individual choice and responsibility. Someone here on the sift said something to the effect that he believes that Aspergers is the next stage of human evolution, I am starting to see the wisdom in the statement. Only when the violent, overly competitive sections of our DNA are extinguished can we ever have uncompromising peace.

Commander Adama said it best "We never asked ourselves, are we worthy of survival?" It isn't enough to live, or to kill people. It isn't enough to have laws that punish evil doers. We must not have evil doers, it is the only solution that has humanity survive for any geologically significant time frame. The Meta game for humanity is only just begun.

Yes, I do have a problem understanding. Quite simply, your definition of statism doesn't match up with ANY given by a google search suggested by yourself. By your own messed up definition, it doesn't matter what the police does, it's statism regardless, but I don't see you crying statism on the sifts when the police do something arguably good.

The police officer acted inappropriately, the state upheld the liberty of the individual arrested by the inappropriate officer. Case, quite literally, dismissed.

You haven't demonstrated anything other than your irrational hatred of the 'po-po
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^VoodooV:
Ahh...cuz you say so. Got it.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^VoodooV:
it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.
Nope. Not true. It's statism regardless. You're just making parameters up.


No, because it's the definition of statism. Feel free to google it yourself. The police are a part of a statist apparatus. Whether or not the state deems its own actions illegal or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's statism or not. It just is statism.
Problem still understanding that?

>> ^VoodooV:

Yes, I do have a problem understanding. Quite simply, your definition of statism doesn't match up with ANY given by a google search suggested by yourself. By your own messed up definition, it doesn't matter what the police does, it's statism regardless, but I don't see you crying statism on the sifts when the police do something arguably good.
The police officer acted inappropriately, the state upheld the liberty of the individual arrested by the inappropriate officer. Case, quite literally, dismissed.
You haven't demonstrated anything other than your irrational hatred of the 'po-po
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^VoodooV:
Ahh...cuz you say so. Got it.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^VoodooV:
it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.
Nope. Not true. It's statism regardless. You're just making parameters up.


No, because it's the definition of statism. Feel free to google it yourself. The police are a part of a statist apparatus. Whether or not the state deems its own actions illegal or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's statism or not. It just is statism.
Problem still understanding that?



Not true, masked crusader. I think most of cops are the bee's knees. That means I think they're good, and they do a good job, and they mean well. But when they do bad, or when their policies are bad, or if the laws are bad, etc. etc. etc. I have next to zero recourse, because it's not like I can just stop paying for their service now is it? That's the utter failure of statism, IMHO.

Also this. From wiki: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals."

now you're just avoiding the argument. And as I already stated, the definitions on google simply doesn't match up to your arguments, so I don't know why you're proving my point.

But to answer your new argument: Yes, you can stop paying for those services...

...by leaving the country. Freedom is a bitch. You seem to hate the system so much, but talk is cheap. Fortunately, we have enough people who actually do things about injustices, real or perceived, like Ms. Good and a court system that enables these issues to be argued in order to improve the system

Instead of just waxing political about shit on the Internet.

>> ^VoodooV:

now you're just avoiding the argument. And as I already stated, the definitions on google simply doesn't match up to your arguments, so I don't know why you're proving my point.
But to answer your new argument: Yes, you can stop paying for those services...
...by leaving the country. Freedom is a bitch. You seem to hate the system so much, but talk is cheap. Fortunately, we have enough people who actually do things about injustices, real or perceived, like Ms. Good and a court system that enables these issues to be argued in order to improve the system
Instead of just waxing political about shit on the Internet.


Sure, whatever. Keep up the good fight, chief.

By the way, let me emphasize the more salient points of the wiki definition above in case you missed it: "From wiki: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.""

That's fucking statism, dude. Could not be clearer. Moving along.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.