I googled it.
It's a place called Ski Apache, a ski resort.

So some of you Americans honestly believe this is the correct way to police a neighborhood community? Or are you all trolls?

This is close to incarceration for jaywalking or shooting someone for wearing a hoodie and being black.

Look at how many officers and what effort and time it takes to solve the case of a scratched car at a crossroads scene and how they manage to make a meal of it.

At 3 minutes into the video they are exactly one competent cop, two calm sentences and one phone call to parents away from not having to deal with the ensuing fracas. Even if they did everything by the book they will be remembered as assholes.

The message the girl gets is she should have tried harder to get away sooner because cops are pigs (even when they try to do things right and have a camera).

Policing a community is much easier (or only possible?) if people want to cooperate and trust the policemen to not be arrogant douchebags waiting for 15yr old girls to "make their day".

Possession of marihuana - she should be glad to be alive. Go watch Fort Apache, the Bronx one more time.

I identify as a Boeing AH-64 Apache Longbow, my proper personal pronoun shall be "BOOM! HEADSHOT!!!"

Quite a lot of nations have old soviet Shilka's which do those supercomputer calculations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-UnealTR-Y
You get within 1.5 miles of this thing, and it chews up anything that isn't jinking.
There are also variants of this thing which have missiles, and they can even shoot down other missiles to protect itself.
For those it's better to fire helicopter missiles from a low angle. Or bomb them from up very high.

Helicopters are less vulnerable because often they can fire without revealing their position. Modern missiles can be fired from as around 8km away. And they'll fire them while hovering low enough that their radar signatures can't be distinguished from the ground and surroundings. And since they are always facing the enemy their heat signature from the engines is facing away as well. (unlike a warthog that will show it's engines to the enemy as it flies up and away after an attack). Most attack helicopters have some kind of armour as well. At least in the pilot and critical sections.
Oh yes, and something really cool - the new Apache Longbow's can fire missiles that go around terrain to hit their targets! Super cool

They absolutely have disadvantages, but any decent pilot will fly their aircraft to it's advantages

The Air Force is quite silly when it comes to close ground support. They never learn that the 'we'll be in and out before they can touch us' doesn't work well.

To give you an idea of what they are planning to return us to with this idea and plane, I refer you to the Vietnam War. The F4 was capable of fast fly-by's, but the problem was that in the foliage it was hard to hit targets at speed. Therefore the F4's had to start reducing speed and take higher attack angles, which caused an issue with the engines. Flameouts and stalls were rampant because the plane was designed for fast fly-by's, not the type of combat it was seeing. Additionally, the slow speed and high AoA EXPOSED the plane to severe enemy return fire. The F-4, by 1 January 1972, ranked second to the F-105 in SEA combat losses-362 (all models), most of them downed by the enemy. Later, in F-4Es alone, the Air Force lost eight in 2 months of intensive combat.

The Air Force found that relying extensively on Helicopters such as the Cobra was ineffective as well. They could deliver good anti-personnel coverage, but not hard targets. They were also slower to arrive to the combat arena. Finally, no helicopter we have ever put in combat, prior to the Apache, has been heavily armored. We don't use Hinds like Russia. The Apache is armored with Kevlar areas and reinforced armor around the cockpit, and has proven effective in open land combat, but has not been extensively tested in areas of high cover during actual combat.

Ironically, the painful lessons learned in Vietnam led to the development of another aircraft, The A-10. Sadly, we are going to waste a ton of money and probably quite a few pilots before we learn this lesson again.

Well, it's about ten times more likely that she'll be killed by an actual IED or just directly killed by Taliban militants.

It's also guaranteed she's not going to school unless those Apache crews hang around to keep the Taliban away.

When making snide dive by comments about death in terrible circumstances it's disrespectful in the extreme to use it to score cheap political points.

The next day she was probably killed because some apache crew thought she was hiding IEDs..............

Hi.
I didn't actually think your "snuff" video was out of place, but I wanted to ask: you're not actually banned, are you? I only saw the comment, and ... you know what I mean.
I once had a coworker paste a video around the (3000+ person) company mailing list that was a video of a grainy black-blotch (guy) being mowed down by what was said to be the mini-gun of an Apache helicopter in the gulf war. Granted that the coworkers commentary was celebratory and offensive, but even that nearly-abstract video insulted me more than what you posted, and your tone clearly had no such intent.
I hope you stick around. Please don't take offense, and I'll be writing to those who flagged you later to hopefully calm them the fuck down too. This is the best community I've been a part of online in more than a decade, and I am sad to lose anyone who's a contributor.
I didn't think the video was snuff, and I don't think the majority of the community would think so either.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Apache and UH-60 Precision Target Fire using IR. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

"don't lump me in with Alex Jones"

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHA!

So if our government magically becomes tyrannical, they would obviously remove the 2nd amendment correct?

So if there is no second amendment and guns have been confiscated does this magically stop you from stealing/hiding/stockpiling guns and revolting anyway? Or do you just sit on your thumbs and accept the tyranny cursing "damnit! they revoked the 2nd amendment, we were so close to revolting too!"

And if our gov't becomes tyrannical in the right wing fanatic's fantasy world, how does your AR-15 plan on dealing with Apache helicopters? and F-22s? and laser guided munitions, and bunker busters...or SEAL teams?.

When has the lack of a 2nd amendment stopped anyone from revolting against an oppressive gov't?

If you're going to successfully revolt against a tyrannical 21st century America, you;re going to need at the very least"

1) popular support: in other words, if the guy you voted for doesn't win the election, that's not tyranny. Call me when we stop having elections, then you might have a stronger case for tyrannical govt. paying higher taxes isn't tyranny. Sorry.

2) military support: sorry, your cache of small arms, shotguns, and rifles (assault or otherwise) aren't going to cut it. you're going to need many military units to defect and oppose the government. And guess what, the commander of these units that defect will in all likelihood be leading said revolt, not the right wing pundits and chicken hawks (they'll be too busy cowering in the bomb shelters) and it won't be your "patriotic" militia wannabe survival nut.

3) lots of computer nerds and cyber warfare. Sorry son, the era of the jock is over. The world is digital now bitches. bits can be more powerful than bullets in today's world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. the 2nd Amendment is largely symbolic and nothing more. It basically says that yes, the populace has the right to be armed (something both sides agree with, the degree of which is debatable but I'll get to that in a moment) and that *IF* the government gets tyrannical you aught to revolt

As for what kind of weapons should be allowed. If you acknowledge that its reasonable to keep nuclear arms, and military vehicles and planes and other heavy weapons and firearms out of civilian hands, then you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendments DOES have it's limits. When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment. Muskets were the pinnacle of weapons technology. Everyone was allowed to have them. So if you acknowledge that in TODAY'S world, that there are certain firearms that civvies shouldn't have, then you acknowledge that the founding fathers didn't think of everything and times do, in fact, change

Buy all the guns you want, the government has the A-10 Warhog and the AH-64 Apache Helicopter. Your pea shooter ins't going to do shit.

The 2nd amendment is a lingering anachronism.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.

>> ^reiwan:

Does anyone have any info on the apache helicopter one? that looked serious. NM - found a vid
The one with the land rover going across the river isnt actually a fail. He makes it across, they just cut the clip when he's half way through.


Both Apache crashes are crazy... And the wedding one must have been spectacularly embarrassing.

Does anyone have any info on the apache helicopter one? that looked serious. NM - found a vid

The one with the land rover going across the river isnt actually a fail. He makes it across, they just cut the clip when he's half way through.