Candidate Martin Hyde apologizes for 'belligerent and rude' behavior toward officer who pulled him over.

I wonder if he was cited for expired registration.

When I first saw the crash, it looked like that police helicopter was totally at fault and just fucked up that first copter without provocation.

It's good to see the incident in context with the preceding footage. Because that clearly shows the first copter was verbally assaulting the police copter and then was belligerent, resisted lawful orders and finally, got violent.

People are too quick to jump to conclusions when they see footage of a helicopter incident that's cut to make the police copter look bad. You have to see the whole story, people!

Jesus fucking Christ....What bullshit.
He failed the field test after illegally parking on the freeway with dealer plates and admitting to drinking and driving, argued and stalled rather than complied, and then played games with the field test, failing it, and didn't submit to the breathalyzer as required by law (you can't delay the test by arguing about your rights as he did, by law, they clearly warned him so). That's automatic conviction in most places....white or black.

Totally cuffed for cause, then eventually had the charges dropped because they "lost" the footage, but by his own words he's guilty of the charge of refusing the test.
Every bad experience had by a person of color is not institutional racism, especially when they're actually breaking the law and being belligerent....which he was by parking on the shoulder and arguing instead of complying with lawful commands. Had they not "lost" the video, he should have been convicted and had his licence revoked....white or black.

Thanks @C-note, you've single handedly turned me from someone who exposed racism to someone who now actively debunks it. Congratulations.

We do see it quite differently.
To me, compared to the normal police reaction to belligerent disrespect, I found them not only restrained but polite.

After repeatedly failing to comply with officer commands, the belligerent watermelon was tazed.

I can only take the video author at his word, but he claims to have repeatedly attempted to deescalate before he started filming.

And even then, the video begins with him attempting to explain that she has no legal right to detain him in an even tone of voice.

The woman appears belligerent and is acting well outside of her legal rights by physically blocking him.

I think the guy acted with remarkable restraint under the circumstances. The woman shows no signs of being open to reason or changing her mind.

Some people simply cannot be reasoned with. And I say that as a mental health worker who deals with rude and belligerent people constantly. (frighteningly often not the service users but the general public they have to deal with)

I do entirely feel the sentiment of what you are saying. It would be a better world, but it's not the world we live in. Lamentably, wishing will not make it otherwise.

You should read what Trump supporting veterans say about him: Belligerent and entitled; a shame to military servicemen. No joke, in the fucking comments of the USAT article.

Some people even had the gall to say this veteran's shameful actions will harm Chili's business and that he shouldn't have fought over the meal. He should have been the bigger man and left without a free dinner, because military people don't sweat the small stuff -- you know, the small stuff, like human rights violations.

See what I'm doing? I'm breaking the influence of your echo chamber so you can hear the reasonable arguments from the Trump supporters you've been ignoring while you remain clueless talking with all your liberal friends about propaganda.

Come on, the reasonable qualities of racism are important issues largely being ignored by the left. At least listen. lolllllllllllll

First, I always point out Christianity's faults, specifically Westborough and Mormon secs...it's like you listened to me for years, then decided to belligerently use something I said over and over again against me just because it felt good? I get that you can't remember everything we talk about, but the gist should be gotten at least.

Second, just like the Bible, the book itself is homophobic. Are there fantastic Muslims? Sure. Just like I am sure there are good Scientologists, which I am sure you must defend. But their religion is against psychology medication, period. Does that mean all practice it? No? Well shit, then their doctrine gets a free pass!

I spoke only of their book--not of them. You then support that book, so not sure if that qualifies as supporting Muslims in general (Hint, since I NEVER once said anything about Muslims themselves, you didn't actually defend them. That means you supported the literal doctrine of the Koran.)

So yeah...care to explain how your Progressive beliefs jive with the Koran?

Epic trick.

But seriously, these guys were being complete assholes. They're trespassing and they WERE acting belligerent, or did you miss the part where he got into the woman's cart?

I'm guessing that's a school, so all the poor woman is doing is her job and not exposing the school when these little shits sue because he's too fucking stupid to wear a goddamn helmet.

Settle the fuck down there Social Justice Warrior...I said nothing personal to you so cool your jets. I am honestly getting tired of taking the sane, reasonable route in everything I do. I just got off facebook responding to one of those "233 blacks, 411 whites" posts that "show" cops don't kill more blacks...and I get flak for not defending cops. I come here, point out that Marah and his minions are full of shit on one point, and I get flak...fuck both polar sides.

With that said let us get into the meat of your tantrum. I never even implied, hinted, suggested or whispered that many police actions are somehow mitigated or diminished because things are better. In fact, that whole distraction you ranted on is irrelevant to the whole meaning of my post. What the point was is this--THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO INCENTIVE FOR A SIDE TO BECOME A BETTER GROUP WHEN THE OTHER SIDE NEVER ACKOWLEGES PROGRESS. This is why Democratic and Republican lawmakers are so polarized. Why cops and blacks are so polarized. Why religions are so polarized.

I mean if we talked to our children like we talk about this, we would seem pretty fucking stupid. "Hey Timmy! I know you improved your D to a C+, but fuck you! That's not good enough you shit head. You miswell be an F student in this house!" Yeah, see how little Timmy might not come around to his dad's way of thinking? I swear, you mention some positivity and people flip the fuck out...like we are selling out to the bad cops or some stupid shit. And this is exactly what Marah's point was and is. His words were clear---NO PROGRESS. (You could argue that he meant only that there has been no progress in the thin blue line but then you would have to be a really belligerent asshole who takes words out of context to fit their meaning...)

Next, you mention all the tax dollars our police force gets...BWAHAHAAHA! Holy fuck, and I am sure the education system is overflowing with money too! Just because the numbers are large doesn't mean the actual tax dollars are significant nor does it mean the money flows to the actual police either. Now this does bring up your very serious observation that I find worrisome as well...the militarization of police...unfortunately our politicians cut sweet deals with companies that make war toys, just like in the military, and basically give away huge percentages of the police "budget." This drastically reduces the actual money police have to do their jobs while lining the politicians' pockets with contributions later.

As far as the shooting one unarmed person per week comment you made that should give YOU some perspective of how utterly stupid the side you are on is. 52 deaths a year in this manner (Say if your hyperbolic statement was actually right instead of being smartass.) 39 thousand deaths happen as a result of car accidents. Do I minimize the deaths? No. Do I put them in perspective? Of course.

I personally think that the no snitch code to crimes, whether on the street or in the force, should be a crime. Nowhere should be safe, period.

How can you tell he is taking your tax dollars? Most belligerent a-holes do work hard and are too proud to take it. (Except things they pay into such as unemployment insurance, which is not the same thing as regular government benefits.)

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.

Okay, so.. To start *deeep breath* ..

#1 - Conflating frequency & social norms is the first flaw in your weak sauce argument/opinion/whatever.

Norms are essentially social boundaries.
They ensure a certain level of compliance & conformity in a group.

The frequency of a behavior doesn't determine a norm.
Social acceptance does.

If informal rules are accepted & practiced by enough of the group, it's a (the) norm.

So..

#2 - Because police brutality is practiced & accepted enough.. it's the (a) norm.

A fact proven by comments like this from @lucky760..

A comment that illustrates those exact informal, unwritten rules of compliance.

Completely accepting that "well, of course cops on a powertrip clearly can't control themselves. What did you expect?".

Or comments from jerkfaces like Lantern53 (who is a cop), usually:
"Most people who get shot by the police deserved it."

Because in his child-like brain, only "bad guys get in trouble"..

So if a cop is beating you half (usually all the way) to death.
You must have done some "bad guy stuff" to start.

Which brings us to..

#3 - Your disgustingly ignorant, disingenuous denialism.

"Let's *scoff* pretend that everyday, for every brutal beating you hear about..

There's another even more violent murder..

That's ONLY 365 excessive force murders a year!

That's NOT representative of all 1 million police officers."

...@_@.. just ..@_@... Because:

A) As an "angry black man" who is distinctly enraged by police brutality..

I certainly don't need or appreciate you - a racially illiterate white male - pullin' the fuckin' race card.

"What if I made these generalizations about black people? Hmm? *pouty face* Woodn't da make you a wittle upset?"

THAT SHIT HAPPENS CONSTANTLY. Especially on the internet.

In fact, @BoneRemake has accused me of sellin' out or whatever because..

Most of my recent activity on this site has been a very pointed, belligerent direct response to the stupid shitty cuntbag comments of Videosift's resident racist jingoists.. @bobknight33 & @lantern53.

The latter of which is a police officer of 30 years.

B) Of course not EVERY SINGLE police officer or police interaction is violently excessive.

The point is - it's fucked up that videos like this appear on a regular basis. With little to no punishment for the officers involved.

Sure there are lots of good people in the world..

{Main Point} That means absolutely nothing when you're specifically illustrating & discussing the shitty, bad people in the world. {Main Point}


So yeah, i definitely don't need you and your patronizing AS FUCK white privilege apologist rhetoric to tell me..

"You know, not ALL cops are bad."

Yeah.. i know. Would you also like to tell me about how:

"Every interaction I've had with Law Enforcement has been benign and/or pleasant."

"I've never been followed around a store for fear I might steal something."

..-_-