>> ^quantumushroom:

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."





The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.

Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.

If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.

Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.


>> ^Pantalones:

The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."

OK Winstonfield, I'll tell you why you're a (religious) idiot. You seem to be asking for it after all.

1. All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers. It probably goes further back than that, but we only have records up to the Greeks. Religions at that time did not concern themselves with ethical matters, at least not in any systematized way (it was a collection of old wives' tale about what happened to the boy who cried wolf, etc.). Judaism was one of the first, if not the first, religion to do this. This is why it was laughed at. Everyone in the ancient world knew that religion had nothing to do with raising good people: the City did. Nowadays we would say: the school, or the government or whatever. Only when religion takes over the schools or the government (like Judaism did in Judea or Christianity in medieval Europe) does it serve that purpose. And all monotheistic religions, by their nature, seek to become the only power, so it makes sense that they would encompass all things about life. Which makes their message too spread out and (philosophically) weak. This is why a religion like Christianity, that was proliferated by Roman slaves, could itself become the basis for Black slavery centuries later.

2. Churches do not want to build better people for a better world. They want to indoctrinate people so that the Church becomes the World. They want uniformity of thought. They are totalitarian in their very nature. Especially monotheist Churches. But then again, polytheisms usually do not have Churches.

3. Churches do not teach moral behavior. They preach moral behavior. Anyone can preach. Few can teach. The ancient Greek and Roman nobility would pay fortunes to get a good teacher for their children, and the City was seen as having a duty to educate all children to become proper citizens. And here you say we must put our faith in the words of preachers, who recite two thousand year old parables about a supposed King of the Jews that lived in a Roman controlled desert? What the fuck is wrong with you?

4. You should learn about Evolutionary Stable Strategies. For a strategy to be evolutionary stable, it is not required that it do anyone any good, only that it be good at reproducing itself. Religions are such strategies. They are parasitic. They hijack the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.

5. He means what I said at 4. Since it's important, I'll repeat it here: religions are hijacking the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.


To be on topic, as an aikidoka I believe this is a perfect example of the good usage of violence (or force). Once you cannot peacefully avoid conflict anymore and the opponent still presses for combat, you give him the fight of his life. It may very well mean that you failed to avoid conflict, but that is why we learn to fight: so that when we do fight, we can prevail without killing or maiming (this kid probably does not know aikido so give him a break). But even so, in very rare and specific circumstances, you will have to kill to preserve your life or that of someone close. But if you tried to avoid conflict as the precepts of aikido dictate, it is safe to say that you are still a better person than he was*. After all, sometimes a good razing is the only thing that will keep a forest alive. Individual trees do not matter in the long run.

*Some aikidoka would be reluctant to say this. They are either Japanese people and thus have a hard time admitting to unpopular/controversial opinions or they are deluding themselves and being weak. How can there be good if no one is better than anyone else, if no one is worth more than anyone else? Of course, it's easy to say "worth less" = "worthless", but that is only being cynical and misses the point. As for me, as an atheist I do not believe in Good or Evil and so goodness is more like IQ: normal people in a given society get a median of 100 points of goodness or virtue or whatever you want to call it. Even psychopaths need to be good sometimes in order to live in society (some may say they fake it, but faked or not their actions are sometimes good). Inter-cultural comparisons, while not impossible, are difficulty to do and ultimately arbitrary.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.
Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior. I've never been in a church (Baptist, Lutherain, Catholic, 7th Day, Mormon, Jewish, whatever) where I heard the message, "Its OK to steal, lie, cheat, sleep around, or be intolerant to others." Quite the opposite. Most churches teach what would be called 'positive morality'. The relative degree of success each church achieves then becomes represented in the population.
2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.
You are using absolutes here. I did not say "all the morals". I said that churches teach morality codes that encourages the "build a better world by building better people" outcome that some were saying was a preferable dynamic to a soceity where we cheer the slamming of bullies into the sidewalk.
3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.
4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to
producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.
This I DID say. Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people. Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.
Let's move it away from religion for a second. For the sake of argument, let's say that we're talking about a completely non-religious group which has as its sole purpose the desire to teach people the societal benefits that come from adhering to a Utilitarian philosophy. This group goes around, building charities, helping the poor, caring for the sick, and otherwise providing a bunch of service and societal benefits. In short - they are doing good and helping people.
But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy. They begin to loudly shout that these Utilitarians should be eliminated, ignored, and marginalized because what they believe is 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned'. They acheive a certain degree of success, and the Utilitarian group starts getting fewer people showing up, and therefore has less ability to continue doing its good deeds.
Now - how exactly has society been advanced by this scenario? It hasn't. These hypothetical Wittgenstienians are not doing good themselves. They exist only as a parasitical contradiction to the Utilitarians. They are not replacing the good deeds, actions, and benefits that were being done by the group they disagreed with. They are doing nothing except reducing the number of people who were doing good things. How is that "building better people?"
Now - that is an exaggeration of course. In real life, not all of Group "A" are necessarily doing good things, and not all of Group "B" are not contributors to the good. But by and large the example serves the purpose of illustrating that religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.
5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.
I... have no clue what you mean with this statement. At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"? All I said was that one of the main functions of religion is to teach morality to people. Well - that's true. When you sit down in a church & listen to a sermon or go to Sunday School, 99 times out of 100 the message is one of personal morality. I've been in all kinds of different denominations, and this is a characteristic that they all pretty much share.

>> ^theali:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/robbersdog49" title="member since May 22nd, 2007" class="profilelink">robbersdog49 Do you really categorize this as "snuff", are you for real?
Do you know how difficult it was to get ANY footage out of the flotilla, without the Israeli army confiscating it? The Israeli army has itself recorded hours of the incident and confiscated all the recorders they could find from the passengers. We see none of those recordings in custody of the Israeli army.
These people risked their life and brought attention to an illegal blockade, and all you can do is to "cry wolf" and close your eyes.
This happen in International waters and not in Israeli waters, as far as I am concerned, these are in line with actions of the Somali Pirates.


Firstly, I understand the situation, I don't need to know that someone died to know that it happened. You suggesting that without this footage I'd think they just shook hands is a straw man argument. It's just not logical.

Secondly, yes, if this video shows what it claims then it's snuff as clearly described by the rules of this site. The rules are clear:

"The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

So, firstly the clip is just a short bit of footage and not part of a lengthy news report or documentary. There's surely no way you can deny this. The clip is only 22 seconds long. That just isn't lengthy. Secondly, even if the action isn't very clear you'll not that this is also provided for in the rules.

Yes, this is an important situation. Yes people should know about it. Yes, it's all very wrong. I agree with you about the political situation and about the actions of the Isreali troops. However, that doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore the rules of the site.

@robbersdog49 Do you really categorize this as "snuff", are you for real?

Do you know how difficult it was to get ANY footage out of the flotilla, without the Israeli army confiscating it? The Israeli army has itself recorded hours of the incident and confiscated all the recorders they could find from the passengers. We see none of those recordings in custody of the Israeli army.

These people risked their life and brought attention to an illegal blockade, and all you can do is to "cry wolf" and close your eyes.

This happen in International waters and not in Israeli waters, as far as I am concerned, these are in line with actions of the Somali Pirates.

1- Of course not. It is well known and documented that police stop and harass people depending of factors such as color, where they live, class, etc. The drug war is a prime example of a set of laws that everyone breaks, but are selectively enforced. There are many others, if you want to get into it.

Ah, yes, LA, that epicenter of police justice. Home of dirty cops who make up evidence to convict folks. Didn't they recently have to overturn hundreds of convictions due to dirty cops' behavior?

>> ^volumptuous:
1- Bullshit point. Citing/ticketing a person for breaking the law happens on every "side of the track", or whatever you're calling it. In fact, this "side of the track" is the officers beat. This is where he is every day. These are the people he is served to protect.
2- If you read this thread, you'd see my earlier account of my friend being ticketed for this same thing. My friend is also white, blonde, blue-eyed and makes a lot of money. But, cops didn't care, they saw a guy jaywalking and pulled him over. He wasn't suckerpunched because I didn't try to intervene and then push the officer like the girl in this video!
3- One girl was 19. Not a minor. The other (who pushed him) is 17. You're treating them like they're 8 or 9 years old.
4- Someone in the crowd yelled out "there's going to be a riot, right here".
5- The officer needs more training in subduing a perp. Otherwise, he ended the situation appropriately.
6- I've been arrested three times in my life. I didn't fight back during any one of them, nor did I call the officers names, or try to run away.
I lived for years in downtown Detroit, and now I live in one of the most violent, gang ridden parts of Los Angeles. Please do NOT tell me anything about color prejudice or police conduct. It seems the one here with no experience with law enforcement, or gang voilence, are the ones so quick to point the finger at us.
I'm one of the first to point out police misconduct, and basically have very little respect for authority. But that disrespect doesn't make me blind and cry wolf every time a cop arrests someone.
btw: Longde - your post above shows exactly what happened. People were breaking the law, the cop tried to stop them, they resisted, one pushed the cop, the cop ended the situation. The end.
>> ^longde:
1) I think the girls were stupid and should be taught how to deal with officers who have no respect for your age or gender, especially if you live on the wrong side of the tracks
2) I just can't imagine this happening to some of the skinny blonds I knew in high school, some of whom were just as crazy. I can't see them being suckerpunched. can you?
3) Despite some of you wanting to make an exception for these girls because they don't fit the phenotype you prefer, they are kids and minors, with the same mentality as such. It absolutely does matter in this situation.
4) The crowd was not hysterical, not a mob, not a riot. Look at their behavior, not their skin color. They were very restrained, not physically interfering at all. Just paying attention and recording to make sure this didn't turn into another 'accidental' cop murder. Given the history of cops, I can't blame those folks for being wary.
5) The officer obviously needs more training. To let a jaywalking infraction escalate into punching a 17 year old girl is unacceptable.
6) You law and order types would not be quiet and respectful if you thought some officer arresting you was in the wrong. You feel the way you do because you seldom encounter aggressive cops. Well, some people deal with that type everyday.

1- Bullshit point. Citing/ticketing a person for breaking the law happens on every "side of the track", or whatever you're calling it. In fact, this "side of the track" is the officers beat. This is where he is every day. These are the people he is served to protect.

2- If you read this thread, you'd see my earlier account of my friend being ticketed for this same thing. My friend is also white, blonde, blue-eyed and makes a lot of money. But, cops didn't care, they saw a guy jaywalking and pulled him over. He wasn't suckerpunched because I didn't try to intervene and then push the officer like the girl in this video!

3- One girl was 19. Not a minor. The other (who pushed him) is 17. You're treating them like they're 8 or 9 years old.

4- Someone in the crowd yelled out "there's going to be a riot, right here".

5- The officer needs more training in subduing a perp. Otherwise, he ended the situation appropriately.

6- I've been arrested three times in my life. I didn't fight back during any one of them, nor did I call the officers names, or try to run away.

I lived for years in downtown Detroit, and now I live in one of the most violent, gang ridden parts of Los Angeles. Please do NOT tell me anything about color prejudice or police conduct. It seems the one here with no experience with law enforcement, or gang voilence, are the ones so quick to point the finger at us.

I'm one of the first to point out police misconduct, and basically have very little respect for authority. But that disrespect doesn't make me blind and cry wolf every time a cop arrests someone.


btw: Longde - your post above shows exactly what happened. People were breaking the law, the cop tried to stop them, they resisted, one pushed the cop, the cop ended the situation. The end.



>> ^longde:

1) I think the girls were stupid and should be taught how to deal with officers who have no respect for your age or gender, especially if you live on the wrong side of the tracks
2) I just can't imagine this happening to some of the skinny blonds I knew in high school, some of whom were just as crazy. I can't see them being suckerpunched. can you?
3) Despite some of you wanting to make an exception for these girls because they don't fit the phenotype you prefer, they are kids and minors, with the same mentality as such. It absolutely does matter in this situation.
4) The crowd was not hysterical, not a mob, not a riot. Look at their behavior, not their skin color. They were very restrained, not physically interfering at all. Just paying attention and recording to make sure this didn't turn into another 'accidental' cop murder. Given the history of cops, I can't blame those folks for being wary.
5) The officer obviously needs more training. To let a jaywalking infraction escalate into punching a 17 year old girl is unacceptable.
6) You law and order types would not be quiet and respectful if you thought some officer arresting you was in the wrong. You feel the way you do because you seldom encounter aggressive cops. Well, some people deal with that type everyday.

Well, @longde, I've yet to see anyone commit murder or violence in the name of atheism.

Shouting "fire" is indeed a restriction on free speech and one a agree with, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Pat Condell's right to say what he says, Geert Wilders' right to spout his hate speech, the religious nut's right to say his gibberish. Not whether or not you can cry wolf. There is a big difference between punishing someone for falsely crying alarm and bringing panic (where's the police on fox news with their fear mongering) and saying an opinion.

Obviously missed the point. You may not post to troll, but your beliefs, however sincerely held, are certainly far from mainstream.

Well let's see, *I* stand for freedom of speech, not political correctness, private ownership of firearms and limited, accountable government. Oh, and the free market and the SACRED right to own private property which is the cornerstone of American civilization. While not a Christian myself, I'm not wise anough to simply disregard and disestablish the Judeo-Christian foundation of these United States, and neither is fking Dawkins and the other guy. If anyone's pretending to be persecuted of "forced to convert" it's the ACLU by the shadow of a cross.

It's a damned shame that liberty and believing government exists to serve the will of the people instead of the other way around is no longer "mainstream". But the perpetually-fooled elected a marxist community organizer to the White House, that's a fact (how many left-wing radicals is Obama going to promote before you may admit he believes as they do)?

By now you must know the liberal cry-wolf of "racism" is meaningless. I demand the same excellence of so-called minorities as anyone else, and when they make serious errors in judgement, they should be called on it, NOT have their stupidity justified and rewarded by blaming racism and/or poverty.

Left-wing America is not only on the path to tyranny but marching happily. Don't you at least deserve a few dozen warnings? Today the state-run media does Obama's bidding voluntarily. Soon there will be a day they'll be ordered what to say. I'm not waiting for that, I KNOW the bacon is burning.

When I was about 3 or 4 I climbed up on to the gate in our backyard. I proceeded to swing back and forth on it having a fantastic time. wheeee! But when I was ready to stop I looked down and it was scary! I was only about half a foot off the ground but to me that was waaaay too far to jump. The only thing I could do was hang on for dear life and scream my face off. "Mommy, mommy! Help! Help! I'm stuck!"

Now, apparently when I was this age I was always crying wolf, trying to get my parents to come see something or other. On this particular day my Mum decided to ignore me, since I was never in any real emergency, and teach me a thing or two. So there I was screaming bloody murder for a looooong time. It might have been only 15 minutes but when you're 4 years old that's like 1/4 of your entire life.

Eventually my Mum looked out and saw me hanging on to that gate and came and rescued me. She felt bad about not coming out earlier. mwahaha

I'm not trying to pass judgement on this Ganley fellow or his political position or anything like that. However, just as an observation from back in the mid 90's when my country joined the union, the politicians who were against us joining were saying pretty much the same things. Also, when we voted on whether or not to go with the euro, again the same rhetoric was echoed.

Not knowing nearly as much about this treaty as I apparently should, there's just so much crying wolf going on about every thing the EU does that it's very hard to take it as seriously as perhaps it deserves.

Finally, and this may be due to some listening comprehension problems, doesn't Mr. Ganley say right at the beginning that they got the treaty back with no changes whatsoever? That not even a comma had been moved? And then he continues explaining how minor details have been changed and how they've mixed things up.
Again, while not intending to imply anything here, what does he mean exactly?

He is essentially the boy who cried wolf at this point. He's such a bullshit showman that I don't think he actually believes or feels a word of what he's saying. He's a complete phony in every sense.

>> ^oscarillo:
>> ^MaxWilder:
The villagers must have been liberals.

Of course because it they were conservatives they will fall for the same lie every time no matter how stupid it was!


This probie takes to ownage like a duck to water.

>> ^MaxWilder:
The villagers must have been liberals.


Of course because it they were conservatives they will fall for the same lie every time no matter how stupid it was!

I feel like the boy who cried wolf

Feel?! You're not supposed to have feelings! Watch your step and write when you get the chance, bud.