Do you know who I am?! DO YOU?! My dad owns a car dealership!

In reply to this comment by dag:
You know, as important as this poll is - and despite how proud I am of you @rottenseed for coming out about your booger snacking habits - I'm going to have to invoke the poorly enforced "must be sift related" rule - as I have an urgent poll about Sift stuff. Sorry *discard

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”

This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis. They are dismissed as a joke… A ‘metaphor’… But when a conservative says something, it is a call for violence. If that’s how someone chooses to roll then so be it, but let that person hold no illusion about their fairness or the justness of their cause.

Case in point…

“I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous"… the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection …”

Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

“First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement.”

I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top. But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades) equates to “don’t get sick or die quickly” is fine? I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?

1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs. Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment. Every time the GOP wants to cut any social program they get accused of starving people. This is not unusual.

But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’. You refuse to give conservatives the same kind of leeway. If a GOP guy says Barak Obama is jacking up the national debt to fund his vision of social justice, and calls it an ‘assault on freedom’? They are ‘inciting violence’ - even though they have just as much 'evidence' of their argument as Greyson.

I refuse to live in such a black and white world of selective bias. I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack. It’d be nice if that went both ways.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either. I have no interest in making you treat everything you say like you are writing a white paper. You also support your arguments with litanies of asserted facts which you don’t source which are in direct contravention of what is said elsewhere. Why the hypocrisy on this?

I’m an intelligent enough fellow and I can find links myself. I don't need you holding my hand in that regard. I assume you have fingers because you can type. Therefore you can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance

I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.

But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.

As a future health practitioner(hopefully) in the USA. I completely agree with QM's views on healthcare. Please, line my pockets with cash, I will be smiling all the way to my boat dealership

>> ^Porksandwich:

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.
And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.
And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.
If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: none; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> NetRunner said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/NetRunner-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)
</div></div></div></div>
The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?
My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.
Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.
If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.
It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: both; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Lawdeedaw said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/Lawdeedaw-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...
</div></div></div></div>
Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.


This is a long quote.

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.

And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.

And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.

If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.

>> ^NetRunner:

, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)


The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?

My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.

Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.

If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.

It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...


Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^Wingoguy:
Does ANYBODY actually look up what this damn word means!? I guess College Humor didn't have time to either...
It's actually pretty simple; an example of irony is watching someone miss a basket and saying, "That was a great shot," i.e. saying the opposite of an implied meaning.
I don't know what the hell word describes the convoluted scenarios playing out in this video.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

Situational Irony.


So, "an outcome that turns out to be very different from what was expected"...

When the plane crashed down, he thought "isn't this nice" is probably the only example of actual irony in the original song, and they've replaced it here with "Now I'll never make it to that Fear of Flying seminar" which fits neither definition.

An old man turned 98. He won the lottery and died the next day of a shock-induced heart attack. - exactly what you would expect
It's a free ride to an over-priced car dealership. - exactly what you would expect

The rest are convoluted or don't make sense at all.

*LMFAHS *QUALITY *LMFAHS

"
- An old man turned 98. He won the lottery and died the next day of a shock-induced heart attack.
- It's a black fly in your Chardonnay going to celebrate your apartment fumigation.
- It's a death row pardon 2 minutes too late because the Governor was busy watching Dead Man Walking.
- It's like rain at a dehydration victim's funeral.
- It's a free ride to your bankruptcy trial.
- It's good advice to never listen to me.
- ...as his plane crashed down he thought "Now I'll never make it to that Fear of Flying seminar."
- It's like rain flooding an umbrella factory.
- It's a free ride to an over-priced car dealership.
- It's the good advice from the guy who just got you fired.
- Traffic jam when you're already late to receive an award for reducing automobile congestion.
- A "No Smoking" sign on your cigarette break at the RJ Reynolds tobacco company.
- It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife from a soup kitchen.
- It's like meeting the man of my dreams and then meeting his beautiful wife who's also my relationship therapist.
- It's like rain on your wedding day to the Egyptian sun god Ra.
- It's a free ride when you've already paid for a stolen car.
- It's good advice someone advised you not to take.
- I have a funny way of defining rhetorical devices that I use in songs.
- I have a funny way of getting things wrong.
"

That may be true, but they're selling exactly what you see. They sell the unrealistic experience.

TV invites you to be a vicarious, passive participant in fiction. The viewer exchanges their time to escape into the experience. In the end, the TV show provides them nothing in return except a temporary cessation of reality. A TV commercial is a 30 second TV show. Like a TV show or movie, you are temporarily supplied with an artificial reality. In this fake reality, everyone is smiling and happy - the setting is perfect - and the food all looks fantastic. Commercials are escapism that do not reflect real life. Everyone knows that.

The only difference here is that in an ad, there is an actual real-world product out there. When a vendor invites you to go visit the local francise and buy a burger there is no implication that you'll be getting the same experience you had in the artificial reality of their ad. I don't expect Ronald McDonald to appear out of nowhere and do tricks. I don't expect hilarious shenanigans to bust my gut when I buy a soft drink. I don't expect a supermodel behind the counter at the car dealership. All they're doing is telling you that you can exchange a few real-life dollars for a real-life product. The artificial reality of the ad accomplishes nothing more except a temporary escape, and then after that you are simply 'aware' that the product exists if you want to buy it. I see nothing wrong with that.

There used to be a radio ad for a local VW dealership where the woman pronounced www as "doubly-woo, doubly-woo, doubly-woo". She also pronounced Jetta as "Jetter".

She wasn't foreign and didn't have an accent either, she was just a moron.

>> ^ant:
I don't remember this episode. Which one was this?


Only THE best episode in the entire series! This is the one where Elaine gets Seinfeld a deal at a car dealership because she's dating Puddy. This episode contains some of the most memorable Seinfeld skits, including the "High five" and Costanza getting shafted out of the last donut and a candy bar in a vending machine -- how did you miss it?!

>> ^ant:
I don't remember this episode. Which one was this?


Season 9, Episode 11. Called "The Dealership".

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Ah, Ducatisti! Haha. I actually worked at a Ducati dealership in the mid nineties. They actually sent me to service school in Fairfield, NJ to learn to work on the 916. They're a little to fast and agile for me, not to mention a little uncompromizing for the touring I like to do. Fabulous bikes though. I work with a guy who has a basement full of them, and is building a 70's one frame up right now from an old 750ss that somebody brutalized into a chopper. He's making a nasty cafe out of it.

Do you race motard? I'll behave myself because apparently you're quite mad! I've never raced, but I'm mot putting it out of my head that I might get out there some day. I'd like to do one of the schools, like penguin I think it's called, and I king Keith Code has a school and there's that California one you always see in the back of the bike mags. That and a couple of track days.


I've had the 748S since 2000 and it was joined by the 600SS in 2005 purely to race. The club that I belong to (Ducati Sporting Club UK) started its own race series so I had to have a go as trackdays were getting too competitive. If you're interested, I blogged a load of stuff on my website at the time: http://www.horrible.demon.co.uk/bikes/racing2005.htm

I stopped racing in 2007 after getting torpedoed from behind at about 90mph and that broke me and the bike; one collarbone and a few ribs for me and the bike was trashed. I rebuilt it once the collarbone had healed but it was a year later that I went back and raced - I came 7th (out of 38) so didn't do too bad for a year out!

The Hypermotard is strictly for wheelies^H^H road riding. It's an animal! Best bike I've ever owned and always makes me smile.

I've been to the Ducati factory in Bologna five times now and ended up organising the factory trips for the club which were quite popular! It's an amazing place, really interesting to see such a small factory at work on such a well-known name. Well worth doing if you can, even if you're not that much of a Ducati fan!

Some bike pictures:
Racing Pics
Bike pics

Ah, Ducatisti! Haha. I actually worked at a Ducati dealership in the mid nineties. They actually sent me to service school in Fairfield, NJ to learn to work on the 916. They're a little to fast and agile for me, not to mention a little uncompromizing for the touring I like to do. Fabulous bikes though. I work with a guy who has a basement full of them, and is building a 70's one frame up right now from an old 750ss that somebody brutalized into a chopper. He's making a nasty cafe out of it.

Do you race motard? I'll behave myself because apparently you're quite mad! I've never raced, but I'm mot putting it out of my head that I might get out there some day. I'd like to do one of the schools, like penguin I think it's called, and I king Keith Code has a school and there's that California one you always see in the back of the bike mags. That and a couple of track days.

Hey check out this odd dupe situation, the dramatic difference between the dates and votes...


http://www.videosift.com/video/Oh-hes-off-the-trackwaitwhat-is-he-doing

http://www.videosift.com/video/Valentino_Rossi_Toilet_Break





In reply to this comment by antonye:
In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Hey Antonye, thanks for all your great contributions to the *wheels channel. What are you riding these days. Street or just track?

Hi,
Thanks for the comment! I love adding some of the great racing I watch onto the Sift as it deserves a much wider audience
As for me, I'm riding both street and track still, but have not raced this year. I have 3 bikes: Ducati Hypermotard 1100S (wheelies), Ducati 748S (fast road), Ducati 600SS with 620ie engine (race). Can you spot the theme?
Antony

Good for her. That truly is a difficult feat. If you still need to raise money to qualify for the walk, I'd try hitting up local stores, dealerships, etc. to see if they won't give her a big sum of money if she wears their shirt. I dated a girl that did that and it worked like magic.

and good luck. It truly is a great cause. Everybody loves breasts!!!