That cop should stand outside the driver's house with a bullhorn yelling freedom of speech. That's a much more efficient way to convey that he's being a jackass than wasting tax payer dollars on court appearances and paperwork.

>> ^rottenseed:

That's why I hide candy under my paperwork. When I'm done "oooh...piece 'o' candy". Usually it just ends up with my paper all over the floor and me in a sugar-coma


Ha! James Woods.

That's why I hide candy under my paperwork. When I'm done "oooh...piece 'o' candy". Usually it just ends up with my paper all over the floor and me in a sugar-coma

>> ^hatsix:

While I understand what the city trying to do, I don't like the way they are doing it.
That said, this was a horrible video. Comparing a quarter pounder to a claim jumper meal? Really?
The suggestion that this will somehow hurt the small-business guy? He should be overjoyed that he doesn't have any more competition. They're not taking anything away from him or devaluing his hard work.
And the Douche from reason.com... How does limiting new fast food restaurants reduce choice? It doesn't. It keeps the amount of choices THE SAME, unless someone puts in a regular restaurant, in which case it increases. And somehow he turns that into "he's punishing the people who do business in South LA"... How again? How is there ANY punishment going on? Are there extra taxes? Extra costs? Extra paperwork? Some sort of punishment?
When it comes down to it, these are their elected officials. Unless you live in South LA, this isn't our business. They talk about "let people make choices'... well, the people chose to elect these officials who are setting the restrictions. Doesn't that count?


He should be overjoyed? Really? Well they're stopping that guy opening another premises and employing more people. Furthermore he's operating in an environment that is becoming actively hostile to his business and will undoubtedly get worse if this is the attitude of local government.

I'm afraid elected officials can get things wrong. There are so many holes you can poke in this and many have been listed in the video. Simply banning/restricting/eliminating business you take a moral objection to seems profoundly shortsighted and counter-productive to me.

While I understand what the city trying to do, I don't like the way they are doing it.

That said, this was a horrible video. Comparing a quarter pounder to a claim jumper meal? Really?

The suggestion that this will somehow hurt the small-business guy? He should be overjoyed that he doesn't have any more competition. They're not taking anything away from him or devaluing his hard work.

And the Douche from reason.com... How does limiting new fast food restaurants *reduce* choice? It doesn't. It keeps the amount of choices THE SAME, unless someone puts in a regular restaurant, in which case it increases. And somehow he turns that into "he's punishing the people who do business in South LA"... How again? How is there ANY punishment going on? Are there extra taxes? Extra costs? Extra paperwork? Some sort of punishment?

When it comes down to it, these are their elected officials. Unless you live in South LA, this isn't our business. They talk about "let people make choices'... well, the people chose to elect these officials who are setting the restrictions. Doesn't that count?

@xxovercastxx
It certainly happens that traffic jams and car accidents cause major inconvenience, but that's not the same as going out with the intent of clogging the roads. It's no accident that the event was originally named the "Commute Clot".
I don't think CMers much like or identify with the old name, which I think was just some arguably witty consonance. I wouldn't join a ride with that name because I don't necessarily want to disturb people. The new name comes from a line in a documentary film, where bicycle traffic in Beijing was stopped indefinitely at certain intersections, never allowed to proceed until "a critical mass of (waiting) cyclists" formed, spilled out in front of the cars, blocking their way, and finally allowed the cyclists to move, which they all did together, in the protection of numbers. Today's CM rides are the planning of that "critical mass of cyclists" so that once a month, at most, we can experience the freedom to ride our own roads.

I actually do love riding my bike, or at least I did before a neck injury made it agonizing to do so.
Really, really sorry to hear this.

I have no problem sharing the road with anyone who is willing. Breaking traffic laws most certainly is, or at least was when this thing got started.
Well, it's not the point anymore. Traffic laws aren't the problem. In Toronto (my city) for this reason, we started following traffic lights, but this caused its own problems with breaking up the ride, and creating dangerous situations with a few cyclists going through anyway, and confusing the cross traffic, so we mostly now just go on through. It's safe.

And if all you want to do is have a bunch of cyclists go for a ride together, obeying stop signs, red lights, right-of-way, etc, that's awesome and no, you don't need permission or special paperwork or anything like that.
When that's all I want, I stay off the roads, and use bicycle paths and nature trails. I actually don't much like riding with other people, to be honest.

I most certainly do not acknowledge this as a protest. Protests are against something: a war, discrimination, etc. What is CM protesting; traffic laws? Equal access to the road? No, this is just a troll festival. However, if that's what your local city does then you have strayed from the intent of CM, that being to block off roads with massive quantities of traffic-law-ignoring cyclists so as to disrupt anyone else's commute. If that's the goal, then that's what parade paperwork is for. Just don't expect to be allowed to fuck up the city every month. You keep referring to it as a protest, so why don't you tell me what you're protesting?
As there is no leader, there are maybe as many ideas about what CM is as there are cyclists in the ride. Most, however, will agree with what you said, that we're protesting for equal access to the roads, as well as improved cycling infrastructure, increased cycling budget, and so on. And if that defies what you perceive as the original intent of CM, that's none of my business. I am not against anybody. I just want to enjoy my slice of the pie as comfortably and unmindfully (is that a word? you know what I mean) as car drivers get to do every day.

@messenger

Also, you could as easily describe all car drivers as "assholes coming together to inconvenience everyone else" every day during rush hour, but I'm guessing you're a car driver, so you empathise with them, but not with cyclists.

It certainly happens that traffic jams and car accidents cause major inconvenience, but that's not the same as going out with the intent of clogging the roads. It's no accident that the event was originally named the "Commute Clot". I actually do love riding my bike, or at least I did before a neck injury made it agonizing to do so. I have no problem sharing the road with anyone who is willing.

Breaking laws "at every opportunity" is not the point of CM. You acknowledge it's a protest, of sorts, so you shouldn't be surprised that we go through stop signs.

Breaking traffic laws most certainly is, or at least was when this thing got started. I most certainly do not acknowledge this as a protest. Protests are against something: a war, discrimination, etc. What is CM protesting; traffic laws? Equal access to the road? No, this is just a troll festival.

I don't like that idea because it requires declaring an official leader and an official "parade route", both of which miss the point of not needing to ask permission to use our own roads, and the point of it being a protest, not a parade.

And if all you want to do is have a bunch of cyclists go for a ride together, obeying stop signs, red lights, right-of-way, etc, that's awesome and no, you don't need permission or special paperwork or anything like that. However, if that's what your local city does then you have strayed from the intent of CM, that being to block off roads with massive quantities of traffic-law-ignoring cyclists so as to disrupt anyone else's commute. If that's the goal, then that's what parade paperwork is for. Just don't expect to be allowed to fuck up the city every month.

You keep referring to it as a protest, so why don't you tell me what you're protesting?

But these Critical Mass pricks certainly are a self-righteous bunch.
In large part, fair, I suppose.

This is not a protest; this is assholes coming together to inconvenience everyone else.
Not so. Protests are not designed to be convenient. They're designed to get attention. Some disrupt people's lives a lot. CM only does a little. Also, you could as easily describe all car drivers as "assholes coming together to inconvenience everyone else" every day during rush hour, but I'm guessing you're a car driver, so you empathise with them, but not with cyclists.

...bikes have to obey traffic laws, just like cars and buses. Critical Mass does not obey traffic laws; that's the whole point of the event...
Well, no. Breaking laws "at every opportunity" is not the point of CM. You acknowledge it's a protest, of sorts, so you shouldn't be surprised that we go through stop signs. Big deal. As for property damage, that's not part of CM. Not sure what you've been reading. Beyond traffic laws, we generally don't do anything wrong, and IMO, people who do should be arrested.

so they don't have to do the proper paperwork for an event
Some cities do file the paperwork every month. Don't know which ones. Not mine. I don't like that idea because it requires declaring an official leader and an official "parade route", both of which miss the point of not needing to ask permission to use our own roads, and the point of it being a protest, not a parade.

they should all be ticketed and the few who take it even further, smashing car windows and such, should be arrested too. There's no reason they should be above the law, no matter how much they believe they are.
Fair. Any cyclists who break laws beyond traffic laws are stepping outside the protest, and are fair to arrest. And we sometimes are arrested, but usually just for riding our bikes, you know, like peaceful protesters often get arrested. But mostly, the police respect us as harmless protesters and let us go on our way, sometimes even helping to block intersections for us.

Make CM a cyclists' parade... it'll do wonders for your PR.
So, the exact same protest, but with some city bureaucrat's stamp on a piece of paper, and suddenly now it's OK with you? I mean, is it OK, or isn't it? If it's OK, then why do you care if we have a permit? If it's not OK with you, again, what difference would it make if we had a permit?>> ^xxovercastxx:

<the neat-o stuff quoted above>

@Darkhand is completely insane. Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think it's ok to run these people down with a car. I hope the driver is found and spends a shitload of time in prison.

But these Critical Mass pricks certainly are a self-righteous bunch. This is not a protest; this is assholes coming together to inconvenience everyone else. @messenger makes the argument that bikes "are traffic" just like cars and buses. This is true, which is why bikes have to obey traffic laws, just like cars and buses. Critical Mass does not obey traffic laws; that's the whole point of the event (they prefer "spontaneous celebration" so they don't have to do the proper paperwork for an event).

If I, in my car, were to behave like the CM cyclists; running red lights and stop signs, destroying others' property, violating laws at every opportunity; I would be arrested within 15 minutes and nobody would feel the least bit sorry for me, yet everyone loses their shit if one of these cyclists is ticketed or arrested.

They should all be ticketed and the few who take it even further, smashing car windows and such, should be arrested too. There's no reason they should be above the law, no matter how much they believe they are. If they want to shut down city streets, they should do the paperwork like anyone else. Make CM a cyclists' parade... it'll do wonders for your PR.

Nearly all of the things you mention can and do exist outside of governments. My community has a privatively maintained road. There are private schools of various qualities. And our food is often still subject to large scale contaminations. Just because something isn't done by government doesn't mean it won't. Moreover, when government does do something, it usually means the tools for doing it yourself are outlawed. For example, it is illegal to sell unpasteurized milk products. Even if you are aware of the related health impacts, it is illegal to sell or buy.

Also, you might be aware but are mistaking the fact of the Boston tea party was actually in response to tax break and not a tax itself. The government was essentially acting as an agent of the East India Tea company, in the same way the modern FDA is frequently a tool to dispatch small time competitors with regulatory paperwork.

You seem to be instilled with this idea if you aren't for taxes, then you aren't for poor people, a fallacy of many well meaning liberal types. The problem isn't the support of helping the impoverished, but the means. It would be the same as me telling you to support theology based philanthropy, and ordering by the force of law. The problem of moral issues is they are exactly like the separation of church and state, by making a moral law you force people to agree with this morality. People whom don't subscribe to that line of moral reasoning are FORCED by law to release their funds or face some pretty dire consequences, including jail time.
If you believe in the separation of church and state, then you should also believe in the separation of philanthropy and state...they are essentially the same thing.


>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

You know that tax laws are bullshit when the only place ignorance is an excuse is tax law. When I say bullshit I mean complicated and needlessly so.

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100377301

The US tax code is 67,204 pages long and it is all written in lawyer speak.

I've always held the same stance on taxes. Send me a bill stating what I owe and do not owe. I shouldn't have to fill out any paperwork at, all, whatsoever.

They take the money then they should be the ones figuring out who owes what and based on what laws that are simply written; in simple English. The type of English that people use in common speaking.

^blankfist:
1. Renting an apartment is a voluntary act.

So is choosing a country of residence.

2. You're not forced to rent an apartment at the barrel of a gun.

You're not forced to live in the US at the barrel of a gun.

3. There's also millions and millions of homes or apartments to buy or rent at competitive prices. And the prices are negotiable and varied.

There are plenty of countries to choose from. Multiple have no taxes (or government for that matter).

4. Moving to a different neighborhood and moving out of the country I was born in are NOT comparable in ANY analogy. That's an absurd notion.

Lots of people have no problem moving to another country regardless of where they were born. Changing citizenship requires more paperwork and more moving expense, but you are certainly free to do so. No one is pointing a gun at you saying you have to stay (though a landlord might end up pointing a gun at you if you refuse to pay).

If I don't like my rent, I move. If I don't like my taxes, I move. How is that absurd? I know there are taxes in the country I choose to reside within... that is not theft.

As I understand it that law is loosely interpreted given the circumstances. Sure peace officers are to uphold the law 24/7 but when they are out to dinner with their families? If an officer is ill equipped to deal with the situation then they should differ to those better equipped.

I'm also fairly certain that the laws applicable to officers differs from state.

As for this "If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy," bullshit; courage is doing the right thing when everyone else is doing the wrong thing. Meaning don't let peer pressure or fictive kinship affect the way you handle a situation. It clouds judgment and muddies the waters making it impossible to uphold the law objectively.

While not the best source it is very interesting to see opinions of those who stand in the line of duty. Of the more cognitive writers in the forum linked below, most of those seem to agree that being a good witness is the best way for an off duty officer to uphold the law.

http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Law-Enforcement-Police/Police-Officers-when-off-duty-346696.htm

>> ^Payback:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.

A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.
If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

Just curious about your post -- you know that you are in agreement with the thing you quoted, right? That the original poster said that the escalation of force was unwarranted?

In reply to this comment by Payback:
>> ^NordlichReiter:

There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.


A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.

If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

There's a use of force continuum for a reason.
Just because we can't see what is going on doesn't mean that the officers use of a weapon is warranted.
What I saw was an escalation in force that was unwarranted which ended in the officer putting the lives of the perpetrator and his at risk. He was outnumbered and practically waylaying on a drunken idiot who was on the ground with friends who were there.
Here's how I would have handled the situation ask them to leave upon which no acquiescence I would contact the police and tell them there is a drunk and disorderly person on the property which I am protecting.
Being an off duty cop working security means that if you make an arrest that's double the paperwork. There's paperwork for the client in your contracted capacity and then paperwork for the police in your official capacity. Fuck that, if I'm off duty then the guys working that night can do the official paperwork.


A cop is a cop on duty or off. Like teachers, they are held to a higher standard than regular careers. Unlike the rest of us they do NOT have the right to ignore laws being broken. Like everyone else, they also do not have the right to break the law, but I was just pointing out a specific, important difference.

If you were a cop, and you did what you said you would, you could be penalized in some way. If anything, by your brethren who now think you're a pussy.