We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

Yes, and she does "come here", then he lets her get on the bike without telling her not to. It didn't look like an escape attempt to me, but may have to them. That's not the point, the point is they didn't tell her to stay there when she turned around and went back "here". It's clear to me that her problem is being touched by strangers, and had they simply told her to sit, no one would have had to touch her, and things would not have escalated.

Detained is not under arrest, so you can't be charged with resisting detainment. Ignoring the police is totally fine until they give a lawful command....one that doesn't end with "OK?".

Again, you're assuming she was trying to flee and not just being an OCD (ADD?) teenager trying to avoid being touched. That's how she appears to me, spoiled, trouble, disrespectful, yes, but also scared, troubled, confused, and under assault.

I do think they should stop her from fleeing, (if that's what she was trying to do) I just think they should start with "sit down" or "stay right there" before manhandling a child that's just been in an accident, especially if the contention is they are "detaining" her because she might need medical treatment. "Come here" is a command satisfied when she returns "there", it does not command her to stay anywhere, no matter how logical it is to infer that.

As a citizen, you do have the right to arrest her (which they should have done if they thought she was fleeing the scene, not just "detained" her) but you had better be able to totally justify any force you use to hold her...as should the police. The force used must be reasonable, minimal, only what's required to prevent escape, and on par with the crime she's being detained for. They might have 1 out of 4 covered in part if they stretch it.

My issue is far more about the pepper spraying her for not moving her foot rather than the manhandling, but I do think both were wrong and more about disrespect and power trips than trying to calmly handle the accident. ONce she was handcuffed and in the car, she wasn't escaping anything, nor was she a threat to anyone. The pepper spray was totally out of line. The rest is just questionable to me and absolutely not how you make the community support you, but probably not illegal.

Come here is the very first thing the cop with the body can says to her. She responds with don't f'ing touch me, dodging back around him and trying to ride off on her bike. Officer then physically restrains and tells her she IS being detained. Pretty straight so far in support of the officer unless you think ignoring the police and resisting arrest is cool.

She had very good reason to be detained as from the only report so far, she was fleeing the scene of an accident. Whether she caused it or not, tracking down teenage girl on a bike isn't going to be easy without some manner of identification first. Maybe you and I disagree this fundamentally, but in the case of fleeing the scene of an accident, not only do I think police should physically prevent that, I believe private citizens should have the right as well.

So gay, he's blind. Isn't that what happens if you masturbate too much when you're a teenager? I think so...

@SFOGuy False positive. This is not the type of serious brawl that occurs when there is a severe lack of parenting in a particular neighborhood.

The "wise elder" in the video is proof of this -- he wouldn't have been able to so easily break up a fight if your anthropological study were at all accurate. The kids know they're in the wrong. They just don't like being laughed at by their "friends".

I've also never heard of a culture where teenagers don't get into fights after school and where classmates don't use peer pressure to bully less aware students into fighting. This is a classic scene from countless middle class neighborhoods, white or black.

When their yuppie parents see this video, I can almost guarantee some asses will be red. Unless they're the kind of ultra liberal parents that don't believe in punishment -- then I may be inclined to agree with you in part.

A typical teenage heavy metal guitar player puts cogs to shame.

Covered in teenager spit.

I was trumpet in HS, I know of what I speak.

After 2 years of a difficult application process completed in a refugee camp, we have a duty to those who successfully completed our process. The same goes for non refugees who completed the process. That was the deal we made with them, and they've completed their part. No, becoming hostile won't help public opinion, but why would they care? Public opinion of them is already terrible when they've done nothing wrong, and that same opinion mirrored in Trump has cost them dearly. Now, imagine you're a pissed off displaced teenager who's just escaped war and gone through the lengthy application process with their surviving family in terrible conditions the whole time, you are accepted, and then some guy just says "nope, you escaped the wrong war torn country, Fuck off"....would you be pissed at them? Maybe pissed enough to do something stupid? Now imagine there are numerous organizations looking for people just like you who convince you to act on your adolescent anger. Do you not see how blocking those people creates terrorists where acting honorably and keeping our promisses would create allies?

They ARE angry at them, irate, but they are war refugees, not mercenaries. Most able to fight them already did, and we're killed by them, Assad, or Russia.

When doing everything right by our standards at great expense gets you a nice "Fuck off and die" , why would a sane person continue?

I think they get the brunt because 1) they don't stop refugee migrations and terrorists just walk in with refugees, a problem we don't share, and 2) because of their foreign policies, an issue we do share. Their populations, and even governments are becoming more xenophobic.
Also, I haven't heard of any terrorist acts in Greece, a country that's arguably helped the refugees the most.

If refugees begin to act in a hostile manner because their plight is minimized and ignored while they are demonized and dehumanized but others that actually did the terroristic and anti American things they are suspected of are not given that treatment, that's human nature. Racist/xenophobic actions often cause anger.
Edit: keep in mind, most that are radicalized are teenagers and early 20's, so aren't the most rational or non violent by nature of their age, regardless of their culture.

It's not like that at all, imo. It's like a political/war refugee saying 'keep your international legal obligations or we'll dislike you more'. How much more do you think some need to dislike us before they act on that hatred? I would say we've created plenty of victims that are on that razors edge and only need a nudge to make their reasonable hatred become action....and giving them nothing to lose by acting, not a good idea.

What a load of shit.


There's a spindly tower, somewhere in Russia, without one single teenager dangling by one hand off the top? Complete load of shit. Where's the dash cam shots? So un-Russian.

I enjoyed past reviews from Red Letter Media a lot. They were insightful and detailed. They made me watch some movies in a new light and gave me a better understanding of them. However....

Go fuck yourselves, you whiny bitches!

You know what these people deserve? Everytime they turn on any screen of any kind to watch something even slightly related to sci-fi, it only plays Episode 1. They can't pause it, they can't stop it. And the Pod race as well as the 3-way lightsaber fight are edited out in their entirety. Just to make sure the relentless shittiness contains no form of relief.
We're finally getting decent Star Wars movies and all we get it 'But it ain't the original trilogy!!111!!'.
You people need more dialogue about the uncomfortableness of sand between your ass-cheeks. Or battle scenes characters only survive by entering slapstick-routines.
Sure, TFA and R1 certainly aren't perfect, maybe not even good, but they are surely much better than the awful shit Lucas shat down our throats the last 3 decades on the big screen.
The characters aren't likable enough? Have you met fucking teenage Anakin? I wanna slap the midichlorians out of that whiny bitch-face everytime he's on screen. He's so unlikable, the first time I didn't want to choke him until the Force left his body was when he murdered a classroom full of schoolchildren. That's what it took to make me go from 'I'm supposed to sympathise with this whiny-faced asshole?!' to 'Ok, he's the villian now. I'm supposed to feel this way about him'
There's not enough context? Go fuck yourself. Should we go and add extra flashbacks to Batman vs Superman on how Bruce Wayne's parents got shot? Just in case you don't get why he's Batman yet?
If you don't know what the Force is or who's Darth Vader, get the fuck out of my movie theater, mom! You're clearly here because somebody else dragged into this 'space war movie'.
I get it, the new movies aren't the perfect jewels of film-making your 5-year old self remembers the original trilogy to be ('Let's scrap the Wookies and invent the more Teddybear-like Ewoks, for the toy-sales!') but this is your response?
You're an teenage Anakin. A whiny, insufferable, bitch-faced asshole.
I welcome a healthy, critical discussion about movies any time. What I won't accept is this ridiculous display of ungratefulness after we suffered the prequel trilogy.
Star Wars is finally getting decent again. And you people shit all over it like the last 3 movies were even worth watching.
I'd rather watch Twilight than endure the creepy, awkward romance sub-plot of Episode 2 again. At least Twilight made laugh. And don't get me started on those tax disputes that started all that crap in the first place.
If you can't appreciate a Salami Pizza because there's no Pepperoni on it, you aren't worth any Pizza at all.

Holy crap people, considering what teenagers accuse their parents of NO MATTER HOW THEY'RE RAISED, I think a little dark humour is allowed.

Worse than a teenage girl!
*related=http://videosift.com/video/EXCLUSIVE-Leaked-Audio-Of-Obama-Trumps-Phone-Calls

The pot smoking bit always cracked me up, he nailed it. When I was a teenager pot made me laugh and gave me the munchies. Then it turned into nerve gas, made me almost catatonic. Can't do that any more.

Yeah, they're doing it wrong again. Something they did or just some nebulous culture shift around ~2000 or so seemed to actually work, and it takes about four or five years before you can know whether what you did worked or not. Prior to the 2000 thing, it was scare tactics, which don't work on invincible teenagers. Then they switched to a less dramatic "it's not a big deal, it's okay to chose not to smoke" approach, which I think was the good one.

The real problem (in the US at least) is the 17 and 18 year-old kids smoking, which means the 13-16 year-old kids do it to be like their older peers. If you can break that cycle, even just once, you come as close to solving the problem as you can. But, since there is this lag time between the beginning of the cycle and it coming full circle, the industry assumes it was the most recent ("evil tobacco corporations taking advantage of you") effort that was actually the effective one. I don't think it is. I especially don't think it will work on college-age demographic they're targeting. It's still "The Man" telling them what to do, even if it's a different hand of "The Man."