Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lemon10]

Seriously, this is just silly. So silly that I bet the FBI won't even conduct a curiosity investigation.

Nah, I think they will.
The media and the government treat anonymous so seriously its hilarious.

[SalmonGod]

where people aren't starving to death in the streets

Who says this isn't happening?...

I'm with you in that I don't expect a full-scale revolution anytime soon.  However, it's not because there's aren't people who are actually that desperate.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That isn't starving to death. That's just starving. And it isn't even remotely enough people to count as revolutionary-level starvation.

[MadocComadrin]

Anonymous has put out an open call for revolution via destruction of the current U.S. government.

I'm not too worried, because I don't think anybody will seriously act on this.  Regardless, they are being dangerously over-eager.

1. Even if the people are ready for this, which I am doubtful of, they are definitely not ready to be united in it. There is an intense culture war going on in America right now between the right and the left. The left will be ready to unite, despite differences, and try to re-instate a government that works fairly for everyone. The religious right will not share that interest. They don't want fairness. They want their way imposed on everyone at any cost. They are the best armed and most violent. It won't end well. This divide among the people needs to be resolved before a revolution is possible.

2. Even if a revolution is successfully carried out, there is no popular ideology that is prepared to replace what we currently have. There needs to be a shift in our cultural values before a shift in the policies of our institutions can occur. Our government right now is representative of the only way of life that we currently know. We need a solid vision of another way of life, or we're doomed to re-build the same thing again.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So sick of seeing stories like this almost every single day.

Top Youtube comment:

Also, google her name and click any news story and you'll see she had cocaine and oxycodone in her system. So lets see...

She's arrested after leaving the scenes of two hit-and-runs, she's driving illegally, and she's ripped to the tits on drugs. She then tries to run from the arresting officer. Clearly not off to a good start.

Now, what would you all say if the two hit-and-runs left people dead? I'm betting the words "karma" and "bitch" would be involved.

Fucking hypocrites, all of you.

1. Even if the people are ready for this, which I am doubtful of, they are definitely not ready to be united in it. There is an intense culture war going on in America right now between the right and the left. The left will be ready to unite, despite differences, and try to re-instate a government that works fairly for everyone. The religious right will not share that interest. They don't want fairness. They want their way imposed on everyone at any cost. They are the best armed and most violent. It won't end well. This divide among the people needs to be resolved before a revolution is possible.

Two things: both sides are doing what they think is fair and right. Accusing any side of unfairness is forgetting that fairness, among many things, is subjective and relative.

Second, there really isn't that much of a culture war as there is a party war. You'd be surprised how much of a common anger at both sides the constituents share.

As for Anonymous: if we decide to dispose of (not rebel against) our current regime, we will do so on our own: Anonymous represents the American people as much as their enemies do.

[NinjaBoot]

Seeing how butt-hurt people got over the police treatment of the OWS, I highly doubt anybody will have the stomach to actually see a revolution through. 

[palsch]

This is happening right now.

Right now BBC News has someone on the scene. Looks like the protesters have moved onto the steps of St Paul's where they believe they can't be removed legally. Fair few police and bailiffs on the scene. The presenter is saying that they are likely to only remove the tents and not attempt to move anyone on.

[SalmonGod]

That isn't starving to death. That's just starving. And it isn't even remotely enough people to count as revolutionary-level starvation.

Of course, people rarely die directly from starvation.  It's an incredibly long and painful process.  Most people will commit suicide before they can completely starve to death.  Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States, and the third leading cause among young adults, who are most vulnerable to economic hardship.  Plus, malnutrition or the side effects of a diet consisting completely of cheap, unhealthy foods will lead to other health problems that, coupled with a lack of proper healthcare, will usually kill a person before starvation can.  Both of these problems feed into completely different sets of statistics that don't count as death by starvation.  So what we get instead is statistics on hunger.

Besides... dead people don't revolt.  Desperate people do.

Top Youtube comment:

Also, google her name and click any news story and you'll see she had cocaine and oxycodone in her system. So lets see...

She's arrested after leaving the scenes of two hit-and-runs, she's driving illegally, and she's ripped to the tits on drugs. She then tries to run from the arresting officer. Clearly not off to a good start.

Now, what would you all say if the two hit-and-runs left people dead? I'm betting the words "karma" and "bitch" would be involved.

Fucking hypocrites, all of you.

First, it's not an officer's job to kill people before they've gone through proper legal process.  Whatever threat she posed was over with.  She was handcuffed and within arm's reach.  The only excuse for what that officer did was laziness.  Above all, it was reckless, and recklessness is exactly what you're condemning the girl for.  So in essence, the cop was no better than the criminal in this case.

Second, I'm not one to judge drug addicts.  I know people who've been fed drugs by their parents, and there is plenty of other information out there are the kinds of fucked up circumstances that can lead people to become addicts and do stupid things.  Did she deserve to be arrested and put through legal processes to determine what punishments or rehabilitation procedures were appropriate in her case?  Sure.  Did she deserve to be killed extra-legally?  No.

Two things: both sides are doing what they think is fair and right. Accusing any side of unfairness is forgetting that fairness, among many things, is subjective and relative.

Second, there really isn't that much of a culture war as there is a party war. You'd be surprised how much of a common anger at both sides the constituents share.

No.  Altering the law to force everyone to live according to the beliefs of one religion is not fair.  That much is not subjective.  Religious people being able to live according to their beliefs to the extent that it does not infringe on those who do not share their beliefs is fair.  This is pretty damn basic.  I promote tolerance of religion all the damn time against people who are highly resentful towards it.  However, there is a line.  Tolerance of religion does not necessitate living according to religious doctrines.  They may believe they are doing what is right, and I accept that.  I will not concede that they are being fair and responsible.

Yes, there is a lot of common anger, but there are still incredibly divisive social issues that the parties successfully play off of.  The whole thing is based on getting votes from people who hate their own party, but hate the other party more.

[NinjaBoot]

To assume the officer was being lazy for making a judgement call is pretty harsh. 

The whole uproar over this is a non-factor.  It is just simply people looking for more excuses to get angry over "police brutality", and failing to take into account that cops are humans too and are subjected to alot of situations where judgement calls are made.  "Oh all cops are evil because there has been a history of direct police brutality, therefore any and all incidents from now and in the future MUST be because of police brutality."

In a lot of these situations, whether under the influence of drugs or not, it is often people intentionally provoking a police response. 

And the excuse that because she was under the influence excludes her from making her responsible for her decisions is pure bull.  If she didn't take the drugs in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about this.  Where does personal responsibility for ones actions begin?  Where do we start to hold people accountable for the actions in life they take that lead them to what they do?  Why is it always the fault of people who are required to take action against these people who willingly do such things as she did? 

[Nadaka]

To assume the officer was being lazy for making a judgement call is pretty harsh. 

The whole uproar over this is a non-factor.  It is just simply people looking for more excuses to get angry over "police brutality", and failing to take into account that cops are humans too and are subjected to alot of situations where judgement calls are made.  "Oh all cops are evil because there has been a history of direct police brutality, therefore any and all incidents from now and in the future MUST be because of police brutality."

In a lot of these situations, whether under the influence of drugs or not, it is often people intentionally provoking a police response. 

And the excuse that because she was under the influence excludes her from making her responsible for her decisions is pure bull.  If she didn't take the drugs in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about this.  Where does personal responsibility for ones actions begin?  Where do we start to hold people accountable for the actions in life they take that lead them to what they do?  Why is it always the fault of people who are required to take action against these people who willingly do such things as she did? 

No.

There are rules.

Less lethal weapons are still lethal.

They are only to be used under immediate threat of bodily harm.

They can not be used on a bound prisoner.

They can not be used to prevent escape of a suspect.

This is very basic.

This is very simple.

She is effectively dead.

And the police officer is effectively a murderer.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Seriously. Tazers and pepper spray are not tools of compliance or submission, they are weapons just the same as guns are, and should only ever be used if the officer, suspect, or someone else is put in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger by not using them.

Cops need to understand that. All of them.

[lemon10]

To assume the officer was being lazy for making a judgement call is pretty harsh. 

The whole uproar over this is a non-factor.  It is just simply people looking for more excuses to get angry over "police brutality", and failing to take into account that cops are humans too and are subjected to alot of situations where judgement calls are made.  "Oh all cops are evil because there has been a history of direct police brutality, therefore any and all incidents from now and in the future MUST be because of police brutality."

In a lot of these situations, whether under the influence of drugs or not, it is often people intentionally provoking a police response. 

And the excuse that because she was under the influence excludes her from making her responsible for her decisions is pure bull.  If she didn't take the drugs in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about this.  Where does personal responsibility for ones actions begin?  Where do we start to hold people accountable for the actions in life they take that lead them to what they do?  Why is it always the fault of people who are required to take action against these people who willingly do such things as she did? 

No.
There are rules.
Less lethal weapons are still lethal.
They are only to be used under immediate threat of bodily harm.
They can not be used on a bound prisoner.
They can not be used to prevent escape of a suspect.
This is very basic.
This is very simple.
She is effectively dead.
And the police officer is effectively a murderer.

Tasers aren't lethal weapons, yes they have killed (very few) people, but they aren't lethal.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like she got tased, fell over, hit her head and became braindead because of hitting her head, not because she was tased.
If he had tackled her, she would have been just as likely to hit her head.

[Nilik]

There's a very simple metric I use to decide whether an officer was "wrong" in one of these situations. Tasers and pepper spray are not analogous to guns, they're analogous to the only "less-leathal" available before tasers and pepper spray; batons.

Would this officer then be justified in hitting the suspect with a baton in this situation?

[Criptfeind]

Wait? A Baton is less lethal taser or pepper spray?

[Nadaka]

To assume the officer was being lazy for making a judgement call is pretty harsh. 

The whole uproar over this is a non-factor.  It is just simply people looking for more excuses to get angry over "police brutality", and failing to take into account that cops are humans too and are subjected to alot of situations where judgement calls are made.  "Oh all cops are evil because there has been a history of direct police brutality, therefore any and all incidents from now and in the future MUST be because of police brutality."

In a lot of these situations, whether under the influence of drugs or not, it is often people intentionally provoking a police response. 

And the excuse that because she was under the influence excludes her from making her responsible for her decisions is pure bull.  If she didn't take the drugs in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about this.  Where does personal responsibility for ones actions begin?  Where do we start to hold people accountable for the actions in life they take that lead them to what they do?  Why is it always the fault of people who are required to take action against these people who willingly do such things as she did? 

No.
There are rules.
Less lethal weapons are still lethal.
They are only to be used under immediate threat of bodily harm.
They can not be used on a bound prisoner.
They can not be used to prevent escape of a suspect.
This is very basic.
This is very simple.
She is effectively dead.
And the police officer is effectively a murderer.

Tasers aren't lethal weapons, yes they have killed (very few) people, but they aren't lethal.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like she got tased, fell over, hit her head and became braindead because of hitting her head, not because she was tased.
If he had tackled her, she would have been just as likely to hit her head.

Tazers ARE lethal weapons. They have killed thousands.

If he tackled her, she would still have had partial control of her body as she fell. Protecting yourself in a fall is instinctual.

Or he could have grabbed her without tackling her.

Or he could have talked her down.

All police officers are trained on the use of less lethal weapons and their responsibilities in their use. He violated those responsibilities.

[Criptfeind]

Tazers ARE lethal weapons. They have killed thousands.

This is not true. Just because something has killed people, does not make it lethal. At least, not in the sense we are talking about here. Tazers ARE NOT lethal weapons, they just sometimes accidentally kill people. It is not the same. I wonder how many people have been killed by batons, because the answer is not zero.