America sinks into chaos and brutality as police shoot at reporters

[Husar]

Yeah... Those crazy stupid Germans removing traffic signs... Aight? You are aware that this experiment take place in Germany, and that it seems to work spectacularly well? :)

It works because we Germans naturally stick to rules and already know how to behave where. Look at countries where hardly anyone follows any kind of rules in daily traffic and then check their accident rates and traffic deaths. Signs are just a physical visible interpretation of the metaphysical traffic rules. And AFAIK we are mostly not removing all signs, we are removing excess signs to make the remaining signs more visible. There is also talk about setting up signs to prevent people from driving up onto a highway in the wrong direction. Apparently not having signs to prevent that makes it happen very often and signs are seen as the primary solution since they work in other countries.

In other words, your point isn't.

[Kadagar_AV]

It works because we Germans naturally stick to rules and already know how to behave where. Look at countries where hardly anyone follows any kind of rules in daily traffic and then check their accident rates and traffic deaths. Signs are just a physical visible interpretation of the metaphysical traffic rules. And AFAIK we are mostly not removing all signs, we are removing excess signs to make the remaining signs more visible. There is also talk about setting up signs to prevent people from driving up onto a highway in the wrong direction. Apparently not having signs to prevent that makes it happen very often and signs are seen as the primary solution since they work in other countries.

In other words, your point isn't.

Did you read the link I gave? It kind of argues against what you wrote :)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Did you read the link I gave? It kind of argues against what you wrote :)

I think everyone is too afraid to read a link you posted while they are at work.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think everyone is too afraid to read a link you posted while they are at work.

I don't think I ever posted a NSFW link here...

Wrote a lot of offensive post though, but that's another issue


EDIT: Fur Husar it's some hours after midnight now anyway... Have as little idea why he is up as I have why I am up...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think I ever posted a NSFW link here...

Wrote a lot of offensive post though, but that's another issue


EDIT: Fur Husar it's around midnight now anyway...

I was actually trying to insinuate that you would post a link to some racist garbage about the inferior blacks. The joke wasn't well structured, my apologies.

[Husar]

Did you read the link I gave? It kind of argues against what you wrote :)

It just supports the same kind of leftist rainbow fantasy that you despise when we talk about multiculturalism.
It doesn't mention the signs against driving in the wrong direction at all, the town that wnats to remove all signs is in the Netherlands, not Germany and just because we also have a few silly people (also Bavarians) there is no reason to think that I have to agree with them.

And despite all that nothing in that link says there should be no rules or that traffic deaths actually are lower in countries wher noone follows rules and people just flow with the traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Sort this list by fatalities per 100k inhabitants and tell me why Germany and the Netherlands are at the low end of the scale if rules and regulations are so bad.

And then maybe also check this one on traffic accidents in a country where people do not follow many rules and go with "eye contact and slower speed" instead of rules as Rosey McWeedy the traffic liberalist from the Netherlands puts it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic...sions_in_India

The "Global Status Report on Road Safety" published by the World Health Organization (WHO) identified the major causes of traffic collisions as driving over the speed limit, driving under the influence, and not using helmets and seat belts.[1] Failure to maintain lane or yield to oncoming traffic when turning are prime causes of accidents on four lane, non-access controlled National Highways. The report noted users of motorcycles and motor-powered three-wheelers constitute the second largest group of traffic collision deaths.[3]

Yeah right, with no rules, people drive slower, discarding safety equipment and the rules to use it makes the world a safer place and not having any lanes means people can just turn wherever they want safely after making eye contact with all the 500 oncoming drivers on a highway. I'll now retreat to my cloudy sleeping place in lalaland because if I just wish enough that it would work, I can surely sleep on a cloud and it'll be all pink and rainbowy and cushy and.....

[Kadagar_AV]

Husar, first of all - you would still drive on the same side of the road...

I am not defending this experiment, I am just bringing it up. If you are interested, read up on the issue some more, it's rather interesting if you are into that stuff :)

Me? I dont even have a drivers license

[Husar]

Husar, first of all - you would still drive on the same side of the road...

That's exactly what I said, that people who are already used to the rules would likely follow most of them anyway, at least for a certain amount of time. And in that case it might work. But countries which never had the rules in the first place, and this includes early industrial European countries, are doing far worse than countries where all the drivers have been indoctrinated with road safety rules and follow them even without signs.

Me? I dont even have a drivers license

Neither do I. The part where it says the Dutch town has hardly any pedestrians left was the most annoying. It means they are all destroying the environment and wasting resources while their bodies decay!

[rajpoot]

They can remove the road signs in India too. It wouldn't make any difference to how people drive.
Currently they are used for dogs marking their territory and at times traffic cops use them to lean against while they take a break from trying to fine random people.

[HopAlongBunny]

It's not just the 1st Amendment that get violated in Ferguson:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...only_part.html

[ICantSpellDawg]

The more I hear about this shooting and aftermath, I am convinced of 3 things:

1.The shooting was justified and the 300 lb "victim" made the situation necessary through the use of violence against a police officer as a result of a minor citation. The "victim" then turned around to continue beating the officer because the officer had the nerve to pull on him and place him under arrest for committing a violent felony against a police officer when he was fired upon in rational self-defense. Please substitute the word "victim" with "perp"

2. The police reaction to the initial protest and attempt at provoking and censoring media was wholely incompatible with 1st amendment protections.

3. If anyone ever breaks into my house to rob my family and do me serious bodily harm or to kill me, I hope it isn't a minority. I just don't want to hear it. But, honestly - what is the likelihood of that?

[Major Robert Dump]

cops got another one in st Louis, and their initial statement contradicts the released video, particularly the part where he was waving a knife (he wasn't holding a knife)

reminds me of old ROE in early Iraq and Afghanistan, where people were killed simply for getting too close.

[HopAlongBunny]

I can understand the protest; people want to be clear that sweeping this into the abyss will not pass.
The problem is: anytime you take to the street you create a situation for other groups to exploit; these groups may be political or criminal, and they are organized (if not professional)
Too bad it only takes one bad decision for the whole thing to become a real mess.

The news is not all bad; National Guard to begin withdrawl-peace and ponies for all?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0GF0LP20140821

[rory_20_uk]

The more I hear about this shooting and aftermath, I am convinced of 3 things:

1.The shooting was justified and the 300 lb "victim" made the situation necessary through the use of violence against a police officer as a result of a minor citation. The "victim" then turned around to continue beating the officer because the officer had the nerve to pull on him and place him under arrest for committing a violent felony against a police officer when he was fired upon in rational self-defense. Please substitute the word "victim" with "perp"

2. The police reaction to the initial protest and attempt at provoking and censoring media was wholely incompatible with 1st amendment protections.

3. If anyone ever breaks into my house to rob my family and do me serious bodily harm or to kill me, I hope it isn't a minority. I just don't want to hear it. But, honestly - what is the likelihood of that?

The autopy found no powder burns on the corpse, so the officer managed to throw the 6' 4'' person sufficiently far away that he was then able to draw and fire his gun several times before the person got within 2 feet (apparently 2 feet can be determined by the lack of powder burns) - yet was still threatening. And caused no other injury to the person whilst doing this. And sustained little injury himself.

The police in many "democracies" prefer to break the law and await the investigation to find this to be the case as abiding by the law is a pain. "Sadly" cameras are increasingly meaning that their versions are challenged, and the good old days of colluding before statements and shredding evidence still leaves a lot of material out of their hands.

I doubt many would defend the rights armed home invaders, but the right of homeowners to open the front door and fire a shotgun at the head of a drunk woman is being questioned (as it appears one can "fear for one's life" even if one engineered the situation to do so); last I heard the "perp" was unarmed and crossing a road. Now, I know laws are different in America, especially the Southern States. Was he crossing the road without his owner?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The autopy found no powder burns on the corpse, so the officer managed to throw the 6' 4'' person sufficiently far away that he was then able to draw and fire his gun several times before the person got within 2 feet (apparently 2 feet can be determined by the lack of powder burns) - yet was still threatening. And caused no other injury to the person whilst doing this. And sustained little injury himself.

The police in many "democracies" prefer to break the law and await the investigation to find this to be the case as abiding by the law is a pain. "Sadly" cameras are increasingly meaning that their versions are challenged, and the good old days of colluding before statements and shredding evidence still leaves a lot of material out of their hands.

I doubt many would defend the rights armed home invaders, but the right of homeowners to open the front door and fire a shotgun at the head of a drunk woman is being questioned (as it appears one can "fear for one's life" even if one engineered the situation to do so); last I heard the "perp" was unarmed and crossing a road. Now, I know laws are different in America, especially the Southern States. Was he crossing the road without his owner?

Many would defend the right of a buglar to break into your home, un-acosted by deadly force. Horetore is one of those, I believe.

Also, I am heavily critical of the homeowner who shot someone on his doorstep. He is in jail now on 2nd degree murder charges. You can't walk outside and kill someone.

This officer is alleging an assault, eye socket fracture and a 6'4, 300lb pe charging at him to inflict more damage. His story makes a legitimate self defense/reasonable use of force claim. The Detroit homeowner's story didn't.

We will see how the story holds up. Have you every been charged at?

[rory_20_uk]

Many would defend the right of a buglar to break into your home, un-acosted by deadly force. Horetore is one of those, I believe.


This officer is alleging an assault, eye socket fracture and a 6'4, 300lb pe charging at him to inflict more damage. His story makes a legitimate self defense/reasonable use of force claim. The Detroit homeowner's story didn't.

We will see how the story holds up. Have you every been charged at?

A police officer who decided to get out of his car as the suspect was crossing the road. The 6'4'' assilant, who has no history of violence decides to throw a pretty powerful punch at the police officer - enough to bruise or even break his eye socket. If the person did have a record of violence the police would have made that known to all ASAP.

Unlike most people sustaining this level of unprovoked injury, the police officer engages in a struggle which leaves neither himself or the other party with any injuries. Next the other party is some distance away - did he decide to stop hitting the police officer after one blow and take a run up? Lucky he did, else how did the officer pull his gun to shoot him?

If I'd just shot someone repeatedly, I'd go and get one of my mates to hit me as hard as they can in the face to show I was in danger. A fellow officer would understand - the damn liberal media just woudn't get how tough those streets can be.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A very similar case from a while ago, unarmed man confronted by police 15 minutes after committing a crime. In this case the officer tries to use his taser:

[Beskar]

A very similar case from a while ago, unarmed man confronted by police 15 minutes after committing a crime. In this case the officer tries to use his taser:

Can you explain the events in the video? I was looking at the comments but they don't seem to make sense. This is what I understand.

Guy was a suspect, the police man pulls up, gets out his taser, orders the suspect to get down.
The suspect ignores the police officer, continues to walk towards him whilst the cop steps back.
The suspect gets over the railing, then stands there.
The suspect ignores the order repeatedly.
The officer fires his taser to subdue the suspect and it failed.
The suspect then goes to attack the officer, he gets into a struggle.
There is a struggle occurring and a plain clothed officer goes over to help the police officer.
The suspect ends up back in front of the car, then he drops down on the floor in response to the civilian officers orders.
The officer stumbles over, looking hurt and injured, makes a radio-call, seems to be checking the suspects life-signs/simply watching over him.
Motorcycle cop shows up with more support, they are asking if everyone is okay and such.

So where/when did the person get shot? Why is the person dead?

[Greyblades]

The suspect then goes to attack the officer, the officer fires his taser, he gets into a struggle.

What? He was tazed before he went to attack the officer, you can hear the crackle at 0:30 and the guy recoils before charging the cop.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Can you explain the events in the video? I was looking at the comments but they don't seem to make sense. This is what I understand.


So where/when did the person get shot? Why is the person dead?

Sorry, forgot to post the article:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/walton...cc4c03286.html

Steven Mallory, 39, was seriously injuring officer Clif Anderson and would have continued to do so if Anderson did not shoot him twice with his Glock .40-caliber handgun, Walton said.

The first shot to Mallory's chest hit his lungs and heart and is believed to be the shot that killed him, Walton said. The second entered his torso near his spleen and went through his body.

Mallory had bitten an eyebrow off Anderson, punched him, choked him and slammed his head against the pavement. The fight ended after Jim Weakley, an East Moline detective who happened to be passing by on the bridge, stopped and attempted to get Mallory off Anderson. Weakley couldn't, but Anderson then was able to remove his gun from his holster and shoot Mallory, officials said. Anderson will require plastic surgery.

I think the shots just sound like pings in the video.

[Beskar]

What? He was tazed before he went to attack the officer, you can hear the crackle at 0:30 and the guy recoils before charging the cop.

That was a mistake, corrected.

Sorry, forgot to post the article:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/walton...cc4c03286.html

I think the shots just sound like pings in the video.

Ah ha, thank you.

I thought the 'pings' was the bodies hitting the metal railings during the struggle. Not gun-shots.

[Husar]

So where was the officer's partner?

And yeah, that guy deserved to get shot, won't get a complaint from me.
I suppose the next evolution step is a combined gun/taser weapon where they can tase a suspect and shoot him if something like the situation in the video happens.

[Montmorency]

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/cnn_...ed_eye_socket/

Lol this is pretty unequivocal. Forget Trayvon, this is some of the most legit stuff in years.

[HopAlongBunny]

Sure they might be poor, but they turn out to be a great source of municipal funding:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...household.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So where was the officer's partner?

And yeah, that guy deserved to get shot, won't get a complaint from me.
I suppose the next evolution step is a combined gun/taser weapon where they can tase a suspect and shoot him if something like the situation in the video happens.

The majority of USA police, except in major metropolitan areas, operate solo in their patrol cars.

[Greyblades]

And yeah, that guy deserved to get shot, won't get a complaint from me.

What he deserved was a cop that wasn't so impatient and taze-happy. He also deserved a trial. He certainly didnt deserve was the sequence of events that ended with him bleeding out on the road.

They both did wrong but the cop was the idiot who started it for nothing.

[Husar]

What he deserved was a cop that wasn't so impatient and taze-happy. He also deserved a trial. He certainly didnt deserve was the sequence of events that ended with him bleeding out on the road.

They both did wrong but the cop was the idiot who started it for nothing.

No.

The cop was alone against a guy who was quite a bit bigger and stronger. He asked him several times to comply, let him come closer than I might have and warned him that he would get tazed if he kept refusing to comply. IMO that was plenty of warning and the guy was calm enough to understand every single word of it. And then the guy attacked the cop and probably tried to kill him, at that point he went way too far and the cop shot him in self defense.

The problem I see on the part of the police in general here is that the cop was alone, had no support and was obviously only saved when a cop who was not his partner rushed in to help him.
And blaming the cop for employing a tazer against this guy who was obviously unwilling to comply and thinking about other shenanigans the entire time is not trigger happy, it's called wanting to get home alive, a trigger happy cop would've drawn his handgun right away and in this particular case it would have saved him some bruises.
You cannot just ignore the physical difference between the two, without a gun the cop might have been dead since he obviously wasn't the next Chuck Norris. A police officer represents society and the laws they set up, refusing to obey his commands repeatedly and after ample warning justifies the cop in trying to literally enforce the law IMO, otherwise we can just do away with the police or the monopoly on violence they have because they have it exactly for this kind of criminals who do not turn themselves in voluntarily.

Oh and the cop didn't start anything for nothing, he was trying to arrest a criminal and didn't start out with a lethal weapon, if you're the kind of person who thinks if the criminal doesn't react to nice words they should let him go, then I can't help you.

[Greyblades]

No.
The cop was alone against a guy who was quite a bit bigger and stronger. He asked him several times to comply, let him come closer than I might have and warned him that he would get tazed if he kept refusing to comply. IMO that was plenty of warning and the guy was calm enough to understand every single word of it. And then the guy attacked the cop and probably tried to kill him, at that point he went way too far and the cop shot him in self defense.

...

1. Being bigger and stronger is irrelevant as the man was completely passive and had been complying with the cop's instructions, albiet delayed, he wasnt even swearing at the cop let alone actively resisting when he got tazed.
2. I am not arguing that he shouldn't have shot the man as at that point he was attacking the officer with likely intent to grievously harm. I am arguing he shouldn't have been so quick to apply the tazer, as it is reasonable to belive that a bit more patience on the part of the cop would have resulted in the man complying with the arrest.

Oh and the cop didn't start anything for nothing, he was trying to arrest a criminal and didn't start out with a lethal weapon, if you're the kind of person who thinks if the criminal doesn't react to nice words they should let him go, then I can't help you.

I expect better than this of you Husar.

[Beskar]

2. I am not arguing that he shouldn't have shot the man as at that point he was attacking the officer with likely intent to grievously harm. I am arguing he shouldn't have been so quick to apply the tazer, as it is reasonable to belive that a bit more patience on the part of the cop would have resulted in the man complying with the arrest.

Sorry, but when a cop says get down on the floor. You get down on the floor. You don't take your sweet-ass time just herpy-derpy whilst the cop issues warnings. The fact he didn't was because he was trying to buy time out of the situation, and the taser failing to work removed the threat, thus proceeded to try to kill the Officer.

[Greyblades]

Sorry, but when a cop says get down on the floor. You get down on the floor.

Correction: should. And he certianly should. But being tazered for just standing there is still unwarranted and frankly troubling on the cop's part: A trained police officer shouldnt be jepardizing taking a man alive and quietly over impatience.