Was this ok to do?

[DemonMonger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL_XsuYYZaM

watch and tell us what you think...

who was right .. who was wrong

[Carn]

Americans are always wrong, no?

[Lebeau]

All "tl; dr" types, please stop here...u have been warned.

COTATI, CA -- Police are called out to an apartment for a noise complaint by the neighbors. The three occupants inside non-aggressively exercise their fourth amendment right, refusing the police entry as they demand at gun point to let them inside without a search warrant or probable cause.

As the police quickly holster their weapons after the camera turns on, the three occupants continue to exercise their rights non-aggressively. The police respond by going into "over-the-top" aggressive mode, utilizing excessive force by kicking in the door, assaulting the female and tazing the cameraman four times causing the camera to short out. All three occupants are arrested/cited for obstruction. Incident occurred on 5/10/2013.

One pundit replied:

As the officers attempt to kick down my family of veterans reinforced door without a warrant, they are met with a hail of gun fire from inside the house. Stand Off ensues and we will win in court because our glorious state allows you to defend yourself against officers acting outside the law.

Technically, this pundit is right, but that won't help him (or u) if u r dead, or if u lack video evidence &/or witness corroboration of police acting outside the law. These 3 citizens weren't violent, so, they survived, & they have that evidence & as such, will not be convicted of obstruction. They will very likely (& publicly) receive monetary compensation for breaking-&-entering, assault, police brutality & false arrest. If they don't get such an offer quickly, they likely will sue for damages & later on, will almost certainly receive them.

THIS is y we (usually) screen our police as effectively as we can prior to & during employment. One, to avoid looking like complete hypocrites, we want our police to defend & protect our citizenry, not abuse the privilege & break laws they are paid to uphold (many bad people ARE attracted to this job for reasons of ABnormal psychology & the base desire to dominate & have recognized authority) & two, governments can ill afford to pay out damages every effing time some schmuck-with-a-badge that wasn't thouroughly vetted weigs out, goes 'off the reservation', thoroughly shows his ass & leaves them liable for his actions. The more it happens tho, the less $ they can afford to set aside for such screening .... it can & has become a downward spiral leading to bankruptcy for more than one municipal government.

The sermon:

My personal feelings on matters-of-law are rather simple, but justifiable. NO law WHATSOEVER should exist except those restricting ALL forms of THEFT. It rightly SHOULD be illegal to take or damage my (or anyone else's) life, health, wealth, time, or choices & the fundamental right to freedom of self-determination. Y? Cuz' I want ALL my freedom & in return ofc., EVERYone else gets theirs' as well. I may not like what they do with it, nor they with what I do with mine, but it's entirely fair, equally balanced & NOT biased by outright-bs-dogma, imperious personal preferences or utter hypocrisy. ONLY those 'takers', the psychotics & megalomaniacs who break these laws, should have their freedom, etc. taken away in defensive reciprocity for the collective good of us all.

Yet, that is assuredly NOT the world we live in. Plenty of laws exist today to make certain forms of outright theft, by certain types of 'taker' people, 'perfectly' legal. How else can it be explained that more than 1/2 of the people in our world have to get by (or not) on $2.oo a day or less, yet less than 2% of our population get's paid the overwhelming lion's share of salary (assuming they EVEN work), pretty much literally owns almost ALL of what there IS to own in this world & ALSO gets to decide, for ALL of us, almost ALL laws & policies & the overall direction for OUR society....

Hey, choosing between Party A or Party B ('they' own both btw), & thus choosing which part of the elites' overall agenda, Part A or Part B, to advance first when it's time to go to the polls during political season, is NOT democracy ... it's public theater, picking our puppets, a sham, all illusion & distraction 'they', the puppetmasters, allow the rest of us. In my country (USA), we have only 2 major political parties, seemingly don't need more & anyone who's read Noam Chomsky (specifically "Manufacturing Consent"), or other critical objective thinkers, could easily tell u y this is so.

These two parties exist to serve as the 'bookends' of permissable subjects for public discussion & debate. If these 2 are talking about it or it lies somewhere between these 2, it is acceptable to the status-quo-elites for it to be thought about, talked about, printed &/or viewed. If the subject does NOT lay between however, then it is NOT acceptable, not at all. It is taboo, radical, dangerous, forbidden, etc. etc. ad naseum. U won't ever find these suppressed truths about such alternative views or any questions to or about those who keep a lid on it, the nameless-'authorities' (mostly unknown or not well-known, who wield the REAL power in our civilization) in ANY major newspapers or on broadcast tv networks.

Right or wrong? Legal or illegal? Those things aren't nearly the same, Not even close in ALOT of places. The REAL danger facing our species in the long run isn't a rogue cop or two with bad attitudes who willfully choose to flagrantly abuse the very citizens they are sworn to protect &/or who also break the laws they are sworn to uphold. Instead, that VERY real danger IS rogue governments, armed with nuclear, biological & chemical weapons of mass destruction, empowered by & fully acting in the interests of rogue elites & rogue corporations, all corrupt, who willfully do the same exact vile & evil things & very often, much worse, FAR worse, on a MASSIVE scale, yet say it's all 'perfectly' legal & right. It is or becomes legal (for them) because they have the power to make it legal & to keep it legal. Sadly, they also have the necessary control to make it APPEAR right to oh-too-many ill-&-mis-informed as well....

Originally Posted by Carn

Americans are always wrong, no?

Btw, I'm an American ... so, am I wrong?

[Carn]

Originally Posted by Lebeau

Btw, I'm an American ... so, am I wrong?

Very .

[Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Carn

Very .

Hmmm, strong opinion. Now, go get YOUR statistics, facts & philosophies .... then, PROVE it as best you can. Otherwise, it remains just a undefined one-word opinion.

Where exactly was I so "VERY" wrong? What are YOUR alternatives? The part about:
1) the importance of personal liberties & the freedom of self-determination.
2) big-money-corrupted governments; democracy & the 'free' press dying a slow 'death'.
3) the resulting unjust laws (& also, a lack of just laws restricting this corruption) systemically created by these corrupted governments.
4) wealth disparity on a never before seen scale in the modern era.
5) the need of humanity to collectively end this corruption/disparity before it ends humanity.

ALL of these are WELL-documented topics, even more talked about now since 9/11 & the '08 economic crash than ever before.

There ARE some TRUE radicals & others who on general principle oppose these subjects: fascists, anarchists & nihilists, corporatists, truly ignorant & well-'trained' reactionaries, the willfully ignorant & distracted, etc.

I know why they each choose to ignore & oppose these topics, but I really don't know why YOU would choose to do so ... enlighten me, please & thank you?

[Pwnography]

Originally Posted by Carn

Very .

Originally Posted by Lebeau

Hmmm, strong opinion. Now, go get YOUR statistics, facts & philosophies .... then, PROVE it as best you can. Otherwise, it remains just a undefined one-word opinion.

Where exactly was I so "VERY" wrong? What are YOUR alternatives? The part about:
1) the importance of personal liberties & the freedom of self-determination.
2) big-money-corrupted governments; democracy & the 'free' press dying a slow 'death'.
3) the resulting unjust laws (& also, a lack of just laws restricting this corruption) systemically created by these corrupted governments.
4) wealth disparity on a never before seen scale in the modern era.
5) the need of humanity to collectively end this corruption/disparity before it ends humanity.

ALL of these are WELL-documented topics, even more talked about now since 9/11 & the '08 economic crash than ever before.

There ARE some TRUE radicals who on general principle oppose these subjects: fascists, anarchists & nihilists, corporatists, truly ignorant & well-'trained' reactionaries, the willfully ignorant & distracted, etc.

I know why they each choose to ignore & oppose these topics, but I really don't know why YOU would choose to do so ... enlighten me, please & thank you?

ma... mad?