Scumbag police in usa kill dog

[grainde]

He allegedly hasnt endangered peoples lives...If you read though the article he only gave information on what techniques were used to gather information; the machine so to speak. He specifically stated that he did not release any information that could cause harm to others.

First, he said: "Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn't feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone". Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.

Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden's leaks began to make news.

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.

This is what I was getting at and have been from the start of this thread, It is all related:

For him, it is a matter of principle. "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to," he said.

But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."

Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy", he said.

:beer:

Edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/15/nsa-covert-surveillance-trap

 

[Lazerbeak]

Well, I don't disagree with the statement or intent, I just think there is more going on.

As I said though I don't have an answer, it is way bigger than me and we as the public may never know the whole "Truth"

:beer:

~ LB

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

72 people were recently killed when National Guard members tried to confiscate recently banned assault rifles in Boston. (They were out gunned and turned back by local armed citizenry)

~ LB

Uhm, LB...

That was a spoof article meant to comment on the start of the American Revolution. Not by any means a current event.

First off, the guy deserved to be detained. he was clearly, in my opinion, being antagonistic to the police while they were already in stressful situation. Did you not see the swat truck IE?

And to all the people that are calling the cops scum for shooting the dog, you are crazy. The cop clearly showed restraint, and acted at the last minute. The dog was shot mid air, in leap to bite the man. The only person responsible for this dogs death, was the owner.

Michael.

Being a jerk, antagonistic, speaking, making noise, those are not illegal actions.

If noise was truly the problem, you would think they would ask him to turn the music down/off, or do so themselves. They do not.

All he did to really "antagonize" them, that I see in the video, is make it extra clear that they are being recorded.

This is not illegal, is protected under the first amendment, and has been upheld by courts at all levels consistently. In the states where there are wiretapping laws, which run counter to this, ACLU has suits pending to challenge those state laws.

I do not question the actions of the officer that actually shot the dog... he really had no choice at that point, and did try to grab the leash first.

 

[chipdouglas]

We as a country give cops the responsibility to make these calls on the street. He deserved to be detained for being antagonistic. if his dog wasn't killed this would be a non issue.
It wasn't the cops job to walk away. The man was the aggressor. Who the hell paces back and forth sticking their camera out like that and yelling sh!t
And for you to say "all he really said was...." As far as I know, there are no clear recordings of what he said. I can hear the second camera man quite clearly.

I completely agree with you on the part where he had to shoot the dog. Let me tell everybody that has never been attacked by a dog, it is not fun, and quite scary.

Uhm, LB...

That was a spoof article meant to comment on the start of the American Revolution. Not by any means a current event.



Being a jerk, antagonistic, speaking, making noise, those are not illegal actions.

If noise was truly the problem, you would think they would ask him to turn the music down/off, or do so themselves. They do not.

All he did to really "antagonize" them, that I see in the video, is make it extra clear that they are being recorded.

This is not illegal, is protected under the first amendment, and has been upheld by courts at all levels consistently. In the states where there are wiretapping laws, which run counter to this, ACLU has suits pending to challenge those state laws.

I do not question the actions of the officer that actually shot the dog... he really had no choice at that point, and did try to grab the leash first.

 

[grainde]

Well, I don't disagree with the statement or intent, I just think there is more going on.

As I said though I don't have an answer, it is way bigger than me and we as the public may never know the whole "Truth"

:beer:

~ LB

More than likely, but I guess we'll never really know the truth...:beer:

Edit: LB heres another view from a US paper: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ing-edward-snowden-which-side-are-you-on.html

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The problem is the lack of responsibility, and the great amount of power given to cops.

Personally I never gave any of those powers to cops, and feel that in order for rights to be preserved, they must be exercised.

The man had every right to pace back on forth on a public street, and wave around his camera. That's not aggression, or antagonism. It's his (and your) first amendment right.

You're right in that I can't hear what the cops say, or what he says, but you can bet he never threatened or attacked the cops in any way. The only thing you can tell from the tape, that he was doing, that was questionable, was blasting crappy music from his car.

Btw, cops record people all the time, and are far from shy from sticking a camera in people's faces, or reminding them of the fact that they are being recorded.

We as a country give cops the responsibility to make these calls on the street. He deserved to be detained for being antagonistic. if his dog wasn't killed this would be a non issue.
It wasn't the cops job to walk away. The man was the aggressor. Who the hell paces back and forth sticking their camera out like that and yelling sh!t
And for you to say "all he really said was...." As far as I know, there are no clear recordings of what he said. I can hear the second camera man quite clearly.

 

[Lazerbeak]

Uhm, LB...

That was a spoof article meant to comment on the start of the American Revolution. Not by any means a current event.

:yabbem:

~ LB

 

[grainde]

LB have you seen your title? "Class IV loser" :tinfoil: Did you change that or has it been done for you? :crackup:lol

Found this too: NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program - The Washington Post

 

[chipdouglas]

Actually you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. "personally I never gave any of those powers to cops" Probably because you are a stand up citizen and have never had an encounter with a cop. Believe me, if a cop approaches you, you do what he says or your ass is getting the same hospitality as the guy in the vid. The respect and power is given by us by swearing the cop in, on the street it is common knowledge that the cop has the power, right or wrong that is the way it is.
Ok IE, let somebody be in your face yelling at you and recording you. Lets see how long you take it before you punch the guy.
Pacing back and forth like a lunatic and yelling and recording during some kind of stand off is considered antagonistic in my book.

Haha I was just about to write lets not argue but then I realized I had the long rant above... What are your feelings on them not "finishing" the job on the dog? I'm torn as to yes they should have, and no they shouldn't have.
edit... I say yes, because it was clearly in pain, and I say no, just because murphy's law would have that "mercy" bullet ricochet and kill a bystander lol


Michael.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The problem is the lack of responsibility, and the great amount of power given to cops.

Personally I never gave any of those powers to cops, and feel that in order for rights to be preserved, they must be exercised.

The man had every right to pace back on forth on a public street, and wave around his camera. That's not aggression, or antagonism. It's his (and your) first amendment right.

You're right in that I can't hear what the cops say, or what he says, but you can bet he never threatened or attacked the cops in any way. The only thing you can tell from the tape, that he was doing, that was questionable, was blasting crappy music from his car.

Btw, cops record people all the time, and are far from shy from sticking a camera in people's faces, or reminding them of the fact that they are being recorded.

 

[Lazerbeak]

LB have you seen your title? "Class IV loser" Did you change that or has it been done for you? lol

I thought my critics would appreciate it Avery was really cool and had asked if I would like a username.

Wiki also states it's a bit of an in joke with regards to laser history...

A laser which produces light by itself is technically an optical oscillator rather than an optical amplifier as suggested by the acronym. It has been humorously noted that the acronym LOSER, for "light oscillation by stimulated emission of radiation," would have been more correct.

Good eye

_______________________________________________

Regarding the privacy issue, one argument I hear coming out of the infosec community is that privacy is an individual choice. There are ways to protect your privacy as an individual and if it is a concern, individuals should be proactive about it.

~ LB

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Actually I had the misfortune to have a few interactions with cops, although yes, I an upstanding citizen (IMHO ). At present, to date, my only "crimes" have been driving related, specifically speeding several times, unsafe driving, which technically I could have fought, but $800 to fight, and risk losing, or $250 to pay up, illegal u-turn, failure to yield, and of course a bunch of parking tickets.

I've been through several stops where no ticket was issued, and several checkpoints.

So no, unfortunately I have had quite a few interactions with cops. You're right, on the street they are top dog. That doesn't mean you have to roll over and play dead though. Many cops will take that as an invitation to just walk all over you... tried that appeasement approach. No thank you.

Better to hold your ground, legally speaking, without being aggressive. Only questions you actually have to answer on the street, are your name, and address. You do not even have to produce an ID unless you are driving. If you are driving, yes, you do have to produce a license, registration and insurance.

The kid was absolutely right there was no reason for him to roll down the window further, and neither did he have to.

You say, Q: "well, why didn't he just roll the window down if he has nothing to hide?"

A: Because the cop can say he sees something suspicious in the car. ANYTHING, and even imaginary. By leaving the window open you invite the cop to stick his head inside, and take a good look around, giving him an excellent option to find something that looks odd.

You'll note the cop even tried to just open the door... smart on the kids part to have the doors locked.

Q: Ok IE, let somebody be in your face yelling at you and recording you. Lets see how long you take it before you punch the guy.
Pacing back and forth like a lunatic and yelling and recording during some kind of stand off is considered antagonistic in my book.

A: If this is in a public space, or he is doing this from a public space, I would have no choice but to deal with it, or go somewhere else myself. This is what reporters do, and should be able to do. It may suck to be the target of it, but it's not illegal for someone to wave a camera in front of you, especially so long as they do not do pass into your personal space. If they touch you, that's assault.

If this is in a private location, you can call cops to have the said person removed, or depending on state law (texas for example) you would even be justified in just shooting them.

About finishing the job, idk, I have mixed feeling on the subject. Personally I think I would have finished it, just to make sure the animal doesn't suffer anymore. At the same time I can see why a cop wouldn't want to do that since it would have looked extra cruel, and the dog was already down, no longer having a strict reason to shoot again.

Actually you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. "personally I never gave any of those powers to cops" Probably because you are a stand up citizen and have never had an encounter with a cop. Believe me, if a cop approaches you, you do what he says or your ass is getting the same hospitality as the guy in the vid. The respect and power is given by us by swearing the cop in, on the street it is common knowledge that the cop has the power, right or wrong that is the way it is.
Ok IE, let somebody be in your face yelling at you and recording you. Lets see how long you take it before you punch the guy.
Pacing back and forth like a lunatic and yelling and recording during some kind of stand off is considered antagonistic in my book.

Haha I was just about to write lets not argue but then I realized I had the long rant above... What are your feelings on them not "finishing" the job on the dog? I'm torn as to yes they should have, and no they shouldn't have.
edit... I say yes, because it was clearly in pain, and I say no, just because murphy's law would have that "mercy" bullet ricochet and kill a bystander lol


Michael.

 

[chipdouglas]

I never said "from a legal standpoint" I know what our laws and constitution say. I said/saying what would you do as a red blooded person with feelings, and pet peeves.

Michael.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

I'd leave if possible, stand my ground if I couldn't leave, or incite (just through speaking) the other person to hit me, so I can have them charged with assault, and file a restraining order for the future.

In private, I'd call the cops, and have the person arrested. Or again, if attacked, fight back.

It's pretty hard to get me riled up to where I would react violently... in every case so far, I've managed to get people pissed off at me faster, than they are able to cause me to get pissed off. Only way I can seriously see myself fighting back, is if I'm being attacked.

I never said "from a legal standpoint" I know what our laws and constitution say. I said/saying what would you do as a red blooded person with feelings, and pet peeves.

Michael.

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

Wow..... That video literally gave me chills and has me worried for the freedom in this country.

 

[BShanahan14rulz]

LB: you might like this read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946

The sheriff and his deputies worked under a fee system whereby they received money for every person they booked, incarcerated, and released; the more arrests, the more money they made.

That's exactly what is happening now. While there may not be a direct relationship between the amount the police officer makes, and the number of tickets written, there are correlations, and there is the non quota quota, whereby every officer is expected to write a certain number of tickets, or make a certain number of arrests. Those that do not write enough tickets/make enough arrests are "let go" while those who make more arrests/write more tickets. As a result they are of course getting higher bonuses, or getting promoted.

The police department gets a federal subsidy for every time a cell is occupied, regardless of the outcome of that occupation, or the cause for it.

There are also additional perks from a cop perspective in that if there is overtime available, it would go first to cops that make the mosts arrests/write the most tickets to begin with.

The problem is further exacerbated/encouraged because what do cops compare themselves on compared to other cops? Arrest and ticket numbers. Nevermind the convictions... at the local/state level convictions don't matter but are a huge bonus if you get a true criminal.

On the federal level, convictions are supposedly the benchmark, as opposed to citations and arrests.

One way to "rehumanize" cops is to stop tying their paycheck to their arrest/ticket numbers. (Whether directly or indirectly.)

Another way would be to penalize cops with low conviction rates (those that make a false arrests) and promote the ones with high conviction rates.

A third way would be to prevent prosecutors from being able to significantly downgrade charges to the point making them unrelated to the original crime the arrest is made for. (It's a very common tactic for cops to charge you with a much more serious offenses they know they have a low probability of convicting you on. Given the seriousness of the charge though, it forces people to plead guilty to lesser crimes, they are just as equally not guilty of. When presented with an option to hire a lawyer, possibly spend thousands they don't have, and potentially - however remote the possibility - lose, most people opt to pay a lesser fine, and take a suspended, or reduced sentence.)

All of this would result in the justice system being less about money and more about the laws.