Valsuelm

Don't confuse someone who knows what they are talking about with a know-it-all. There's plenty I don't know. Unlike many others though, I generally don't converse or opine about things I don't know (on rare occasion I will make this mistake, but if I do, I'll openly acknowledge it). Rather, I listen (or read), and/or go research whatever it is if it's something I think is worthy of spending time learning about (note this doesn't mean just reading a wiki entry, which seems to be the extent what oh so many consider research around here). Of the things I do know about, I tend to know more than most as I generally spend a lot more time than most learning about whatever. There is no persona here. I don't ever pretend to be someone or something I am not, unless the very purpose of the conversation is to pretend. While it's hard to know for certain with any given individual you meet on an internet forum, I like to think that most of the people here are not as deluded as Gromnir (the only person in my history of interwebbing that I've ever found cause enough to set to ignore). If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't spend time on this forum.

There's two ways to interpret that, but in either case, no. I don't expect news I read to have ignorance. I expect whomever is doing the story to actually thoroughly research whatever it is they are covering and present all of the facts, ignoring none. That is what journalism is supposed to be. Is that what most journalists do? In the main stream media? Certainly not. In the wider media? Hard to say as there's quite a lot out there. If you meant we should all have a fair amount of ignorance (which I certainly hope you didn't mean as you'd pretty much be a hopeless case if so), no, and the reasons for this should be obvious.

I wonder if the people in the U.S.S.R. referred to it as 'big government run amok'.

And Jon Stewart Vals, are you sad to see him going? Not really. I generally don't get emotionally involved on what a TV personality does or doesn't do. I'm indifferent in regards to what Jon does. Good for him I suppose as he's wanting to go do something else.

If every mainstream media anchor that mislead the public got suspended for 6 months with no pay tomorrow, about the only ones that would be working would be the brand new ones (if there are any) that just haven't had a chance to mislead us yet.

In the U.S., police need a warrant or reasonable suspicion you've been involved in a crime to legally pat you down. What 'reasonable suspicion' is, is of course somewhat ambiguous. It's a fairly simple concept however that can get complex given various scenarios. You really should read the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment is pretty clear in what it states. Note that many consider the 'reasonable suspicion' bar to be too low and a violation of the 4th amendment. Legally however, since 1968, that's all the police need. But again, it's an ambiguous threshold, so it's something that's open to abuse, as well as something that might be used by a defense attorney to lambast an officer on the stand should the case go to trial.

Then you're pretty much screwed whatever you do, yes? But living is better than dying? So you see no difference between a police officer and a random person on the street? I specifically excluded those because if you're in that situation you're effectively screwed (see above). And why would there be a great cost (excluding, again, unlawful and immoral)? Are you or the person you're shielding breaking the law? Wouldn't this come under the heading of consequences of breaking the law? This seems highly unlikely unless you're not paying attention, but assuming this is the situation, its a far different scenario to misunderstand an officer than to willfully defy one. And we're back to sticking it to the man. No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not. I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5.

You might fail to comply with the police for any number of reasons. just as you might fail to comply with anyone for any number of reasons. Here's a few of the top of my head though: What the cop is demanding of you might be unlawful, it might be immoral, if you comply there will be great cost to yourself or someone you care about, if you comply your life might be effectively ruined (ie: you're guilty of something that will likely send you to jail for some serious time), you might misunderstand the officer, the officer's directions might not be clear, and so on. The same is true of having to defend yourself. Though a situation where one might have to defend oneself or someone else from violence from a police officer is less common than a situation where one might not comply, it is sadly not too uncommon. What the better course of action is, is entirely situational. It might be to cooperate fully and even get arrested, it might not. It might not be clear what the better course of action is when the scenario is unfolding for the people in it either. Nor might people take the better course of action at the time, whatever that is (sometimes people are in Catch-22 scenarios). And whatever course of action is best, whether taken or not, few people are justifiably assaulted or killed by police (or anyone else) on a moral or ethical basis. Question authority. Stand up to it if need be (or flee it even). Obviously one generally doesn't want to get injured or killed, so going along with BS sometimes is prudent. However, sometimes it is not. If everyone just bowed down to authority all the time everyone except those in authority would effectively be slaves. I could give you numerous examples, some of them personal (as yea, I've not always fully complied with police myself (and I have no criminal record)), but here's one video of some folks who aren't fully complying with police and are perfectly within their rights to do so, and another video of very good advice on how to handle the police if you're ever in a situation where you have to deal with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Note: What someone is within their rights to do varies from nation to nation, and sometimes to a large degree. What I write here, and what these videos show and discuss, applies fully if you're in the U.S., it might not apply fully if you live somewhere else.

What makes sense?

I never tried to dispute it. All I said is that just because the monopoly of violence is held by the state doesn't mean that any action of a police officer automatically means the officer will commit violence. And you apparently are asserting that anything a police officer asks you, whether its "Let me see your ID", "Pull over, you're speeding" or "Stop stabbing people and put down the knife" is somehow the time to not comply and resist? I admit I don't get your point unless its "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!" Or I have the common sense to (a) get out of the rain and (b) let people do their jobs in a larger society. But at this point, I'm sure there's no real dialogue to be had here. No one is saying "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!". All we were saying is that cops ultimately have the threat of death behind their words. Will all cops assault you if you fail to comply? No, but many will. Will all cops kill you if you defend yourself? No, but many will, and the state will almost always support them in both cases. Even much of the populace blindly will. That's all that was being said. Whether it's wise to comply or not is entirely situational, and not really relevant to the point that was made.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" "Protect and Serve" "We have always been at war with Eastasia"

The point was, that government power is backed up with the ultimate threat of deadly force. Neither of you are able to dispute this, you only assert that you think it would be unwise to not comply. You bow down before the threat ever needs to overtly be made. Nevertheless, it is always there whether you acknowledge it or not. Step out of the box.

Good luck disobeying a police officer who thinks they have a right to demand of you whatever it is they are demanding and not having violence soon visited upon you then. And if you actively defend yourself from that violence, or even just reflexively react to it so the cop can say you did something threatening, good luck not getting killed. And if that happens I'm sure a thread here will be started, and many people will say killing you was justified because you didn't comply with the officer's demands and then threatened or attacked the officer (they will completely ignore the fact that you were attacked first).

Since they've been mentioned... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHvM8eETMvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drn7wXarm-I I regret missing them on their last tour. I shan't make that mistake again.

Arnold was all words and soft. Jim is more intimidating. (warning: naughty words)

Unreliable I think is an understatement. The guy is a proven liar. These are slightly dated as they don't have all of the information that came to light in Ventura's libel suit, however the pertinent points are still made. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/30/the-complicated-but-unveriable-legacy-of-chris-kyle-the-deadliest-sniper-in-american-history/ http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle http://www.thedailysheeple.com/american-sniper-lies-and-propaganda-to-divide-a-nation_012015 As for what I'm reading book wise: Non-Fiction - http://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Banking-United-States/dp/0945466331/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 (highly recommended) Fiction - http://www.amazon.com/House-Chains-Malazan-Book-Fallen/dp/0765315742/ref=bseries_primary_0_0765315742 (also highly recommended; probably the best fantasy series I've ever read, and I've read many)

Well in comparison with using physical force I'd generally say no. Which is why I wonder why it's even mentioned alongside it. It is not unusual for anyone in a position of authority is to employ verbal coercion, nor is the employment of such necessarily a bad thing.

Right. How many interactions does the average person have with non-prescription painkillers throughout their life? How many interactions with cops? Sure, odds of dying in a car crash or a work-related accident may be much higher in absolute terms, but it just so happens that people drive to and from work every day. Whether a reported 1.4% of police-citizen interactions where force is involved (including verbal coercion) is too much is up for debate. At any rate, data is difficult to find and draw conclusions from, because in another study, the rate of interactions involving force was 58%, when instead of citizens in general, only police-suspect interactions are considered. I don't know of any meta-analyses that investigate the matter. Resisting, disrespecting or otherwise antagonizing cops seems to increase the odds that they will use force against you by a significant margin (~6 times more likely, from one report). That does not mean cops are thugs, or at least, data doesn't seem to support that assessment. At least, until we define what is a thug and how often does a thug resort to force in interactions with citizens. How does that 1.4% include verbal coercion, and how are we defining it? The majority of my police interactions included verbal coercion as I'd define it (as have the interactions I've witnessed others have with police). Also, while it's not a majority, it's certainly more often than 1.4% that I've witnessed or experienced police using physical force. Is that study considering such benign things as all of the times that people happen to walk by police and maybe say hi as interacting? That's about the only way I can see them coming up with such a low number.

You fail at math. The average based on the data there is about 1114 deaths a year. Regardless, even 500 is no small number given what we're talking about. The police are killing more than 3 people a day on average based on this data, and the data is likely incomplete (though as time goes on and more people are aware of the site it will become more complete). How many of those killings are justified? One really can't say based on the data available, but no doubt many of them are not. For all the people who are horrified at accidental gun deaths, you're almost twice as likely to be killed by a cop than an accidental discharge of a firearm according to 2010 CDC data. But as I've pointed out in another thread, governmental data isn't always accurate, and sometimes even conflicts with itself. In this case the FBI statistics are drastically different from those shown at killedbypolice.net. Not surprising really as the FBI relies on the self reporting of various police agencies in regards to how many people they kill (which I've little doubt is the prime reason killedbypolice.net exists). So far as I can tell though, they fail to mention that fact anywhere in their statistics. Another interesting statistic is to compare police killings of others vs the number of police deaths. The average number of police deaths per year (this includes accidents and job related illnesses) for the period of 2004-2013 was 150. So for every police job related death in a year they kill ~7.4 people. If you remove all definite accidents from the equation (it's inconclusive if the officer was purposefully drowned or accidentally drowned for example, so I left statistics like that in the equation (though it's probably safe to say more if not all of the drownings were an accident)) police kill more than 17 people a year for each one of them that dies by means other than an accident or job related illness. The real number of course is going to be higher than that, but we cannot calculate it with great accuracy due to the limitations of the data. If you compare the number of people police killed during the period for which killedbypolice.net has been keeping track to the number of murders in the US from 2007-2011 (I unfortunately could not find data from the exact same period for comparison, but we're talking averages and they generally aren't going to change that much from year to year), police kill a number of people equal to ~8% of the official FBI homicide rate. And they kill people at a rate of ~12% of the official homicide by way of firearm rate. So you're only about ~8 times more likely to be murdered by someone who isn't a police officer with a gun as you are to be killed by the police, even though there are more than 300 times the number of average citizens compared to the number of police. Another interesting comparison is to compare the police killing people rate with the non-police homicide rate. If we conservatively estimate the U.S. population at ~300 million and go by the ~900,000 number. And then use the 1114 average police killings a year and the average 13774 homicides a year previously calculated and used, police kill at a per capita rate of 27 times the per capita homicide average. So yea.... even by a conservative calculation, police kill more than 17 people a year for each one of them killed in the line of duty by means other than an accident, and at a per capita rate of ~27 times that of the homicide per capita average.

Considering they source everything, if there's anything erroneous it's more than likely due to an article being wrong. The number of deaths it cites in 2014 is 1104 as of this post, not 1966. The 1966 number seems to be the total number of police killings listed on the site since it started tracking them in 2013. There are no accurate governmental figures on how many people are killed by police nationwide, so someone took it upon themselves to start compiling the info. Go them and hooray internet for making it relatively easy.

Fixed. Grrr at those people who won't allow videos to be embedded and force you to go to youtube.

A communist RPG.

Yep, because after they "see what it's like" they can go back and tell their pals all about it. Then they will understand it's barbaric and pointless and stop doing it, right? Does it bother you that human beings brutalize and kill each other, or only when they do it to someone you consider one of the "good guys"? I think Bruce has answered that question before many times. Assaults, torture, murder, theft, destruction, and conquest are all perfectly ok if the UN does it, the UK does it, France does it, the EU does it, or the US does it. These things are even good if they're done in the name of democracy, and especially good if done in the name of 'western values'. He generally only has a problem with it when the talking heads from the US, UK, UN, EU, or France say it's not ok. Or if the someones doing these things have a problem with 'western values'.

@JadedWolf - The track you post is one of my all time faves. Possibly my favorite track from any PC based video game. I only wish it was longer. @Oby - Russia's greatest contribution to the world in the last ~100 years: