Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories

Posted by Soulskill on from the who-watches-the-watchers-who-watch-the-watchers dept.

stevegee58 writes "Posting videos to YouTube allegedly showing police misconduct has become commonplace these days. Now police themselves are posting their own videos to refute misconduct claims. 'After a dozen Occupy Minnesota protesters were arrested at a downtown demonstration, the group quickly took to the Internet, posting video that activists said showed police treating them roughly and never warning them to leave. But Minneapolis police knew warnings had been given. And they had their own video to prove it. So they posted the footage on YouTube, an example of how law enforcement agencies nationwide are embracing online video to cast doubt on false claims and offer their own perspective to the public.'"

39 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Okay then... by detritus. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then they should stop confiscating the cell phones and cameras of protesters if they have nothing to worry about.
    The difference is, the only real attention the media will give will be to the police, and this AP article illustrates this perfectly.

    1. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the only real attention the media will give will be to the police

      That hasn't been the case so far. And it's easy to see why.

      Allegations of police brutality (and the controversy surrounding it) gets eyeballs. Police just doing their jobs is boring. Guess which one "the media" wants.

      See how that works?

    2. Re:Okay then... by Nocturnal+Deviant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would treat your entire diatribe with far more respect and empathy had you not used the term "pig" in every single line. Frankly your name calling to justify a point just shows immaturity. Then the fact that people modded you up as AC makes me wonder what modders are thinking today. While your post is informative, it is also antagonistic.

      --
      -Noc
    3. Re:Okay then... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is, the only real attention the media will give will be to the police, and this AP article illustrates this perfectly.

      So long as people continue to watch media which only gives half the story, only half the story will be given. I go through a lot of effort to seek out alternative media and accounts of major stories, and what I've discovered is that domestic media only provides the appearance of impartiality; Just enough to suspend disbelief. This is most evident in how they give "equal time" to, say, creationism, as they would a scientist, when doing a report on the latest global warming. Domestic media is there to provide just enough facts for each 'side' to continue to perpetuate the idea of a controversy, when in fact, there very rarely is one. The media will even manufacture controversy if their corporate sponsors are paid enough; the recurring gay marriage stories and 'controversy', for example -- if you look, there wasn't much polarization before the general public was saturated with coverage of it.. people were like "Well, maybe I don't like it, but why the fuck do I care? There's about a billion other things more important than that." But the republicans needed a victory, so they pumped Murdock and behold, a polarizing story designed to get their voters to the polls to defeat their democratic rivals.

      So yes, domestic media is totally corrupt, and they will happily splice and cut footage up, take people's quotes out of context, and generally 'spice' things up, but there is a very specific agenda behind such things. Indie media though is even worse... people desperate to get "their side" of the story or portray "the truth" often do such a piss-poor and slanted job of it that only the political activists in their own little microcosm would ever approve of it. I've tracked OccupyMN since they pitched their first tent... they've released hundreds of YouTube videos... all with only a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand at most, viewing it.

      The Occupiers never got organized, they just barfed content onto the internet and made a cacaphony of conflicting statements, all basically saying "See! See! This proves what we've been saying all along!" ... Of course, nobody really knows what it is they've been saying at all... the Occupy movement is sortof a blob of negative emotions projected by the working class onto the rich, and while some of it is justified, the lack of any real cohesion means it basically reduces to a king sized bitch fest.

      And then there's 'Collateral Damage', a widely-watched indie media video produced by Wikileaks, which later led to it being hunted by the 'land of the free' with a zeal that harkens back to soviet-era media manipulation. Indie media had a great potential to show us the actual cost of war, and to underscore how drone attacks and remote bombing may not harm homeland security in the short-term, but it definately creates lasting hostility to this country which definately harms it in the long term. 9/11 was a direct consequence of this kind of media manipulation -- it forced political reactionaries abroad to use bombs to get the general public's attention, because what was going on on Afghanistan was so far removed from public view that few people on the street could even tell you what we were doing there.

      And this is the loci of the problem: No matter which 'side' you're on, the concept of 'sides' is the real enemy in journalism. Democracy absolutely depends on impartial reporting; Democracy fails catastrophically when the population becomes illiterate and misinformed or underinformed (both are equally bad). And that's exactly what's happened in this country -- ever since the vietnam war protests, our government in concert with wealthy private interests have carefully constructed a sort of "glass curtain" around the country. Unlike an iron curtain, like the soviets had, or similar systems which the Chinese have, our form of censorship is subtle and depends on controlling the broadcast media via private corporations and individuals so the government has plausible deniability; But it accomplishes the same basic goal: To mislead the general public about government actions.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Okay then... by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Couple o' things I can think of offhand:

      1) Huge accusations, but no cites. Considering the accusations, some credible and substantiated citations would have been damned useful, at least before you demand that someone form an opinion one way or the other (and no, "Google it" doesn't cut it, given that most of the links that are likely to come up will be slanted one way or the other).

      2) GGP running around calling cops "pigs" at every other breath? It labels him quicker and more effectively than it labels the cops. He just doesn't understand that, and apparently neither do you.

      I figured that someone with a low UID would be old enough by default to understand such simple things...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Okay then... by haruchai · · Score: 3, Informative

      This isn't Wikipedia but there's more than enough info provided to find multiple sources, some with video, in a matter of moments.
      If you can find Slashdot, we do expect you know how to Google or that you have access to YouTube.
      There are, of course, many other examples of questionable and criminal activity by police - many obscure.
      But most of the ones above are easy to find although I've not found the stories about Proctor Valley Rd or Lousiana.

      Ones of the benefits of my age-accrued wisdom and my extensive Slashdot experience is that I learned a long time ago to control kneejerk reactions.

      It's clear that Nocturnal Deviant isn't yet at that level or perhaps it's too early in the day for him to be thinking clearly.

      Consider the following:
      "Yup. And, every time some video sneaks out, it demonstrates criminal sadistic behavior on the part of the police.

      Even with video of cold blooded murder by cops (shooting Oscar Grant in the back while held down by a bunch of cops who showed they were conspirators to murder when they tried to collect every recording device (cell phones, etc.) in the Bart station to destroy the evidence), nothing but a slap on the wrist to the murdering pig, and nothing to his co-conspirators"

      Story and video of this is easy enough to find. My opinion is that the officer did confuse the Taser with his pistol but tasering a man who was held down by 6 cops was excessive - surely more than one of them had handcuffs or tie-wraps.
      As this was the 1st use of "pig", let's give this inference a pass.

      "Police have _far_ too much power for the number of controls on their behavior. They should be recorded at all times (any incident without video and audio should default to the victim's account), and there should be civilian oversight boards from every community they police (that share the demographics of the community). These oversight boards should be empowered to make binding decisions about misconduct claims, and be given a say in the discipline such as recommending murder charges be pressed (the regular prosecutors office should recuse themselves from these cases due to their blatant conflict of interest). And, no cop should ever collect a pay check during an investigation (or, must repay 100% within 30 days + interest if after the investigation, the cop is shown to be in the wrong)."

      No insults at all in this paragraph - why no comment from Nocturnal Deviant? Is there nothing here that's Insightful?

      "Victims should be able to make claims against police pensions-- that alone would probably reign in many of the pigs"

      "Pigs" appears only at the end and you could read right up to the word "many" without losing any of the point of this sentence. He does misuse "reign".
      Perhaps that error had a subliminal effect on Nocturnal Deviants heightened sensibilities.

      Okay, now if we skip over the remaining lines where "pig" appears, we get to the closing statement:

      "If we treated cops like other criminals, entire precincts would be sitting on death row or at least be in prison right now."

      This is, at most, an exaggeration but it's not unthinkable if RICO laws, or slight adjustments to them, were applied in cases where police criminal activity or the coverup thereof, was suspected.

      Now, if the original AC poster had, instead of using the insult directly, had linked to videos where friends, family or witnesses had described the events while referring to the cops as pigs, would you (or Nocturnal Deviant) think they were less deserving of empathy?

      I would says that most cops do try to be good officers but there are many who not only fall short but are as bad as, or worse than, the criminals.
      Why they are given so much more leeway than we would grant a soldier?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    6. Re:Okay then... by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've known of officers who played it straight and refused the buddy buddy system. The Chief will put them in check. One guy I know got suspended for trying to arrest a fellow officer, or deputy, forget which--he was DUI.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  2. They are taping everyone now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the Chicago G8 protests, the police filmed every man woman and child who entered the protest area and had dozens of officers filming the entire protest.

    A few minutes after the protest ended they attacked everyone who didn't leave. They never showed tape of that.

    The police want laws to say they can't be filmed but they want to film everyone. They want maximum transparency of the population and none for themselves.

    1. Re:They are taping everyone now by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The have a designed officer who does nothing but film, so that they can protect themselves against protester allegations (both in the public view and in the court).

      Indeed. Funny how when Ian Tomlinson was murdered, the only video was posted by a tourist from the safety of his home country.

      The police in the UK have done a good job of looking like clowns recently. They managed to crack down really hard on legitimate, peaceful protestors (how hard is that?), suppressing freedom of speech, but when some real riots and looting actually happened, it turned out that they were bugger all use.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. About time... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's two sides to every story, and frankly, the occupiers usually come off as smug hipsters with a victim mentality - demonstrated through their actions and creative editing. But maybe it's just me.

    1. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Psh, I was hating hipsters before it was cool...

  4. I'm okay with this by Dice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we can film them in public places then they can do the same: liberty is a two way street. Let the information flow and justice prevail.

    1. Re:I'm okay with this by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly, this is the proper response to police being filmed, not confiscating cameras and arresting people who dare to disrespect their authority. The only issue left now in my mind is mandatory retention and access under sunshine laws.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:I'm okay with this by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we can film them in public places then they can do the same

      No, they can't. They are there to enforce the law. They are not a news agency.
      If they have issues on how people behave, they should go to court. Then a judge can decide if it was illegal or not.

      In no way should they be able to start posting these. Very specific exceptions might be given by a judge, not even by themselves. And only if it could help solve a case.

      Again, they are not the bringers of news.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  5. Re:power to the people by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i guess police are people, too...

    ... that must be held to a higher standard.

  6. I find it hard to believe the police these days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I find it hard to be on the side of the police these days. I live in Montréal, and I've seen and read about a lot of police abuse. They always have an excuse, a reason or some lie. I would be more inclined to believe them if they would show us what they are doing against inappropriate conduct by their own officers, or if they would publicly acknowledge any wrongdoing when it happens. When they constantly protect the ass of their officers, they lose credibility. When the press is constantly attacked by the police while trying to capture what is happening, they lose credibility. When they hide their badge number so we can't report them, we know they are up to no good. When they kettle a group of people, and then tell them to disperse while not letting them, well they probably think we're stupid about believing that they gave the people a way out. And when they detain and arrest people for no valid reason, or to issue them a traffic ticket because people were protesting peacefully, well they should consider themselves lucky we're not acting like the miners in Spain and all we do is put a video of their wrongdoing on the net.

  7. In contrast by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Police Unions are resistant to reviews of dash cam footage
    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20120422-officers-complaints-prompt-dallas-police-to-suspend-units-reviews-of-squad-car-video.ece
    http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-police-union-opposes-random-reviews-of-officers-dash-cam-videos-20120105,0,451142.story

    /And don't get me started on retention policies for dash cam footage.
    //Without any specific laws in place, most police departments more or less do what they want.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  8. Re:Post it all. by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What?

    So cops come to your house in response to a call and film it, for whatever reason. Turns out you didn't do anything but someone said it was a domestic abuse case. You want that film if you answering the door at 2am public? Even though you didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?

    I agree the police side should delete the film, if it was kept, but making it public ... not so much.

  9. Blue Code of Silence by saibot834 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is fine, they should present their own point of view. The evidence suggests however, that police brutality exists and that often there is no persecution of the perpetrators – sometimes they even drop investigations against police and instead charge the victims with resisting arrest.

    There is a Blue Code of Silence in the police that will protect a violent minority of policemen. In Germany there was a famous case of police brutality at a demonstration "freedom not fear", where the CCC released a video of the incident. First of all the policemen had to be identified, which was only possible because it was a HD video, since despite Amnesty's calls for a identification tags for policemen, there is none. When the accused police officers were questioned, they were provably lying, because the CCC had another unpublished video disproving the statements by the police. They were later convicted, but only had to pay a few thousand bucks.

  10. Unblinking eye blinking by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's this, social activists edit their posted videos to hide the truth? Shocking!

  11. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    police officers should have to wear personal recorders that stream their actions to the police station. This video should be available to the public on request.

  12. They should be forced to release video by saibot834 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In case of a legal dispute, the police should be forced to release their video, as to provide the clearest possible picture of the case. They should not only release them when it suits them. Unfortunately, presumably incriminating police videos often end up "missing", with little or no consequences for the policemen.

  13. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Errr....

    And so you think spraying large amounts of pepper spray into people's face because they are protesting is ok then?

    riiiigghhhtt....

    Is democracy completely dead in your country or what?

  14. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".

    The narrative remained "non-violent protesters, undeterred by threat of violence from police, ultimately met with violence by police".

  15. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by realisticradical · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".

    Just because they were given fair warning doesn't make it even close to a proper use of force. The police could have arrested everyone for trespassing or illegally blocking a walkway (if that's illegal). Any protester who didn't simply allow himself to be arrested could then be charged with resisting arrest. Only if the protesters fought back would the use of force be reasonable.

    How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?

  16. Re:Post it all. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should, AND losing any video should be a crime in itself. Severity of the punishment should be the same as that for the crime for which the video is needed as evidence.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  17. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not legal to use pepper spray on peaceful protesters in the United States.

    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/11/16/211132/23

  18. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ten the un-edited video came out, and it showed the police office walking up to each protester, telling them that if they didn't move they would be pepper-sprayed, and to a person they all sat ad waited for the officer to do what he said he would do.

    Yes, he said he would violently repress their right to peaceably assemble, and then he did. Who could find fault with that?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  19. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, democracy is completely dead in the US.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  20. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Zakabog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From just his comment it sounds like they were sitting in the middle of a street blocking the crosswalk, which is not only illegal it's also dangerous (especially in NYC.) Most of the OWS people I've seen who are the "victims" of police brutality put themselves into situations where they know they will be forcibly removed just so they can claim brutality. They're not protesting they're being douchebags enticing violence so they have something to point to and say "Look we're victims!" And yes pepper spray is probably the best option considering the second option is beating them with a nightstick till they unlock their arms so you can physically move them one at a time.

    Unless of course you have a much more effective method to use in that sort of situation that doesn't put the officer in harms way...

  21. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?

    Well, "stop making me feel threatened regardless of how reasonable that perception of threat might be or I will shoot you with a gun" is fair play in some states.

  22. Predictions by realisticradical · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think this is an entirely reasonable response. Instead of trying to shutdown speech the police are offering another side of the story. Good.

    Of course some of the broader implications are pretty interesting. An individual can basically edit a video to show the part where the police are beating the crap out of him and ignore the earlier part where he's spitting and throwing rocks. The police, on the other hand, don't get the luxury of using video simply as a PR mouthpiece. If this sort of response to protesters becomes commonplace it will be interesting to see what happens the first time an edited video comes out from the police. More interesting will be the cases where people start requesting these videos as evidence against the police at their trials.

  23. Re:What about cops? by jxander · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I seem to recall that show focusing on the "fun" stuff (for varying definitions of fun). I never saw a single episode where a cop rolled around his beat for 30 minutes, and cut to credits. I don't even recall seeing a routine stop. Imagine that episode: cop flashes his lights, car pulls over, speeding ticket issued, no drama, motorist apologizes for the violation and goes about their business. That's boring, doesn't get airtime.

    Every episode had some form of chase, either on foot on in the cars, or they had cops tackling drunken rednecks or breaking up fights, getting shot at, etc. That's exciting, that's what airs.

    Fast-forward to the current situation: protests. We-the-people don't want to see video of cops politely asking 15 times for someone to clear out. We get bored watching police standing around while protesters peacefully demonstrate, which is what's actually happening 95% of the time. We want the videos where someone gets punched, or slapped in cuffs and dragged away from their tent... even if you have to cut out the previous 6 hours of the cop telling people that they're not allowed to take a crap in the grass.

    --
    This signature is false.
  24. that's absurd by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so a demonstrator is allowed to present their side of a story to the court of public opinion, and the police can only present their side of the story to an actual court?

    one or the other: both police and demonstrators can engage the court of public opinion, or both police and demonstrators must keep their footage for an actual court of law. you choose

    i don't understand this point of view that only demonstrators can engage the public. the police are not alien beings, they are our neighbors, tasked with a job we want them to do, keep the law and order. if they abuse someone, we want to see the video and we want to have them judged. if someone LIES about them abusing someone, we want to see that video too and the liar to be judged. as a citizen, i want to hear both sides. you will not tell me i can't hear or see the policeman's side of the story, just as much as you or the government can't tell me i can't hear the demonstrator's side of the story. transparency is the only way justice can work, and that truth works BOTH ways. shrouding one side, or the other, is when abuses get perpetrated, whether by police, or demonstrator

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. old problem by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    every single demonstrator should have a camera. every single cop should have a camera. now you have a proper adversarial situation. when something goes bad, whether the fault of demonstrator or cop, now we will clearly know

    the more cameras, on either side, the better. who cares if someone loses something? the incriminatory evidence should be available from the side that wants to present the abuse that was perpetrated

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  26. Re:power to the people by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Statistics and misguided hate do not make all police fit your image of an officer. I know, in fact, many extremely smart police officers. Many of them, even those who aren't that smart, are very kind and easygoing people. The fact is, their job requires them to have a very definitive good/bad policy on virtually everything they encounter, and often leads them to deal with very abusive/belligerent/annoying people.

    Let's consider that the time you most encounter police is when there is some sort of serious problem occurring. A traffic accident, robbery, assault, whatever. They are tense situations, where you have to understand the cops can't crack jokes and act like your buddy - they have a very specific job to do. Consider, also, that you can't fathom the amount of people who harass them, annoying people they need to deal with a-la bums, drunks, etc. Their job really does suck quite often, they don't get paid that much, and they are there to help you when you need it.

    That said, I think it is fantastic that the police are embracing video as those trying to hold them accountable have. Video is a great tool, and for a person charged with upholding peace and establishing the truth of crimes, it is crazy they haven't been using this in every aspect of their jobs already.

    I just hope they respect the boundaries on video surveillance placed on them by the law. None of that "Whoops, my camera happened to look in your second story window without a warrant".

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  27. Re:posts like this make me laugh by ifwm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but as long as you have this "us" versus "them"

    You mean the exact mentality the police ADMIT they have?

    they are accountable to us, they are accountable to YOU

    No, this is a lie. They are accountable to their supervisors, and to accountability boards that are staffed by ex-police, and to Internal Affairs, who are also police.

    NOWHERE in that process can a citizen bring accountability. Qualified Immunity prevents lawsuits except in the most egregious, and rare, circumstances. If IA and the accountability boards don't hold a cop responsible, you're out of luck.

    You can't elect them out, you can't vote them out, so this "they are accountable to you" tripe is just blatantly false.

    not the entirety of the police force

    The entirety of the force colludes in protecting the bad apples. And you make excuses for them because they "kiss their kids at night" or some other "think of the CHILDREN" sappy bullshit.

    stop talking about them like they invasive inscrutable species out to hurt you for no reason

    I will when they stop living up to the description.

    http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18722525/2012/06/06/prince-georges-county-police-officers-under-criminal-investigation?obref=obinsite

    FTFA "WALDORF, Md. -Two Prince George's County police officers are under criminal investigation in Charles County for allegedly handcuffing, detaining and assaulting a teenager in order to teach him a lesson."

    Now, that's two cops plus every other cop who covered for them. You forget, they have a responsiblity to uphold the law, so every single officer who knew about that incident and didn't turn those cops in is legally culpable. But you ignore that in your rush to paint a portrait even more distorted than the one you're crying about.

    maybe you'll actually get something accomplished about their behavior

    No, the current "Fuck the Police" attitude has done more to bring attention to these issues than the copsucking you're suggesting ever did. That, and ubiquitous cameras. However, I don't fault you, collaborators always suggest collaboration, it's easier than resistance and you collaborators tend toward laziness and cowardice.

    I appreciate your opinion, but as you can see, you really have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Frankly, you take a startlingly similar line to cops themselves, and I have to wonder if you have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome.

    You're a citizen. It's your DUTY to resist tyranny. Not sit by and defend it because it kisses it's kids forehead at night.

  28. Re:What about cops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aye. When I was younger, like everyone else I used to watch videos of violent demonstrations on TV. Then the G20 summit came to town and one day I went to watch the protest. I followed the peaceful march to downtown then watched the protests from a footbridge for 2 hours. The demonstrators peacefully chanted slogans, beat on drums and waved signs, much to the dismay of the watching bystanders who'd occasionally yell "come on do something!" Sure once in a while a bored cop would fire something into the protesters who'd simply retreat and advance back cautiously asking for peace, again much to the dismay of the bored spectators...

    Later when the crowd had dispersed, I ran back home and excitedly turned on the News to see the coverage of the first peaceful G20 protest ever. What did the media say? "Protesters were out again today during the summit, they smashed the windows of a McDonald's and Starbucks and police had to repeatedly fire warning shots at them." No mention of the hours of peaceful protest, none, zip, nada.

    The media today isn't the press of 1890s. They're not there to report the truth, they're simply trying to make a buck like the rest of us. If they reported the entire truth, it'll be either boring and people would switch to another outlet, too shocking and people would switch again, or start a revolution that might make the media lose their comfortable home and present way of life. So they don't lie, but they sure as hell don't tell you the entire story. Beware.

  29. Re:What about cops? by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Classic story. So you got busted for riding a bike with "fictitious tags, no license, and no insurance", and your biggest complaint is about the "redneck" cop who was yelling at his dog? And you admit to doing 70 in a 35? You're such a dick you don't even realize it.