In an unrelated note, British Intelligence just "acquired" a new Hypersonick Glider. No details given yet.
In an unrelated note, the Peckham Boys just acquired a new Hypersonic Glider... politicians are debating restricting citizens access to the NASA website.
Usually when I think of Religious Right, I'm not thinking the extremists. Particularly, because the people saying religious right as a derogatory term are so far un-religious that I would seem fanatical to them.
I'm about as un-religious as you can get, but, unless you buy into the YEC nonsense and want to repeal the abortion laws and "Un-Gay Dem Homo-Sexuals", I doubt I'd consider you a fanatic. I might think you're a silly bugger, but certainly not a fanatic:)
To be fair, "religious right" is a spectrum that goes from relatively rational individuals to complete lunatics. Bush would have been classed as part of the religious right, but I don't consider him a fanatic (even if he did like to make policy decisions based on talks with an invisible friend). The "Tea-Party" would be considered part of the religious right at this point (though it started off libertarian) but I wouldn't class all of them in the "crazy" category. Then again, Michelle Bachman seems to be their current darling, and she's definitely an extremist.
Sadly, the biggest problem the right-wing currently has in the US is the extremist religious component. Personally, I liked Bush. I liked McCain; I would have voted for him over Obama, if I were an American. But Obama vs. Bachmann? It's not even a contest. As long as the right wing continues to be controlled by religious fanatics, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to get their candidate elected.
Anyway, this is turning too political. The point was that the more religious a group is, the fewer scientists they tend to have amongst their ranks. So yeah, the religious community as a whole tends to have a lower ratio of scientists than the general population, the Republican-and-Christian subset has less than that, and the Republican-and-crazy-Christian subset has even less than that. How many are in your definition of "religious right" depends on where in the spectrum you take your sample.
Re:It'll never make it through FDA trials
on
Cancer Cured By HIV
·
· Score: 1
Why would Big Pharma cure cancer if they could convert it from a deadly disease into a chronic condition (and profit from selling you the treatment) instead?
Because they realize they can make almost as much money by curing it, PLUS they can generate a whole lot of good publicity? Because they realize that SOMEONE is going to do it sooner or later, and they'd rather it not be their competition? Because scientists and, yes, even CEOs have freinds and family they care about? Because their stockholders have friends and family they care about? Because most people really do care about the human race, and are willing to take a small cut in profits if it means doing something really really awesome?
You're not going to find a lot of scientists in the religious right? That's news to me. I would list a few tens of thousands scientists who also have a faith in God and practice that faith, but the exercise would be in vain.
*sigh* Do you even know what a strawman is?
He said in the religious right. As in, the far-right fanatics who want to make every kid pray in school, and believe Jesus rode around on a Raptor. How many scientists do you suppose you'll find amongst those retards, hrm?
Scientists are less likely to be religious in general, but they are far less likely to be part of extremist religious organization. The more extreme/fundamentalist the christian group, the less likely it is to have any scientists in it. And the few scientists who happen to be members will be guys like Ken Ham - people with dubious educational backgrounds, who have made no significant contributions to their supposed "profession".
The problem with this view is that it tends to see history as a...
Yes, yes, I'm aware of the problem, but there's so much history that we could dedicated 50% of a students school-time to it from grade 1 until university, and still not cover everything in any kind of significant detail. We have enough difficulty teaching history to kids as it is - I don't think we'd be doing them any favors by trying to squeeze in 10 times as much material.
IHMO you did when you compared them to (present-day) Afghanistan and Somalia.
I didn't compare Islam to Afghanistan and Somalia, I suggested that, during the dark ages, the Caliphate was to Europe what Afghanistan is (today) to Somalia. And that was in the context of your claim that the Islamic world was "a beacon of civilization", so I wasn't speaking specifically about science anyway. In other words, yes, they were far better, but they were still far from what we would consider civilized or progressive.
But they were definitely on a path towards that accomplishment
Sure, but somehow they never got there.
As for science -- the whole scientific process was invented in the Islamic world, even if it wasn't formulated as such.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that the Greeks might have beat them by a few years. Plus we have records of Egyptian discussions on empirical methodology even earlier than that. But yes, Islamic scholars did contribute quite a bit during the 500 years when they were relatively free to do good science. I never claimed otherwise.
The simple fact that the period between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance is called the Dark Ages betrays an incredible anti-Islamic bias in Western thought. Because outside of Europe, and even in Moorish Spain, civilization was flourishing.
lol. No, man. It "betrays" the fact that we tend to focus on the history of our ancestors, rather than the history of other cultures. It's utterly absurd to claim that the phrase "dark ages" is anti-Islamic.
You're a typical dumb American gun-wielding bully.
Perhaps you should learn to read sigs.
How the hell can one fire from a plane the size of planes which the WTC was designed to resist, with less fuel than in the original plans, cause a collapse on that scale?
It couldn't. Which is why you make sure your "question" is filled with lies - so that everyone will go "hrm, wow, that's weird!". I count three lies in just that one single "question". If you left out the lies, it would sound a lot less ominous.
Even Underwriters' Laboratories threw in their two pence in court, and that case was settled out of court, with the US Govt. accepting that the laws of physics as UL saw them must have been bent, BECAUSE THE STEEL WAS OK???
See, this is why I don't want to waste any more time arguing with you - because you honestly seem to think that your shitty research skills are a good basis for making far-reaching conclusions about global events. That's sad. I don't argue with people whom I pity.
Tell ya what - if you can go, do a bit of research, and come back and tell me exactly what's wrong with your two "questions" - or at least tell me what three lies I saw in the first "question" - I'll take the time to try and educate you a bit. However, I'm not willing to put in that kind of effort unless you can show me that it will be worthwhile. The decision is yours - whether I respond again is entirely up to you.
I just found out about it myself a couple months ago. Now I'm using a cheap $25 Bluetooth ODBII reader, along with the "Torque" app on my Android Honeycomb tablet. Works awesome. Better than the $150 dedicated reader I bought a few years back, since I can get real-time readouts, save trip statistics, etc. Highly recommended!
Hopefully they'll use one of those Compaq computers from the late 80's. They had a steel chassis and were heavy as hell. Throw one in with an Osborne Luggable. If you accelerate those bad boys to the speed of light & smash 'em together, any spare Higgs Bosons stuck inside will be sure to come flying out.
They'll come flying out alright. Probably land somewhere in texas. Along with whatever parts of the LHC don't end up in China or Australia.
The middle classes have less to be angry about so it takes more to push them to violence.
Hardly. I'm pretty pissed off about half my paycheque being confiscated to pay for people who don't work, and then having those same people turn around and attack cops, loot businesses, and set buildings on fire. Far as I'm concerned, the middle class has way more to be angry about. The very underclass which we're paying to support is attacking us and destroying our stuff because we apparently don't give them enough.
Give a man a fish, and pretty soon he'll riot for more fish.
The bus was just an easy target.
I was being sarcastic. Making the point that more innocent people get killed by bus drivers than by police, yet you don't see people calling bus drivers "pigs" or using those deaths to justify rioting. Why? Because it has nothing to do with "innocent deaths" - it has to do with the fact that cops are the embodiment of the power of the state, and the fact that certain types of people hate authority of any type. Poor understanding of math/statistics doesn't really help, either.
No, I'm on the side of law and order. I don't believe that self-righteous thugs should be allowed to harm people and destroy property built by the hard labour of others.
The vast majority of residents leaving Manchester that night made their support for the actions clear
That's just a lie. Either you're completely delusional, or you're intentionaly lying.
You're missing all of my points entirely; people are waking up to the fact that JD sports make 1000% profits whilst employing slaves in China for pennies, causing rife unemployment here.
If you honestly think that the riots are based on such abstract concepts, you're a bigger fool than I thought. The fact that the claim itself is complete bullshit just makes the whole thing even more absurd.
My political beliefs are the only sustainable political beliefs in existence
Wow. Talk about egomania. Yes, princess, youâ(TM)re the only one who matters and the only one who knows the truth. Whatever you say.
Who do you think saved those works from antiquity so that renaissance scholars could rediscover them and jump-start the enlightenment era in Europe? It was Islamic scholars, and they were only able to do so because the Islamic empire was a beacon of civilisation for almost a thousand years.
Not exactly, no. Even during the dark ages, it's not like everything of any scholarly value was being destroyed. Many of those "works from antiquity" were either ignored, or hidden by Europeans. Many were simply lost in time, to be dug up at a later date.
Much of it was also saved by Muslim scholars, yes. And yes, the Islamic empire was "a beacon of civilization", in the sense that Afghanistan might be considered a "beacon of civilization" for Somalia. That's not really saying much, though. Let's not pretend that the Islamic world has ever had anything even slightly similar to the Enlightenment, or the secular, scientific, democratic societies which stemmed from the Enlightenment.
It is about class. It's about a class of people who were sick with the police abusing them.
Oh, ok. In that case, when can we expect to see a riot of middle-class people who are sick with the gangs and criminals abusing them? I can just picture it now: a bunch of lawyers and businessmen with torches and pitchforks, burning down the ghetto and beating up anyone wearing 'bling' or a hoody.
Whattayamean that never happens? Why not?
The police have abused their anti-terror powers beyond all reason and they have killed two innocent people in recent history not counting the recent shooting which is still unknown.
Yeah! Just like those bus drivers who keep abusing their power, and have killed at least 3 innocent people this year alone! I totally get why the rioters were torching busses.
I assume that "working poor" means you actually have to be working?
Now, now. Let's be fair. The rioters ARE the working poor. Selling drugs and stolen car stereos is a type of work. And they only had one 52" LCD TV at home - clearly they're poor, and had no choice but to steal a second one.
Those police can end this right now by turning around, and enforcing the people's will on those who have caused these problems, since, well whenever.
If they were enforcing the peoples will, they'd start shooting looters on sight. Your perverse political beliefs notwithstanding, even you must realize that the majority of the citizens want the riots quashed and the perpetrators punished.
Large empires have always fallen when new technologies have arisen
This is largely nonsense. I'm sure you can think of one or two examples where technology contributed to the collapse of a kingdom or empire but, for the most part, empires fall when they overextend themselves, when they're destroyed by external enemies, or when they allow social tension to tear them apart. Technology plays a minor role, if it plays a role at all.
I swear the next person who says "the poor get poorer" is getting beaten to death with the $200 sneakers I just saw on the "homeless" kid down the street.
Oh wow. You mean when someone gets beaten, they end up all bruised and bloody? CRAZY. I thought it was all like in the cartoons, with lots of flying around and flashing lights, and the bad guys going back to their lairs to mutter about those damn do-gooders.
Sorry, but emotional appeals don't carry much weight with me. I doubt Osama looked any better. The context is what's important. If some child-rapist-serial-killer hopped up on coke and PCP ends up looking like that after an altercation with the cops, I don't particularly give a shit. If it's an 80 year old grandmother who can barely walk two steps without falling down, that's a different story. Given his psychological issues, it's difficult to say where he falls on that spectrum. So, let me reemphasize my previous statement: you DO NOT have enough information to reach that conclusion. Jumping to conclusions based on blurry video footage or a picture of the guy in hospital is asinine.
It doesn't matter how many police were involved as long as there was at least one involved in this. If those 3 or 6 police couldn't take him down peacefully they should have called for someone capable.
Cool - give me your contact info and I'll let your local PD know they should get in touch with you next time there's any kind of violent confrontation. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you show them how it's done.
Or just charge him with assault, and fire him if he's convicted. I'd go with that option, personally. Don't really want tranquilized cops engaging in high-speed pursuits - just doesn't seem very safe.
"Vile, irrational pieces of shit" - yeah, you don't have any prejudices of your own.
Of course I do. Doesn't everyone? The difference is that I'm judging them based on their own words, and I'm not calling for them to be executed or imprisoned.
I've seen nurses, most of them female, and orderlies deal with psychotic or agitated patients - so far, not one has had to break a patient's limbs, strangle them or beat their faces into the floor.
I've seen a 14 year old girl break a 220lb cops arm. I'm not sure why you think an argument from ignorance is the best way to define how a given situation should be handled.
I can't really conceive of any situation where 6 (presumably fit) police officers would have trouble subduing an unarmed suspect in a way that wouldn't cause his death.
Well, I just watched the clip. And, surprise surprise, it doesn't show anything like what the cop-haters say it does. For one thing, there don't appear to be 6 cops - there appear to be 3. More cops arrive during the video, but how many were there at what time, and who did what, is far from conclusive.
Anyway, to answer your question, even if there had been 6 cops, there certainly are circumstances under which they'd have trouble subduing him without killing him. People having a psychotic episode, people abusing narcotics, people with "hysterical strength"... all of these can potentially cause situations where the individual is capable of incredible feats of strength, is able to ignore pain, and can sometimes even shrug-off - for a short period of time - injuries which would normally be instantly fatal. If you'd ever worked in any kind of capacity where use-of-force is a part of the job, you'd be familiar with these concepts; as a civilian it's quite easy to stand there and do some armchair quarterbacking, just like the morons who filmed that video were doing (I especially love the jackass mentioning the Vegas case). Even worse, you're using an argument from ignorance to justify jumping to a conclusion; how about waiting to get some information about what happened, instead? I know the digital-age has made people impatient, but this is ridiculous.
Tazering once to get him down is fine, and then closing and grappling with him. One officer per limb, one on the head to prevent biting, and one to help get the restraints on. The injuries all around would have been minor to insignificant. This man didn't need to die.
That may very well be, but you DO NOT have enough information to reach that conclusion. At best you're guessing. Which is fine - that's your right, and at least you're being calm about it; I'm simply pointing out that these conclusions are premature, and that those who go the extra step - calling for the cops to be executed - are vile, irrational pieces of shit who should never be trusted with any real responsibility. Apparently they can't even be trusted to use their mod points in a responsible manner. Be thankful that they aren't the ones patrolling your streets.
Slashdot Mirror
In an unrelated note, British Intelligence just "acquired" a new Hypersonick Glider. No details given yet.
In an unrelated note, the Peckham Boys just acquired a new Hypersonic Glider ... politicians are debating restricting citizens access to the NASA website.
Usually when I think of Religious Right, I'm not thinking the extremists. Particularly, because the people saying religious right as a derogatory term are so far un-religious that I would seem fanatical to them.
I'm about as un-religious as you can get, but, unless you buy into the YEC nonsense and want to repeal the abortion laws and "Un-Gay Dem Homo-Sexuals", I doubt I'd consider you a fanatic. I might think you're a silly bugger, but certainly not a fanatic :)
To be fair, "religious right" is a spectrum that goes from relatively rational individuals to complete lunatics. Bush would have been classed as part of the religious right, but I don't consider him a fanatic (even if he did like to make policy decisions based on talks with an invisible friend). The "Tea-Party" would be considered part of the religious right at this point (though it started off libertarian) but I wouldn't class all of them in the "crazy" category. Then again, Michelle Bachman seems to be their current darling, and she's definitely an extremist.
Sadly, the biggest problem the right-wing currently has in the US is the extremist religious component. Personally, I liked Bush. I liked McCain; I would have voted for him over Obama, if I were an American. But Obama vs. Bachmann? It's not even a contest. As long as the right wing continues to be controlled by religious fanatics, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to get their candidate elected.
Anyway, this is turning too political. The point was that the more religious a group is, the fewer scientists they tend to have amongst their ranks. So yeah, the religious community as a whole tends to have a lower ratio of scientists than the general population, the Republican-and-Christian subset has less than that, and the Republican-and-crazy-Christian subset has even less than that. How many are in your definition of "religious right" depends on where in the spectrum you take your sample.
Why would Big Pharma cure cancer if they could convert it from a deadly disease into a chronic condition (and profit from selling you the treatment) instead?
Because they realize they can make almost as much money by curing it, PLUS they can generate a whole lot of good publicity?
Because they realize that SOMEONE is going to do it sooner or later, and they'd rather it not be their competition?
Because scientists and, yes, even CEOs have freinds and family they care about?
Because their stockholders have friends and family they care about?
Because most people really do care about the human race, and are willing to take a small cut in profits if it means doing something really really awesome?
In other words, because not everyone is like you.
You're not going to find a lot of scientists in the religious right? That's news to me. I would list a few tens of thousands scientists who also have a faith in God and practice that faith, but the exercise would be in vain.
*sigh* Do you even know what a strawman is?
He said in the religious right. As in, the far-right fanatics who want to make every kid pray in school, and believe Jesus rode around on a Raptor. How many scientists do you suppose you'll find amongst those retards, hrm?
Scientists are less likely to be religious in general, but they are far less likely to be part of extremist religious organization. The more extreme/fundamentalist the christian group, the less likely it is to have any scientists in it. And the few scientists who happen to be members will be guys like Ken Ham - people with dubious educational backgrounds, who have made no significant contributions to their supposed "profession".
The problem with this view is that it tends to see history as a ...
Yes, yes, I'm aware of the problem, but there's so much history that we could dedicated 50% of a students school-time to it from grade 1 until university, and still not cover everything in any kind of significant detail. We have enough difficulty teaching history to kids as it is - I don't think we'd be doing them any favors by trying to squeeze in 10 times as much material.
IHMO you did when you compared them to (present-day) Afghanistan and Somalia.
I didn't compare Islam to Afghanistan and Somalia, I suggested that, during the dark ages, the Caliphate was to Europe what Afghanistan is (today) to Somalia. And that was in the context of your claim that the Islamic world was "a beacon of civilization", so I wasn't speaking specifically about science anyway. In other words, yes, they were far better, but they were still far from what we would consider civilized or progressive.
But they were definitely on a path towards that accomplishment
Sure, but somehow they never got there.
As for science -- the whole scientific process was invented in the Islamic world, even if it wasn't formulated as such.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that the Greeks might have beat them by a few years. Plus we have records of Egyptian discussions on empirical methodology even earlier than that. But yes, Islamic scholars did contribute quite a bit during the 500 years when they were relatively free to do good science. I never claimed otherwise.
The simple fact that the period between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance is called the Dark Ages betrays an incredible anti-Islamic bias in Western thought. Because outside of Europe, and even in Moorish Spain, civilization was flourishing.
lol. No, man. It "betrays" the fact that we tend to focus on the history of our ancestors, rather than the history of other cultures. It's utterly absurd to claim that the phrase "dark ages" is anti-Islamic.
You're a typical dumb American gun-wielding bully.
Perhaps you should learn to read sigs.
How the hell can one fire from a plane the size of planes which the WTC was designed to resist, with less fuel than in the original plans, cause a collapse on that scale?
It couldn't. Which is why you make sure your "question" is filled with lies - so that everyone will go "hrm, wow, that's weird!". I count three lies in just that one single "question". If you left out the lies, it would sound a lot less ominous.
Even Underwriters' Laboratories threw in their two pence in court, and that case was settled out of court, with the US Govt. accepting that the laws of physics as UL saw them must have been bent, BECAUSE THE STEEL WAS OK???
See, this is why I don't want to waste any more time arguing with you - because you honestly seem to think that your shitty research skills are a good basis for making far-reaching conclusions about global events. That's sad. I don't argue with people whom I pity.
Tell ya what - if you can go, do a bit of research, and come back and tell me exactly what's wrong with your two "questions" - or at least tell me what three lies I saw in the first "question" - I'll take the time to try and educate you a bit. However, I'm not willing to put in that kind of effort unless you can show me that it will be worthwhile. The decision is yours - whether I respond again is entirely up to you.
With a name "c6gunner" I would hazard a guess you think 9//1 wasn't an inside job
Yep, that's right, I'm not a whacked-out nutjob. Thanks for explaining what the problem is, here. I won't waste any more time. Cheers.
I just found out about it myself a couple months ago. Now I'm using a cheap $25 Bluetooth ODBII reader, along with the "Torque" app on my Android Honeycomb tablet. Works awesome. Better than the $150 dedicated reader I bought a few years back, since I can get real-time readouts, save trip statistics, etc. Highly recommended!
Hopefully they'll use one of those Compaq computers from the late 80's. They had a steel chassis and were heavy as hell. Throw one in with an Osborne Luggable. If you accelerate those bad boys to the speed of light & smash 'em together, any spare Higgs Bosons stuck inside will be sure to come flying out.
They'll come flying out alright. Probably land somewhere in texas. Along with whatever parts of the LHC don't end up in China or Australia.
The middle classes have less to be angry about so it takes more to push them to violence.
Hardly. I'm pretty pissed off about half my paycheque being confiscated to pay for people who don't work, and then having those same people turn around and attack cops, loot businesses, and set buildings on fire. Far as I'm concerned, the middle class has way more to be angry about. The very underclass which we're paying to support is attacking us and destroying our stuff because we apparently don't give them enough.
Give a man a fish, and pretty soon he'll riot for more fish.
The bus was just an easy target.
I was being sarcastic. Making the point that more innocent people get killed by bus drivers than by police, yet you don't see people calling bus drivers "pigs" or using those deaths to justify rioting. Why? Because it has nothing to do with "innocent deaths" - it has to do with the fact that cops are the embodiment of the power of the state, and the fact that certain types of people hate authority of any type. Poor understanding of math/statistics doesn't really help, either.
They're supposed to ingest it so they make sure they don't have time to acquire calories from food.
Yah. Just make sure you chew slowly and deliberately, or it could get very uncomfortable ...
No, no you're obviously on the side of capital
No, I'm on the side of law and order. I don't believe that self-righteous thugs should be allowed to harm people and destroy property built by the hard labour of others.
The vast majority of residents leaving Manchester that night made their support for the actions clear
That's just a lie. Either you're completely delusional, or you're intentionaly lying.
You're missing all of my points entirely; people are waking up to the fact that JD sports make 1000% profits whilst employing slaves in China for pennies, causing rife unemployment here.
If you honestly think that the riots are based on such abstract concepts, you're a bigger fool than I thought. The fact that the claim itself is complete bullshit just makes the whole thing even more absurd.
My political beliefs are the only sustainable political beliefs in existence
Wow. Talk about egomania. Yes, princess, youâ(TM)re the only one who matters and the only one who knows the truth. Whatever you say.
Who do you think saved those works from antiquity so that renaissance scholars could rediscover them and jump-start the enlightenment era in Europe? It was Islamic scholars, and they were only able to do so because the Islamic empire was a beacon of civilisation for almost a thousand years.
Not exactly, no. Even during the dark ages, it's not like everything of any scholarly value was being destroyed. Many of those "works from antiquity" were either ignored, or hidden by Europeans. Many were simply lost in time, to be dug up at a later date.
Much of it was also saved by Muslim scholars, yes. And yes, the Islamic empire was "a beacon of civilization", in the sense that Afghanistan might be considered a "beacon of civilization" for Somalia. That's not really saying much, though. Let's not pretend that the Islamic world has ever had anything even slightly similar to the Enlightenment, or the secular, scientific, democratic societies which stemmed from the Enlightenment.
It is about class. It's about a class of people who were sick with the police abusing them.
Oh, ok. In that case, when can we expect to see a riot of middle-class people who are sick with the gangs and criminals abusing them? I can just picture it now: a bunch of lawyers and businessmen with torches and pitchforks, burning down the ghetto and beating up anyone wearing 'bling' or a hoody.
Whattayamean that never happens? Why not?
The police have abused their anti-terror powers beyond all reason and they have killed two innocent people in recent history not counting the recent shooting which is still unknown.
Yeah! Just like those bus drivers who keep abusing their power, and have killed at least 3 innocent people this year alone! I totally get why the rioters were torching busses.
I assume that "working poor" means you actually have to be working?
Now, now. Let's be fair. The rioters ARE the working poor. Selling drugs and stolen car stereos is a type of work. And they only had one 52" LCD TV at home - clearly they're poor, and had no choice but to steal a second one.
Those police can end this right now by turning around, and enforcing the people's will on those who have caused these problems, since, well whenever.
If they were enforcing the peoples will, they'd start shooting looters on sight. Your perverse political beliefs notwithstanding, even you must realize that the majority of the citizens want the riots quashed and the perpetrators punished.
Large empires have always fallen when new technologies have arisen
This is largely nonsense. I'm sure you can think of one or two examples where technology contributed to the collapse of a kingdom or empire but, for the most part, empires fall when they overextend themselves, when they're destroyed by external enemies, or when they allow social tension to tear them apart. Technology plays a minor role, if it plays a role at all.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "strawman". Go look it up, and try again.
I swear the next person who says "the poor get poorer" is getting beaten to death with the $200 sneakers I just saw on the "homeless" kid down the street.
Here we have a supposedly democratic country where, at the first sign of trouble, government officials are suggesting exactly the same thing.
Last I checked, "Editor of TechCrunch" is not a government position.
Here's your information: http://morallowground.com/wp-content/uploads/Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating-500x2995.jpg
Oh wow. You mean when someone gets beaten, they end up all bruised and bloody? CRAZY. I thought it was all like in the cartoons, with lots of flying around and flashing lights, and the bad guys going back to their lairs to mutter about those damn do-gooders.
Sorry, but emotional appeals don't carry much weight with me. I doubt Osama looked any better. The context is what's important. If some child-rapist-serial-killer hopped up on coke and PCP ends up looking like that after an altercation with the cops, I don't particularly give a shit. If it's an 80 year old grandmother who can barely walk two steps without falling down, that's a different story. Given his psychological issues, it's difficult to say where he falls on that spectrum. So, let me reemphasize my previous statement: you DO NOT have enough information to reach that conclusion. Jumping to conclusions based on blurry video footage or a picture of the guy in hospital is asinine.
It doesn't matter how many police were involved as long as there was at least one involved in this. If those 3 or 6 police couldn't take him down peacefully they should have called for someone capable.
Cool - give me your contact info and I'll let your local PD know they should get in touch with you next time there's any kind of violent confrontation. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you show them how it's done.
Or just charge him with assault, and fire him if he's convicted. I'd go with that option, personally. Don't really want tranquilized cops engaging in high-speed pursuits - just doesn't seem very safe.
"Vile, irrational pieces of shit" - yeah, you don't have any prejudices of your own.
Of course I do. Doesn't everyone? The difference is that I'm judging them based on their own words, and I'm not calling for them to be executed or imprisoned.
I've seen nurses, most of them female, and orderlies deal with psychotic or agitated patients - so far, not one has had to break a patient's limbs, strangle them or beat their faces into the floor.
I've seen a 14 year old girl break a 220lb cops arm. I'm not sure why you think an argument from ignorance is the best way to define how a given situation should be handled.
I can't really conceive of any situation where 6 (presumably fit) police officers would have trouble subduing an unarmed suspect in a way that wouldn't cause his death.
Well, I just watched the clip. And, surprise surprise, it doesn't show anything like what the cop-haters say it does. For one thing, there don't appear to be 6 cops - there appear to be 3. More cops arrive during the video, but how many were there at what time, and who did what, is far from conclusive.
Anyway, to answer your question, even if there had been 6 cops, there certainly are circumstances under which they'd have trouble subduing him without killing him. People having a psychotic episode, people abusing narcotics, people with "hysterical strength" ... all of these can potentially cause situations where the individual is capable of incredible feats of strength, is able to ignore pain, and can sometimes even shrug-off - for a short period of time - injuries which would normally be instantly fatal. If you'd ever worked in any kind of capacity where use-of-force is a part of the job, you'd be familiar with these concepts; as a civilian it's quite easy to stand there and do some armchair quarterbacking, just like the morons who filmed that video were doing (I especially love the jackass mentioning the Vegas case). Even worse, you're using an argument from ignorance to justify jumping to a conclusion; how about waiting to get some information about what happened, instead? I know the digital-age has made people impatient, but this is ridiculous.
Tazering once to get him down is fine, and then closing and grappling with him. One officer per limb, one on the head to prevent biting, and one to help get the restraints on. The injuries all around would have been minor to insignificant. This man didn't need to die.
That may very well be, but you DO NOT have enough information to reach that conclusion. At best you're guessing. Which is fine - that's your right, and at least you're being calm about it; I'm simply pointing out that these conclusions are premature, and that those who go the extra step - calling for the cops to be executed - are vile, irrational pieces of shit who should never be trusted with any real responsibility. Apparently they can't even be trusted to use their mod points in a responsible manner. Be thankful that they aren't the ones patrolling your streets.