Elite_Marksman

I would disagree. You don't need protection from someone a few miles away, you need protection from someone a few feet away. While a restraining order is great for telling someone they aren't welcome near you, it's not so great at actually doing that. "I'm sorry Ms. Crazy-as-hell Ex-Girlfriend, this piece of paper says you can't come within 100 yards of me, now please put down the knife and go away." Think that will work? Obviously, both is the correct choice, as a restraining order lets the other person know they are not welcome near you, and if you are not in immediate danger, the police can compel that person to leave. A gun, or any other weapon for that matter, is a tool to be used when your life or the life of another is in imminent danger - a situation in which a restraining order means absolutely nothing.

http://www.toyota.com/t3Portal/document/om/OM12D65U/pdf/sec_06-01.pdf Go to page 473, this is the PDF of the 2011 Corolla ($15k) owner's manual. It specifies 0W-20 as the recommended viscosity. 0W-20 is available only in synthetic. Care to try again?

Apparently the engineers that designed the engine decided otherwise. I think I'll go with them over some guy on the internet.

I'm not exactly sure as to how what type of wheels the car uses is related to what kind of lubrication the engine requires.

Box? I want the whole damn mine.

I don't understand why anyone operating a ship in one of the areas known for piracy wouldn't either have armed guards aboard or permit the crew to arm themselves...

The reason I would give the officer the pass in this instance is because the force that he used is appropriate in the context of compelling people to comply with a lawful order. And yes, I really would like a CCW, sadly I live in NJ where the government thinks guns are evil and doesn't issue CCW unless you have a really really good reason. This is part of the reason that as soon as I graduate and get a job in my field, I am leaving NJ (the other part is we pay out the ass for taxes to a corrupt government, but that is an entirely different topic). And I do not want a CCW because I am "afeerd." I want a CCW because I accept the fact that there are people in this world that wish to do me harm, and I would like the tools necessary to prevent them from doing so.

Regardless of whether or not he was unarmed, the force used by the police officer was most likely justified. Since you bring this up again though, prove to me he is unarmed. Assuming someone does not wish to or cannot do you harm is a good way to die. I have first-hand experience with this. In September 2010 I was the victim of an attempted robbery. Had I not been paying as close attention to my surroundings, I may have received far more than the minor cut to my forearm.

Please show me where I have denied this. You won't be able to, because numerous times in this thread I have said that it certainly does happen, but it is the exception to the rule. I bring up the other situations because, unlike you, I make an effort to see how anyone I run into throughout my day could cause me harm, not because I believe that any particular individual wishes to do so, but because I accept the fact that there are people who want to cause me harm. If I did not have this world view it is very likely we would not be having this conversation, as I would likely have been killed or seriously wounded about 14 months ago.

I'm sorry, I missed where I ever stated that less lethal weapons were incapable of causing death. I merely stated the FACT that the use of a less lethal weapon, when said weapon is used properly, is not considered lethal force. Without seeing the entire, unedited video, and preferably video from other sources you simply cannot know exactly what the situation was. For all we know the cameraman had a grenade in his other hand... I'll say it again, my guess is that the police had already issued a lawful order to disperse, some people (including the cameraman) decided that they did not want to disperse, so such force as required was used to encourage them to disperse. It appears it worked by the people moving quite quickly. OK.. that is the lamest thing I have ever fucking heard here on SC.. and Mike and Belgian can come up with some real doozies It's lame to acknowledge the fact that, based solely on the video you provided, we cannot know the exact situation? Surely you realize my statement about the grenade was sarcastic? Perhaps, then, we should change grenade to rock, baseball bat, broken bottle, or maybe the police couldn't recognize his camera for what it was in the darkness. In the context of this video, yes it is hard to believe that he had a grenade. However, if one were to take a similar situation in say, Syria, Isreal, Yemen, Chechnya, Serbia, or any other place that is currently experiencing extreme unrest, would it still be so hard to believe?

What if he had a piece of shit truck because he's too poor to afford anything else

I'm sorry, I missed where I ever stated that less lethal weapons were incapable of causing death. I merely stated the FACT that the use of a less lethal weapon, when said weapon is used properly, is not considered lethal force. Without seeing the entire, unedited video, and preferably video from other sources you simply cannot know exactly what the situation was. For all we know the cameraman had a grenade in his other hand... I'll say it again, my guess is that the police had already issued a lawful order to disperse, some people (including the cameraman) decided that they did not want to disperse, so such force as required was used to encourage them to disperse. It appears it worked by the people moving quite quickly.

The guy in the video was not shot, he was struck by a less lethal projectile. Unless the officer intentionally aimed at the person's head or neck, it is not considered deadly force.

Just because someone doesn't have a firearm or a knife does not mean that they are "unarmed." In almost, if not all, jurisdictions, intentionally throwing a rock at another person would be use of deadly force, and police would be justified to return deadly force.

Have you seen the entire video including what led up to this? Usually in cases where the police are deployed in full riot gear and are in formation is it no longer a "peaceful" assembly. Kent state is an entirely different matter, National Guard troops are the wrong choice to contain or disperse riots or potential riots. However, having the pleasure to have a professor last semester who was there, the students were not entirely blameless in what happened. She recalls seeing students throwing rocks and other objects at the soldiers before the soldiers opened fire.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/11/07-1 I would really like to see the whole video... My guess is that they were likely ordered to disperse, he wasn't dispersing, he got his answer as to "is this ok?"

She no longer needs to worry about those pesky job interviews after she decided to inject heroin (or whatever fish paralyzer it was) into her blood stream which caused her heart to stop. Note I used the past tense.

Can we please stop with the attacking of specific points out of context? If you read my posts in this thread I have stated numerous times that police abuse certainly does happen, and that people outside of the police abuse their power, and that violence in general is a fact of our lives. However, you seem to keep ignoring my statement that police abuse is the EXCEPTION[/B] not the rule. Yes, it happens, yes it's unfortunate, yes we should prevent it when possible. No I don't condone it, no I don't support officers who abuse their power, no I don't support officer who abuse the people. An entirely different argument to make though is many of these cases where it appears that the officers are using unnecessary force, in reality the person did something initially that required force to be used. Video doesn't tell the whole story unless you have the complete and un-edited copy. Witnesses certainly don't tell the story, as eye witnesses are among the LEAST reliable "evidence" that can be presented. You'll probably ignore this sentence too, but yes, police abuse does happen, officers who attack people unnecessarily should be prosecuted, but police brutality is the EXCEPTION to the rule. The vast majority of police officers do not use unnecessary force.

We do have laws, and should the officers "ass kicking" as you so describe it, be determined to fall outside the level of force that the officer was justified to use in the situation, the officer's actions will certainly be judged. Now, if you accept that the term "ass kicking" may have been used to describe actions that officers have legally taken to subdue a person who refused to comply with a lawful order, I hope we are in agreement. I certainly do not support anyone, police or otherwise, that decides to take matters into their own hands and deliver a "ass kicking." However, the police are in the unique position of being legally allowed to use such force as necessary to effect an arrest or compel another person to obey a lawfully given order. The amount of force that a police officer uses against a citizen is entirely dependent on how much force the citizen makes the police officer use.

Really, I suggest you go re-read the Constitution. Hell, I'll quote the relevant part for you here. I even bolded the important bit for you, and I'll put it here again in caps "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." Is that clear enough for you? [B]CONGRESS[/B] shall make no law forbidding the freedom of expression. As an employee you represent your employer, and he or she has the right to determine (to an extent, protected classes are excluded) what image they want to present to the public. For some reason, correct or otherwise, society has deemed that those who have extensive body modifications, especially modifications of the public areas of the body such as the face, neck, and hands, are "different" and some may even be afraid of them. Whether or not these concerns or fears are based on fact is not relevant to the situation, the fact remains that an employer can certainly deny you employment because you have a tattoo on your neck, or a lip ring that you cannot or will not remove. The Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, governs what conduct the government may or may not regulate, it does not concern itself with private matters.

This sounds like a fun place to live, but I see the productivity index going WAY down.

I will agree that I am new here, but in this and the few other threads that have been posted in the past month about police (question to AggieDave, this one, and a few others) I have yet to see anyone state that they support police who do abuse their power. If I am wrong please show me that I am.

I would hope that she was smart enough to remove said piercings before a job interview... In your private life, do whatever the hell you want, but when it comes to work, your employer has every right to demand that you look professional, and society has determined that body modifications, especially facial modifications are not professional.

I'm sorry, but we must not be reading the same forum. I have yet to read a single post where someone said that police who abuse their authority should be protected. If I am wrong, please point them out to me, but I do not believe you will be able to do so.

Interesting perspective.... as I said... the paranoia of our police.is palpable. I guess serving in a police state is indeed interesting when you have all the power... yet are afraid of those you are supposed to be serving... Do you think this leads to so many of your brother officers jumping so far over the line so often??. Paranoia keeps police alive. Obviously not everyone (read the majority) of people do not intend to harm other people. Unfortunately you can't tell who intends to do harm and who does not before they try to hurt someone, therefore police treat every as if they are a potential threat because it increases the chance that they get to spend the night in bed with their husband/wife instead of in a hospital room or the morgue. Not sure why you believe that serving society and being afraid of its members are not mutually exclusive. As a whole, people tend to not be violent. However, some individuals are violent, and you don't know who they are until they become violent, at which point it may be too late if you aren't prepared (read: have a plan on how to react should the situation become violent). Not sure where I ever said I was an officer though, so I don't know where you got that. On another note, I think you should read this. I think it gives a good idea of what the "normal" cop is and why people are afraid of them. http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html EDIT forgot the link