Soju

Fact. Here is a reply from a US Senator. Fluff in the middle excluded for lack of relevance. "In my view, the Senate bill violates your basic rights, guaranteed by our Constitution... Therefore, I voted to pass [it]." The real issue is that when you try and interject logic, fact, and reason into a debate of emotion, you get nowhere. Remember, "Think of the children!".

I assume guns, as that's what was implied. Yes, it was hypocritical to an extremely ironic level. Sadly you are probably right.

Don't you dare try to inject critical thinking and question a tragic event like this! How dare you! No, you are not paranoid. The media rarely reports things correctly either by design or because of misinformation.

I don't either. I was just saying that is what they'd try to do. They certainly won't be the ones to take the guns.

Not really, because that first group of people would get the police, military, and other law enforcement to do it for them.

I've already read people proposing that all gun owners be murdered. Someone else suggested that they all be jailed for life. Because that will solve crime issues. In addition to being ironic, it would probably match or exceed the atrocities committed by many historical figures we all know throughout history. If logic is in their vocabulary, they probably have the definition confused with that of emotion and stupidity.

She was only fired 2 months ago....

The lady yelling was the intervening officer. I no point prior to being 'arrested' was he told he was under arrest.

It is part of the illegal standard practice that happens all the time.

Arresting officer has had multiple complains and lawsuits alledging excessive force. One such resulted in a $140,000 settlement paid out to the victims. Intervening officer in 20 years on the force had never had a single civilian complaint filed against. Verdict: Intervening officer was wrong! Fired! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfF_7rdIxg

This is not a hypothetical scenario. I have chosen to not yet post the actual incident as I don't want the conclusion that has been determined to effect peoples own personal beliefs.

I agree. It is just upsetting that ignorant people somehow believe this is a gun problem, and banning all guns is somehow a solution. This is ignoring thousands of years or recorded human history BEFORE guns even existed, in which atrocities such as this still happened.

Mother wants to take him to the hospital to get checked out. The son is in his 20's. He makes no threats of violence at any time. He doesn't want to go and says "eff that, I'm going to walk away."

Police respond to a call from an upset mother about her son. When police arrive the son is irritated and wants nothing to do with police. He is on his own property, curses at them, and instructs police to stay off of it. He then turns around and walks away. As he is walking away, without any warning, he is tackled by an officer. A second officer joins and and punches him. A third officer intervenes and attempts to stop the officers perceiving their actions as excessive force and a violation of the departments use-of-force policy. The officer who tackled the individual says that individual is resisting arrest. The intervening officer says he was never under arrest to begin with. Who is right and who is wrong? Is the officer who intervened wrong, or the officer who attempted to arrest the individual? Just curious to what others opinions are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfF_7rdIxg

I just read a post on another forum where someone suggested the murder of all gun owners as a solution to crime. I'm sure that douchebag would have made Pol pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Matsui proud.

Yes.

Has anyone actually applied the crazy eyed look with fierce clap approach linejumpers before? I'd be interested in seeing how that plays out.

I'll be honest, I didn't look up whether cartwheeling or skipping was illegal or not, but judging by the sheer number of people I see driving, walking, jogging, and riding bikes, I'm fairly certain those activities haven't yet been banned. I'll check on the cartwheeling though. Just checked, didn't see anything about cartwheeling in the code.

You drive, walk, jog, skip, bike, or cartwheel there. I'm sure there are other ways, but I was just naming a few.

Life is full of tragedies and no matter the size, none are worse than another on an individual level to those affected. It is unfortunate that the size of the tragedy does have an impact on a political level. That is a tragedy itself. If you were to spend time thinking about and reflecting on all the senseless killing that happens everyday you would be in a constant state of depression/sorrow/sadness. It pains me to think how the families must feel.

I would have gone with a sarcastic backhanded comment/compliment that would likely have gone over her head. I need to be more direct with my insults sometimes.

Freedom of movement/travel is a well established right. What do you think you are doing when you are driving a car? Unless you are actively engaged in commerce... Is it okay to effect a walking license. A bike riding license? A pogo-stick license?

But people aren't responsible enough, so they have to make rules and requirements. But I don't have to be responsible, because there are rules and requirements to tell me how to be. But people aren't responsible enough....

This idea of a "common good" is ridiculous and nonsensical. What exactly is the "common good"? Well it doesn't exist. I hear this used all the time. If someone can give me a real, tangible example of something that is for a common good that isn't also for the good of you and me or any individual, I'm all ears.