c13

First of all, you have no clue what you are talking about. The definition of an assault rifle is an intermediate caliber rifle that is capable of switching between semi automatic (1 shot per trigger squeeze) and fully automatic (hold down trigger). Assault rifles are illegal for the public to own without a 6 month background check. Next, simply because it looks "evil" doesn't mean it's an assault rifle, much like simply having a scope on a gun doesn't make it a sniper rifle. I could assault you with a pen. Hell, I could use any number of objects in a room to "assault" someone with. The only reason why a gun gets the term "assault weapon," despite that genre of firearm only killing 350 people since 2004 according to the gun hater Feinstein herself, is because it is a fear mongering tactic used to scare the ignorant. If someone were to commit a crime, one wouldn't display a weapon until one is committing it. Not only is it just plain stupid, it paints a target on their back for cops. One city near me passed a law banning open carry, in contradiction to the state's law allowing open carry. That police chief told her officers don't enforce shit of that law. Cops in my area, for the most part, are able to recognize the difference between someone walking down the street with an AR-15 slung across his back in broad daylight and someone hiding in an alley behind a gas station with a shotgun at 2 am. Now let's have an English lesson. The first part of the 2nd Amendment, detailing the need for a militia in order to secure a free state, is a separate clause from "right of the people." Clauses mean separate points, therefore it is saying both that a militia is needed to secure a free state, and that individuals have a right to keep and bear (carry, including openly) arms (any non-explosive weapon operated by a single soldier). Furthermore, at the time of its inception, the militia was defined as a body of the common people. The founding fathers for the most part feared having a full time army would lead to tyranny, due to numerous military coups and the fact that they had just fought a military from a tyrannical government. The militia was commonly defined as any able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. Due to lack of funds, those able bodied persons would need to purchase and keep their own weapon, which was what partly leads to the 2nd clause in the 2nd amendment. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right for self preservation. This means that it is not reserved to the state, but to the people within that state. Many other states confirm that it is an individual right within the state constitution.

So you're trying to prove your point that differs from someone else's? That's by definition trying to win an argument. And I'm on the site because LCPDFR is fun to play. Just because I play LCPDFR doesn't mean I instantly have respect for every cop I meet (I get to know people before developing opinions about individuals), much like playing standard GTA doesn't mean I support going on shooting sprees and insane car chases.

Please point out one time, just once, where I said I was in favor of abolishing all police. Please do so. I'm begging you. Gamerdanger couldn't handle having it pointed out that no cop is a demigod, so he had to put false words in my mouth to try to belittle me. I was pointing out that cops don't always protect people. As far as no law and order, gangs are cowards. They only do things when they are in packs. As soon as one goes down, they start running. Yeah, resort to cheap insults. That will win an argument.

You must not understand me. I hate every fucking government. Not because it is government, but because it has too much control over people and corporations have too much control over government. Moving won't help, unless I move deep into the woods and forgo all electrical devices. It doesn't matter what your definition of a terrorist is, what matters in regards to whether you get shot or illegally disappeared under the treasonous NDAA of 2012 is what the government defines as a terrorist. But let's go by your definition of a terrorist. I have not blown up bombs, unless fireworks on the 4th of July count as such (probably does), and I have not killed people. Also, I am an Atheist, so I do not fall in the category of any religious nutcases (not calling all Muslims that, just jihadists). Maybe one day, you will realize just how ridiculous it is to lick the boots of the people that steal from you at gun point, label you a terrorist and plot to kill you. Until then, good night.

"Crime" was used to make a point that making logical sense on the internet and having a reasonable opinion is not liked. Again, the NYPD has an average 4.5 minute response time when responding to emergency calls, which there was ample time for. There would be other cops in the area for the UC's safety. There was backup available. Finally, the fact you are having to completely divert off topic and discuss my own thoughts on things unrelated to this show your lack of an argument. Painting me as a "terrorist" is what is referred to as argumentum ad hominem, or basically, you can't think of anything so you start making accusations towards me. First of all, my profile clearly blew past your head. I made a comment about how the government is full of idiots. That should be obvious with politics today. Next, Libertarianism is having the political ideology that people have the right to do what they want until they harm non-consenting others with that right, and simply being born gives them those rights. It is not anarchistic. It is not terrorism. It is freedom to its very core. And lastly, I know I am a terrorist. However, I know you are a terrorist too. To the government, everyone is a terrorist. The state of Missouri has what is called the "Modern Militia Movement" paper. If you don't strictly follow Democrat or Republican ideology, you're a terrorist according to it. The DHS has guidelines that are distributed to various businesses also. Try to use cash in a coffee shop? Terrorist. Try to hide your password in an internet cafe? Terrorist. Take a family photo in a major tourist attraction? Terrorist. So under that logic, is everyone a terrorist according to you?

Yes, I do know about traffic in New York. I also know that whenever cops have wires, they try to have people monitoring it. I also know that you can call people through motorcycle helmets, which an agency with a budget like the NYPD would most likely have. Finally, I know that during that time of day, there would be at least 8,000 officers on the streets based on the NYPD's 34,000 strong force. I pointed out that it's hypocritical because cops bother people for little to no legitimate reason. Sorry I'm committing the crime of injecting reason on the internet.

But having a name associated with a police report means you look worse. In the second story, the NYPD has a 4.5 minute response time. However, being that there were undercover officers in the area (they rarely work alone), response time could be drastically reduced, including uniform patrol. Based on the length of the chase, it should have been obvious something bad was about to happen, and there was more than enough time to get backup there. Someone was in danger, and the NYPD didn't act, despite having the capability, forewarning and resources to. It's not police hating, it's reason. Too often on this site I see a fairy tale image of "all cops are gifts from God himself," and I get sick of it. They're people. Some are good, some are bad, some are just pawns, but an incredible few are perfect. Also, if you don't want differing opinions than you, you shouldn't create controversial topics with one sided views.

Chevy Tahoe. They have been proven over the last few years, plus bigger officers only get 2 more inches of head room in an explorer than in a taurus.

Because it shows up in a record check, which potentially paints me as a bad guy. Police don't risk their lives for me. They just try to get their job done and keep their job. Several examples of this are within the NYPD, with this story and this one. Under Warren v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court ruled the police have no duty to protect you, or me, or anyone else within America. While I believe there are cops who do try to help others, people in general will not help unless there is incentive for them. For police in general, it's the chance of action or to keep their job. And notice how I never went to the extreme of saying abolish all police departments, only implying that policing authority is being abused. That's called argumentum ad absurdum, taking an argument to the utmost extreme in an attempt to belittle an opponent's view. I am the primary one responsible for my own safety, and should I request help, it is almost always at least 5 minutes away. When help is truly needed, those 5 minutes are like having no police force.

And maybe I don't want my name in a police report if they interact with me, which would go on my record. Maybe I don't want to be given a ticket for committing the "crime" that could only harm me and no one else if I drove without a seatbelt. Maybe I don't believe it's necessary to ride in an APC and don SWAT gear for someone growing some marijuana for him or herself in one's basement. It doesn't matter what I believe, because it's the ever so cited law/policy. What does that have to do with their faces on youtube? The fact remains that the first amendment is there to document and speak out against any and all forms of government, even if the opinions are wrong or if it goes against the oh so powerful government. And it's mainly the bad cops that get on youtube. For the most part, cops are either on it for being an outstanding cop or they're on it for being a pig (strong difference between pig and an honorable cop). If they don't want their face all over youtube, they shouldn't of taken a government job that means lots of public exposure.

I find it very annoying when police annoy me for little reason. And about people recording cops, if the cops have nothing to hide, they shouldn't worry, especially since they are government employees.

It has nothing to do with the site. It has everything to do with the amount of polys in the vehicles and the hardware of your PC.

If you modded the cars, that would be the problem. Some modelers had trouble with fixing issues like this.

I agree that Dorner was murdered. However, circumstances are entirely different here. Dorner was holed up inside a structure and hadn't taken a shot in several hours, when the police came on the radio discussing plans to burn the cabin down, and there just happened to be an "accidental" fire caused by a non-lethal explosive. This lady was attempting to run through barriers to some of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, and still posed an active threat at the time of her death because she was in control of a vehicle that had struck an officer before, and, given the circumstances of trying to get close to US government buildings by running through barriers, there is grounds for the belief that it might have been a car bomb. EDIT: Also, the NDAA doesn't look at all like this. This means that Obama would've had to get a briefing on what was going on, call the military, tell them the name of the woman who they had not checked the ID of yet and have them respond to this. While I see a bunch of over militarized cops (I know it's a different discussion), the military wasn't involved. And before anyone gets any wrong ideas, I firmly believe the NDAA is one of the strongest acts of treason in this country.

Why do I feel like this will be a clan ad sent to anyone in the state? Just in case it is, this is a verbal warning to not send anyone clan details unless they contact you first. If not, sorry I misjudged you but I've seen similar threads before.

A vehicle that weighs several thousand pounds coming at someone is considered a weapon, which leads to authorization to fire. However, what angers me about this is that they were close enough to see the child in the back seat but fired as the car was driving away, putting the innocent child in danger. The least they could have done was taken a shot from the side to minimize the risk of the child being hit. What exactly does Dorner have to do with this? Completely separate incidents, though I believe yesterday's was handled much better.

I view cops as no different than anyone else. Should they put an innocent life in danger, appropriate action should be taken to subdue it, and having a badge doesn't give the authority to break the law. I personally wouldn't shoot a cop unless there were extreme circumstances, primarily because I will most likely be treated as guilty by his buddies and be killed without just cause (ie: surrended with hands plainly visible, no sudden moves and no weapons). One example where shootings could be justified is no knock raids on non-violent offenses. Police have been given fancy equipment from the federal government, including weaponry and APCs, to enforce drug laws. However, this means they have to use that equipment. What could be accomplished with a knock on the door by uniformed officers in broad daylight a majority of the time turns into people dressed in black kicking down doors in the middle of the night and storming in with automatic weapons, drastically escalating the situation. Remember, anyone can yell "Police!"

The point of doing this is to ensure cops aren't an ass. Being that they have a government job, they have no right to be an ass and being an ass could ruin people's lives given their position.

Criminal cases are rarely filed against police brutality, and if they are and by a statistical impossibility the cop is found guilty, they get off with a much lighter sentence than an ordinary person would in the same situation. Best case scenario is usually a lawsuit, followed by the department firing the cop due to the money he costed them. But unfortunately, most cases come down to the cop feeling threatened, and they are usually reinstated. One unfortunate example is this:http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08/05/oklahoma-police-kill-5-year-old-boy-while-shooting-at-snake/. Police were called to a snake in a birdhouse. However, despite the fact it was a non-venomous black rat snake, the officer felt "threatened" and shot twice at it, missing it also. What they did manage to hit was a 5 year old child fishing with his grandpa, killing him instantly. The piece of shit was expunged and is now capable and trying to get back on the force. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08/05/oklahoma-police-kill-5-year-old-boy-while-shooting-at-snake/ Yeah, how dare they harm no one by filming cops. What is it the government says? "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about?"

The primary issue with police brutality is that it is under-reported. Many times it is the attitude of "the guy was a criminal that got caught and is trying to get revenge, no big deal." It is extremely rare that police departments take reports of misconduct seriously unless it becomes widespread on the internet, mainly because an admittance of bad eggs damages the departments reputation. My biggest issue though is the preferential treatment in court to officers charged over citizens charged. Police almost always get a lighter punishment. I saw it after I already posted.

Did you even read the description? The guy was in diabetic shock. He had no control over his actions for a medical reason, and the cops beat him when he was making no threatening moves (trying to get up isn't a threatening move). While the dashcam isn't clear enough, it should be obvious that something is up besides someone resisting arrest when someone isn't even making an attempt to move when held at gunpoint and being given orders.

Is this guy a "wuss"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv6Mzcs8Vuw

I briefly covered the fact that an MP5 isn't a good gun for a distance longer than 50 yards, only that most people on this site do not understand ballistics or anything like that so I didn't discuss it too much. The only agency I specifically mentioned was the LAPD. As far as whether their information is secret or not, you can ask National Geographic or any other group that has produced a documentary about the North Hollywood Shootout because they all say that the LAPD now has patrol officers with rifles because of it. Also, scroll down on this link from the LAPD's official website. They list the guns they carry, including rifles, shotguns and sidearms.