Today I learned...

[XanBcoo]

It was a messy situation but the officer punched someone in the face. He was enforcing a stupid law that let him arbitrarily pick who he wished to arrest, and when things got heated he reacted childishly. It was an unnecessary escalation of the situation.

bitch had it coming

Why did I even post that link?

However true this statement may be,

It's better to just shut up, take the fine and just report the officer, nothing good ever comes from trying to argue the law by breaking more laws.

and however irresponsibly she acted, nothing justifies her getting hit in the face by an officer. I hope he's reprimanded for this, but both the system (and unfortunately public opinion) are on his side. Both parties were at fault, but only one will be seen to have deserved what she got.

Edit: And before someone asks "What is the proper course of action in that situation," I'll answer that I have no idea. I'm not a trained officer, but I am a mature human being and I know that it isn't "Punch her in the face when surrounded by a growing mob of angry people."

[Buffalobiian]

If a cop tries to actually try to arrest someone for saying, say "f*ck off, f*cking pig" then his actions are really nothing other than an emotional response. If you can't handle feeling uncomfortable then you shouldn't be a cop. Look at "don't taze me bro" for instance.

I also highly doubt that the woman said anything threatening towards the police officer. It blows my mind that you think crossing the street at the wrong place (a laughable "offence" in NYC and MOST places in the US)/being rude is a justifiable reason to be arrested?

The problem isn't whether the offence/arrest was justifiable - you deal with that later.

The problem is that the girl pushed a cop while he was dealing with someone else and got punched in the face.

Chances are she was innocently crossing the street when the cop thought "jackpot" when the cop approached her and tried to write her up or arrest her.

Perhaps a wrong choice of words there Sapphi

According to the law's definition of "innocent" anyway.

Edit: And as for "authority".... hate to sound like a broken record, but when the system itself is corrupt then "authority" is nothing but a title. This guy probably failed every rule in the "cop protocol" book and yet people still support his actions because of this title of "authority" that was given to him. Look at people authorizing torture in the Bush administration and shooting up small towns oversees and people still close their eyes and use the default responses of "authority," "responsibility" and "permission". Not saying you think like that Buff but it just makes me mad when "people" turn a blind eye to horrors of the world because of this assumed "right" people have over others to commit such deeds.[/QUOTE]

"Authority" here wasn't talking about the authority to hit her without consequence. "Authority" here was meant that the cop was allowed to make an arrest if he stated a (seemingly legit) reason to you - and that you HAD to comply.

and however irresponsibly she acted, nothing justifies her getting hit in the face by an officer. I hope he's reprimanded for this, but both the system (and unfortunately public opinion) are on his side. Both parties were at fault, but only one will be seen to have deserved what she got.

Edit: And before someone asks "What is the proper course of action in that situation," I'll answer that I have no idea. I'm not a trained officer, but I am a mature human being and I know that it isn't "Punch her in the face when surrounded by a growing mob of angry people."

Personally, I think the "correct" action would have been to point and verbally warn her very harshly - informing her that she would be liable for arrest too if she continued her action (of impeding a police's job).

We don't have a textbook answer for "What should one do when a girl pushes a cop" - putting what "crossing the line" is up to personal interpretation.

A lot of us are debating whether the police is wrong, while the girl was clearly wrong - hence the difference in treatment.

[darkshadow]

EDIT because I'm not making a new post stating the obvious about your next post:
@DS: Considering that you think a cop would suddenly not be offended/attempt arrest at the use of "I think" + insult rather than just the insult .....yes, that is a semantics argument.

Uhm, it's not semantics. I don't know about US laws, but adding "I think" here indiciates Free Speech, because it clarifies you are stating your own subjective opinion, if a cop is offended by that he still can't do anything cause the free speech law rules higher than the "insulting an official in office" law. Leaving out "I think" doesn't clarify anything and makes it "objective", thus giving the officer every right to uphold the law.
No semantics.

And yes getting involved with an officer that is making is struggling while making an arrest, is endangering the safety, especially because of future events that haven't occured yet.

And I didn't justify the punch, I just mentioned that they needlessly broke a bunch of laws.

[The Heretic Azazel]

But yeah the cop was needlessly wrestling her that long, he should've just slammed her on the hood of the car and cuffed her.

I completely agree. And why stop there? Law enforcement should just use stun guns on random people. After all, they will likely commit a crime in the future, right?? Statistically speaking of course.

This presumption that people have no rights just because you personally think they didn't behave properly isn't any good. We hold the police to a higher standard, we have to because they are supposed to be better than the people they arrest. It seems rather clear to me, at least in the southeast U.S. that they will take most anyone these days.

I share Sapphire's disgust with this blind support for law enforcement. These people give the exact same mundane response to these stories, I see it on other forums I visit. There is nothing wrong with questioning law enforcement's ability to effectively execute their duties and it is the only way to oversee their behavior. Now that people everywhere have a camera (which is absolutely and unequivocally their right to use in public) it has become really frightening to see the way some cops act. I want to believe the vast majority are good, but boy do the rotten ones skew perspectives of the good ones.

I'm not overly concerned about cops because I know this country is owned by billion dollar corporations with judges in their back pocket. If you really want to see some fucking evil you have to go all the way to the top.

[Animeniax]

Look at the vid, apparently it's justifiable (and even underreacting) to not only arrest someone for jaywalking of all things (lol) but also punch an innocent woman in the face for trying to separate you from accosting the person. I don't get this "holy-unable-to-sin" status that American society gives government workers and it's quite infuriating.

What would you guys do? Resist arrest too? Video tape it if you saw it being done? Try to break up the fray?

As painful as it is to say, in my opinion the best thing to do against an evil government worker is not be violent, so I would have done what the camera person did and get it all on camera (to use as evidence against the person etc.). I've done it before and it looks even worse if the person tries to steal your camera or accost you for it. The woman who got punched by no means deserved it in my opinion, but it's to be expected that she would get punched or worse for trying to defend her friend (which is a horrible truth).

We discussed this in our class on issues in policing. A lot of things were going on in that video. To start, supposedly the officer was stopping someone else for jaywalking at that location and these two women jaywalk by so he stops them too. If a police officer tells you to stop, you don't get to say "that's ok, I'm heading to lunch". So he had every right to restrain the first girl. The second girl who grabs and pushes the cop is technically "assaulting a peace officer". While the closed fist punch is an overreaction by laymens' standards, it is considered appropriate force for an officer in that situation. Looking at the video, it's one cop surrounded by several unfriendlies. A large part of the officer's mindset is to maintain authority and control, and he was clearly losing that so he reacted poorly, but within the law.

We saw the link posted earlier about some states making it illegal to record police officers while they are on duty. This video shows us how it is both beneficial and problematic to allow recording police in action.

[itadakimasu]

Jay walking? I didn't know any of the circumstances surrounding the video. I was curious why he didn't have his lights on and why he was alone...

But given the circumstances I didn't think the punch was too over the top. It probably looks worse than pepper spray or taser which she deserved for interrupting an arrest in progress and pushing the officer.

Would everybody have been fine if he sprayed pepper spray all in her eyes instead of punching her?

[Animeniax]

The punch looks bad, but if you look at it closely it's a pretty weak punch and he lets up before he makes contact with her face. The fact that she didn't crumple to the ground tells us this, or that she can take a punch and should look into women's MMA.

[Sapphire]

The problem isn't whether the offence/arrest was justifiable - you deal with that later.

The problem is that the girl pushed a cop while he was dealing with someone else and got punched in the face.

Perhaps a wrong choice of words there Sapphi

According to the law's definition of "innocent" anyway.

Edit: And as for "authority".... hate to sound like a broken record, but when the system itself is corrupt then "authority" is nothing but a title. This guy probably failed every rule in the "cop protocol" book and yet people still support his actions because of this title of "authority" that was given to him. Look at people authorizing torture in the Bush administration and shooting up small towns oversees and people still close their eyes and use the default responses of "authority," "responsibility" and "permission". Not saying you think like that Buff but it just makes me mad when "people" turn a blind eye to horrors of the world because of this assumed "right" people have over others to commit such deeds.

"Authority" here wasn't talking about the authority to hit her without consequence. "Authority" here was meant that the cop was allowed to make an arrest if he stated a (seemingly legit) reason to you - and that you HAD to comply.

Personally, I think the "correct" action would have been to point and verbally warn her very harshly - informing her that she would be liable for arrest too if she continued her action (of impeding a police's job).

We don't have a textbook answer for "What should one do when a girl pushes a cop" - putting what "crossing the line" is up to personal interpretation.

A lot of us are debating whether the police is wrong, while the girl was clearly wrong - hence the difference in treatment.

Whoa. Suddenly my mind is clear.

So if I see a shop owner kicking a homeless guy in the face for loitering at his store that's justifiable too, right? Because he's guilty, right? I mean, he has the authority to do it on his property and the homeless guy is clearly breaking the law. Well, whether the kick was too much is up to personal interpretation. If he used pepper spray then it would be the homeless guys fault for any collateral damage that happened.

[Animeniax]

Whoa. Suddenly my mind is clear.

So if I see a shop owner kicking a homeless guy in the face for loitering at his store that's justifiable too, right? Because he's guilty, right? I mean, he has the authority to do it on his property and the homeless guy is clearly breaking the law. Well, whether the kick was too much is up to personal interpretation. If he used pepper spray then it would be the homeless guys fault for any collateral damage that happened.

Nope, the shop owner doesn't have the right to use force to stop the homeless guy from loitering at his store. He has the right to call the police to come kick the guy's ass. That's one of the tenets of policing. Citizens grant police the authority to use force to enforce the laws, but relinquish that right themselves.

[Sapphire]

That's the problem, Ani. :/

That perception is what gives police a "holy" status, and allows other forces of government to commit complete and utter travesties unscathed, crimes which no single person could dare get away with.

[Kraco]

I don't believe you'd really like the alternative, Sapphi. For it's anarchy. Unless you are a really violent gang minded person, of course. No internets in anarchy, though. Gangs fighting each other for power and survival have no time for the net.

[Buffalobiian]

Whoa. Suddenly my mind is clear.

So if I see a shop owner kicking a homeless guy in the face for loitering at his store that's justifiable too, right? Because he's guilty, right? I mean, he has the authority to do it on his property and the homeless guy is clearly breaking the law. Well, whether the kick was too much is up to personal interpretation.

Ya, pretty much.

(MY personal interpretation: as per my first post, I base it on how much stern verbal warning was given to the guy. If you've been told to gtfo someone's property and you don't comply - you had it coming.)

[Penner]

Today while i was listening to Kansas' song "Dust in the Wind" (awesome song btw) i decided to check the wiki page to see what bands had made covers of it, and there learned about this list of songs that were deemed "Lyrically Questionable" after the 9/11 attacks in america.

The whole thing is just so retarded it honestly made me laugh.

Here is the list: 2001 Clear Channel memorandum

[The Heretic Azazel]

Haha I'm sure Bridge Over Troubled Water is a veritable terrorist anthem.

[Kraco]

Not to mention Armstrong's What A Wonderful World.

[Buffalobiian]

Japanese streets have no name

I always wondered why no one draws maps here, and everybody draws (often misleading) maps in anime.

So.. what happens when you tear down a building and erect a new one? Does everybody on your block get their numbers shuffled around in chronological order? :S

[darkshadow]

That's pretty interesting.
And:

Japanese intra-block address number is put in clock-wise manner. If a new building appears in between two others, it is given one of its neighbors number.

[depthcharge]

What will I do without my road names?

What everyone else is doing

[Buffalobiian]

Contrary to the majority of youtube comments, there are some pretty interesting an informative ones:

Actually, this system of addressing goes way deeper than it appears. It is rooted in Japanese culture - the concept of starting with the big picture, and then zooming in to the individual scene (prefecture, city, ward, neighbourhood, neighbourhood subdivision, block, building, apt. # and finally name), is reflected in so many aspects of Japanese society. Family name followed by given name, for example, is more than just convention. You are part of the family first, and an individual second. Company names, such as the Sumitomo Mitsui bank in English, is Mitsui Sumitomo in Japanese. I am Kevin of Osaka, but in Japanese I am Osaka-no Kevin, where the 'no' is the possessive. So, this concept is shown in the grammar of the Japanese language as well.

Ok, maybe I'm looking at this too deeply, but there are just so many examples of this.



Cheers,

I love this. In programming I am always looking for alternate representations of the same data. In graphing terms, we label the edges of a graph while they label the nodes.

Or to visualize this, we would describe a triangle as "this side, that side, and that other side, connected to form a triangle" where they would say "this point, that point, and that other point, connected to form a triangle".

What is not immediately apparent, however, is that while the systems can be considered equivalent, they are not equal. They can be leveraged differently. Our system makes it immediately apparent that 221 Baker Street and 1221 Baker Street are connected, albeit at quite some distance, but hides the fact that 1805 Chapel Street is twenty feet away from 221 Baker. The result? In a lot of US cities we see big streets hatched with tiny "feeder" streets.

The block-naming strategy emphasises distance over direction. You immediately see that two addresses share a common block, or ward, or city--and this also has an effect on the street layout.

When you get your organization scheme right, it really works. Salt Lake City, Utah, is laid out on a grid, so if you are at "1300 West 10600 South" and you want to get to "700 East 3300 South", you know exactly what direction to go, what streets to take, and about how far you have to go to get there....

But when you get your organization scheme wrong, it really stinks. Take a city that was built on the locality premise, like Boston, and then superimpose the street-names scheme on top of it, you end up with an unnavigable mess in which people still use landmarks to get around.

Sorry for such a long comment, but the takeaway for me here is not only to see if your business models are reversible, but to ask in what ways would reversing the model make things easier--and in what ways would it make things harder?

My opinion after reading the article was that the Japanese block system was completely stupid, but it seems there's a degree of sense behind this.

[complich8]

about 3 years ago I moved from the midwest to the DC suburbs, and experienced a bit of a street layout culture shock.

In the midwest, almost without exception things have a superimposed grid layout. Even in cul-de-sac developments, there's always a grid overlaid, the giant confusing mats of cul-de-sacs are never more than a mile by a mile, always have arterial streets, and always connect to at least one or two big north-south or east-west arterial streets. Sometimes that grid layout is bent around a big landmark like a river or something, but it's always there. Once you get east of the Appalachians, though, that all breaks down.

In most places in the US, odd-numbered highways go north-south and even-numbered highways go east-west. But on the east coast, while that's generally true, you can't assume it's true for the general case of a couple miles. Like, I live near a road that's an even-numbered state highway that goes east-west for about 2 miles, then north for about 2 miles, then east-west for another 4 miles, then northwest-southeast for the rest of it. For any given two mile stretch of it, which way it's going can only be determined via either a compass or the rising or setting sun.

Over 3 years in this environment, I've pretty much made sense of where I go on a day-to-day basis, and the general layout, but whenever I go exploring I'm constantly faced with new challenges to my grid-expectations. Who'd expect that VA-123 is, for 15 miles or so, an east-west street? Or, knowing that, that if you go west on it from Arlington and just keep going, you'll end up 10 miles south of Arlington in Woodbridge?

Natives seem to have no problems with this idea. Midwesterners like myself and one of my roommates seem to have endless trouble figuring out how it all works.

Still, street naming versus block naming ... street naming seems less arbitrary, even if the streets are severely twisty.