kimmy

Why not? When people are upset by a business, going to the media has been a remedy for many years. I am quite sure that reporters with cameramen have been showing up at businesses to discuss customer complaints for longer than I've been alive. What makes this any different? -k

This incident is the latest flash-point: -k

edit: d'oh, wrong thread. heyyyy, how about that crime-wave, tho. -k

There are 7 billion humans on the planet, give or take a few. There are about 15,000 lions left. There were 200,000 lions 30 years ago. There's just a handful of white rhinos left, because some dumb-ass Asians think that powdered rhino horn will give you a larger dong. Given the choice between killing some dumb-ass poachers or seeing species go extinct, I won't shed any tears for the poachers. There's a group of US Army veterans in Africa training African rangers to deal with poachers, by force if necessary. I say, rock on. -k

They tried to destroy the tracker. It doesn't specifically state who specifically lured the lion; one suspects "the men" includes both the guides and Mr Palmer: No mention of bribes; it sounds to me like he gave his $50,000 to some shady mooks rather than to a legitimate organization that could secure the proper permits. -k

People have real rights, not fictional "free man on the land" rights, when interacting with police. -k

I just think it's amusing when they're both coming out of the same mouth, yours in this case. You've been pushing this "respect mah authoritah" crap all thread (and in every other police thread ever), and yet you posted the link for WYSM and want to tell it like you're on board with efforts to end the "us vs them" mentality in law enforcement. It makes your sincerity a little suspect. -k

Two words: pudding pops. Two more: Steubenville football. These incidents often happen when other efforts to obtain justice have failed, or when no mechanism exists at all. They are often a manifestation of anger and outrage at people who have gotten away with something. Yeah, it's less than ideal. What would you do about it? Censorship? The circumstances of this kill are so dodgy that Mr Palmer's assertion that he thought he was doing everything legally is ridiculous. I see that he has also managed to kill a white rhinoceros. There are only a few of those left on earth, so it's lucky that he managed to kill one before they're all gone. I don't know for sure whether my dentist has ever done something like this. If I found out, I'd find a different dentist. As a consumer, this isn't a hobby I'd want my dollars to support. -k

That it's completely contradictory to the crap you were posting earlier about how expecting cops to explain themselves would undermine their authoritah. -k

Another one of these incidents, this time in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/porter-airlines-seat-change-may-have-been-sparked-by-religious-accommodation-says-passenger-1.3171114 -k

yes, yes. You mentioned you have your phone lock-screen on earlier. Good for you. We're all very proud of you. So, suppose the cop asks you for your phone, and asks you to unlock it so that he can search the contents. Are you going to comply, or are you going to tell him to go get a warrant? -k

A few pages back you posted a link to the "Why'd You Stop Me" organization. I assumed you wanted us to read about it. Did you actually read it yourself? If you actually bothered reading it, you'd notice that your "the cops don't have to tell you anything; shut up and obey" stuff is pretty much the opposite of what he's teaching. The part of the message directed at civilians is, yes, "listen to the officer." The other part of the message, the part that you missed, is directed towards law enforcement officers, and that message is "people will cooperate with you if you communicate with them instead of acting like a big jackass on a power-trip." -k

As I said earlier, the point was that not all of the words that come out of a policeman's mouth are "lawful orders" despite what cops and their cheerleaders hear would have you believe. Bryan had earlier made this point, and the cops caught going through womens' private photos to forward them to their buddies was a prime example of police misrepresenting a "lawful order" for purely malicious purpose. I agree with all that, and that's certainly my outlook when I interact with the cops. I also appreciate that you're the only one of the pro-cop crowd willing to concede that Officer Encinia was being a jerk regarding the cigarette. Extinguishing a cigarette, even if I smoked, wouldn't be something I'd make an issue of. But how far would you let them push it before you resisted? If the cop says "extinguish that cigarette" ... sure, no problem. What if the cop says "I want to search your vehicle"? What if the cop says "give your phone" ? What if the cop says "give your phone and open the lock-screen"? What if the cop says "let me in, I want to look around your apartment"? -k

You raise a good point. I've seldom had my dining experience disrupted by parents who let their children carry on for more than a few moments. But last time I did, you know what I did about it? Nothing. Perhaps next time I will speak my mind. And next time I end up seated near a bunch of dumb-ass old-people spitting ignorant crap out of their stupid word-holes I think I will likewise speak up. -k

I am continually puzzled by your tastes, August. All of the fine movies and actors you've crapped on over the years, and here you are praising one of the worst reviewed movies of the year and a 'comic' actor who hasn't had a funny movie in a decade. -k

How do you know when people are annoyed? Because they're glaring daggers at you, sighing loudly, or muttering "fuuuuuuuuu" just loud enough for you to hear? Unless you're a mind reader, I think you'd be quite presumptuous in assuming that the only people who are annoyed are the ones who are making a visible display of it. -k

We don't know that they did have their phones "out" when they were stopped. We do know that there have been quite a few of these incidents, and that one of the cops described this as "a game" that police play, and that for each incident that's been caught and brought to justice there's probably been a lot more that weren't caught. That some of the victims may at some point get compensation (paid for by taxpayers, of course...) is completely beside the point, which is that just because words come out of a policeman's pie-hole doesn't make them a "lawful order", and that in some cases police are willing to abuse peoples' obedience. Yeah, I'm all for taking reasonable steps to protect yourself, but again people shouldn't have to plan their activities around the idea that their phone is going to be cased by a corrupt cop. Take this logic to its conclusion, and people shouldn't drive around with money, jewelry, or valuables or anything else that police might seize using civil forfeiture, either. -k

We can only guess what happened in the parts of the video redacted by the police, and what was going on after Officer Encinia moved the suspect out of the view of the dash camera. But I doubt it was very flattering to Officer Encinia. Just wondering why you guys don't seem to thing that applies to the cops as well. I saw two ignorant jackasses in the video. And who's badmouthing "all" police officers? I know that you "Support The Heroes In Blue!" types want to spin this as anti-police hatred, but I see demands for police accountability as extremely reasonable. So basically, you think other people are hypocrites so you decided to be a hypocrite too? It's not my speculation that he's bad; we've got video evidence and the opinion of numerous experts who feel he acted unprofessionally. I found your suggestion that she has a "borderline personality disorder" quite hilarious after your earlier complaints about "armchair experts". -k

I don't keep naked pictures on my phone, but if people are supposed to plan their activities around the eventuality that some scumbag cop or airline security agent is going to rifle through their phone for personal information they can abuse, we've got a serious problem. I posted that item to reinforce what Bryan pointed out earlier: not everything a cop tells you to do is a "lawful order", even if the cop would have you believe otherwise. Yeah, it's the thieves fault for stealing your car, but it's also your fault for parking it someplace where thieves could steal it. Let's just call it 50-50. -k

I don't think that really jives with what's going on in the market right now. Personally, my first home purchase is this 700 sq foot apartment; dad's first home purchase was a 3 bedroom detached home that he was able to pay off within 10 years on one income while supporting a wife and 2 kids. If people have this taste for ever-more ostentatious housing, why do I keep reading these articles about how Millennials are ruining peoples' retirement plans by not buying homes from Boomers who want to downsize? So what standard are you using to say that we are "collectively" better off? Does "we" include the relative handful of individuals who are receiving the overwhelming majority of all new wealth created in North America? If you go by the mean, we might be better off, but if you go by the median, we're not. And as the Boomers start dying out the median will start sliding down hill even faster. I can't speak to what's going on in Vancouver or Calgary or Toronto, but here, "cheaper than renting" is less a comment on the affordability of housing and more a comment on the results of a rental market where the vacancy rate is perpetually near zero. I was able to scrape together a down payment mostly using the New Homebuyer Plan, which let me use my RRSPs to make up most of my down payment. So just to clarify... we've gone from arguing that "we're better off than ever!" to "we're better off than it was in the 1930s"? Yeah, we've got better toys than you guys did. And we have better medical technology, which we're going to need because we're going to be working into our 80s. What did the old financial planning slogan used to be? "Freedom 55"? We don't hear about "Freedom 55" anymore. Maybe they can update it to "Freedom 85" or "Freedom When-You-Die". -k

Yeah, that's super. You know damned well the cop is going to violate you, but you comply with him anyway to avoid getting abused, and ask for money to compensate you for the humiliation later on. That's awesome. -k

Just do what the policeman says, and everything will be ok. A highway patrol officer stops a woman, and after a check of her license and registration, he says "Ma'am, I'm going to need to see your phone." "What?! Why?" "Ma'am, are we going to have a problem?" "No, sir," she says, handing over the phone. Why does the officer need her phone? He needs it so that he can look through her photos for sexy pictures that he can send to his squad buddies. -k

I agree. Far from undermining the cop's authoritah, as BC2004 claims, being able to state the reason you're being detained establishes that you're dealing with a professional with the law behind him, as opposed to a jackass who is abusing his power. -k

It could be that the records that made my list stayed with me because they embodied my evolution from a happy-go-lucky kimlet into the bitter, rage-filled woman I've become. -k

Like dad's old stereo that had woofers the size of pizzas! One of my favorite things was when my parents went out, I would take my Master of Puppets cassette and fast forward to "Orion", and turn up the volume. The deep bass of the opening chord would cause small objects in the room to oscillate, then the chords changed frequencies and different sets of objects would oscillate. It was the COOLEST THING EVER! -k