dorbie

Incorrect, after refusing to leave and refusing to show ID he finally decided he wanted to leave, but he was subject to arrest by then. Your use of the word easily is presumptious. Placing the handcufs on a resisting and uncooperative suspect is risky. He insisted on leaving, he was not following simple instructions or requests. They may lose the lawsuit, it depends on datails and presentations we will not be privvy to.

Not true. There is a use of force continuum that police are supposed to follow. Deadly force is the last step. Tasers are an alternative to deadly force and should only be used as a last resort. Tasers can and do kill people. BTW - I think the student was a douchbag. It depends on your reasoning of what the next move would have been. A wrestling match is not an option with an armed cop, who might lose his weapon to a resisting suspect.

I almost added that caveat but thought it unnecessary.

He wasn't even breaking a law. (Mr. Bookman from Seinfeld was not there!) A cop telling you to leave is not the law. It's just some dickhead with a taser and a gun telling you to leave the library. Unless he is acting to enforce the law, his actions are not justified. There have been several cases of peaceful, non-threatening resistance where the police responded with tasers and/or pepper spray, and they LOST the lawsuits. Just google 'q-tip pepper spray' - a case of police swabbing pepper spray directly into the eyeballs of peaceful protestors and then spraying them inches from their eyes. Yes, the cops lost. Less lethal can be good, but the potential for abuse is huge. People in the library require ID, the cop cannot determine if he's there legally or not without seeing ID, the University requires ID to be shown on request. You can argue the technicality but it's a dumb argument that only works with hindsight which the cop cannot have. If it were any other way anyone in the library would be unchallengable even if unauthorized.

Yea, SUUUUUUURE, and I've NEVER met a black person who called their hair nappy and you NEVER already said blacks do this all the time in this thread. You can claim it all you like, it doesn't make it so, and my experience with other blacks directly contradicts your claim.

You can keep complaining all you like we're not buying it. All these people demanding an apology and saying that they won't accept the apology before it's been given are the ones who should be ashamed. You think that gains any traction with anyone? Do you have any idea what that makes the community look like? The only thing you're interested in as a lynching over a phoney pretext. You cannot reserve words for black use, use them yourself frequently and casually then call for the sacking of someone who used those same words because he is white. That is racism, like it or not, that is the ugly reality of this sorry episode. The irony here is Imus is more comfortable and in tune with diverse cultures including hip-hop than most whites hence he used the term (having heard similar use many times) not realizing that he's not insider enough to get away with it without people wanting to pile on for the beat down.

There are more objectionable things on radio, yes I find it lacks taste, and the girls themselves made a better case than Sharpton did. My objection should not lead the guy to get fired. Hos is not on the FCC list of exclusions (if it were he'd merely get fined), the girls have civil recourse, the corporations are private entities, YOU can tune out or buoycott the sponsors. Perversely the mentions of hos in the context were intended as a compliment to say how badass these players were, such is the vanacular. I have a greater revultion at the current self serving pantomime over his comments in the so called "land of the free", than I do to the broadcast of his comments. People talking about their "hurt" over words should be treated with massive skepticism, especially when they routinely use those same words themselves.

I'm not about to touch on the premise of that film, but can anyone tell me how life began on this planet? What's the consensus in the scientific community? There is no consensus (and probably never will be), but there are several viable theories. I think there might be, especially through simulation which is getting pretty sophisticated, it's not like there's raging controversey over the concept, just lack of certainty over the details. Once you have RNA the rest will happen over time and evolution clearly applies to RNA, but I think it applies to any self replicating chemicals and I think it's pretty obvious (to me)that it does, evolution is an innate emergent property of chemical self-replication, and replication with encoding doubly so, but more tennuously you could argue that evolution leads to finding an encoding ability through self-replication of simpler chemicals. You just need to stumble on one of these in the right chemical soup to sustain the reaction and you're off to the races (and it might not be a smooth process, it could stagnate or reach stabiity etc. before something comes along and shakes up the system, like a pool drying up or a flood mixing one soup with another, or a change in chemical composition). The real questions are over the details, especially over how it got bootstrapped. It's pretty well accepted that RNA without cells was an important precursor to life. I doubt there's any cellular microbiologist who believes in evolution out there who doesn't think that once you get to RNA in the right soup the rest is inevitable, even if they don't know the details. But I could be wrong about that. The film gets several key points spectacularly wrong though. 1) You can believe that God made the first cell and the environment in which it could replicate and still believe that evolution then took over. 2) If life ever started to emerge in a food jar, you'd never recognize it, it would at best be tiny amino acids and food is full of them anyway, how would you know. 3) Food jars do not contain the initial condition that led to life, in some senses it is far richer, crammed with organic mollecules, complex proteins, RNA and DNA. Life and the chemicals that create it abound in a food jar. In other senses they lack the sheer volume, the right chemical soup the potential for the right reactions the energetic events and aeons of time that may have been involved in the bootstrapping of the simplest organic chemistry. The video is about the most spectacularly ignorant and idiotic analysis you will ever watch on evolutionary biology.

That's another silly statement. Cops have wives and kids and their own right to survive an encounter, they also carry deadly weapons, they cannot afford to get into wrestling matches with belligerent fools who refuse to comply with legal instructions. The risks are obvious. They cannot simply use persuasion indefinitely as enforcement it doesn't work, that's why we need cops. They tried talk for a prolonged period, they asked the guy repeatedly to comply and he repeatedly refused, prefering to determine his own (changing) course of action. A taser is a reasonable option once the suspect has repeatedly refused to comply with verbal requests/instructions and has been warned they will be tasered. Tasers have been abused by cops, but I doubt they were in this case.

Are you referring to the NY style beat down? No, I'm referring to beating someone up for using words they're not allowed to use because of the color of their skin.

That's not the story I heard. You have to watch when someone is feeding you selective facts to elicit an emotional response.

And Imus should go back to just being a GUY and not a nationally broadcast radio personality. About as much as you should go back to being a guy and not a professor and prolific political web poster. What do you find acceptable about calling identifiable college girls "hos" on national radio? There's a lot of stuff on national radio I don't listen to, Imus included. It's a dumb thing to say but have you heard the segment and the comment that preceeded it? If this was about calling a girls team hos Sharpton wouldn't be complaining. This has unfortunately entered the vanacular. Bernard McGuirk the executive producer interjects in the middle of what Imus is saying and says "... some hardcore hos" and Imus parrots it with his prefix. http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011

http://www.break.com/index/double_standard.html

If ANYONE did it, not just a black person, that's the difference.

And that is one face of REAL racism today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_Rimmer#Ace_Rimmer

Nah I will let you lot over there smoke the bait fish.. I only smoke real fish.. Halibutt and Salmon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipper http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2751046#2751046 And I'm over here.

Jesse had a job?

And Imus should go back to just being a GUY and not a nationally broadcast radio personality. About as much as you should go back to being a guy and not a professor and prolific political web poster.

Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

We must delve deeper then, here is the context: Clearly it refers to judgement day for manufacturers of dairy then. The key issue is when you read 1000 years in Revelation and read this in Peter, what do you conclude? Opinions differ, and Mr Bill Cole would call you biblically illiterate (or maybe just spiritually blinded) if you don't agree with his conclusion. Now he kinda said this in response to something I wrote (actually Michele to whom I also replied), but I know exactly what he's referring to . Like I said opinions differ, this sort of thing is all over the place especially when it comes to deciphering Revelations. It just illustrates that it is a bit presumptious of anyone to say someone else lacks a spiritual understanding of "God's WORD".

Not their flagpole, not their school, not their flag AND they stole the flag. then it has ZERO to do with respect to the flag - it has ZERO to do with free speech - it has to do with petulant children stealing, vandalising and trespassing The Flag isn't in distress at all - private property is It is what it is, it doesn't need you redefining it. They didn't turn a vehicle upside down, they turned a flag upside down and they did it to make a political statement, and they did it because this school didn't walk out en masse as part of their political protest. People here are commenting on that political statement for a reason, as is their right. You can tip-toe around the tulips all day long pretending it wasn't a political statement, good luck with that.

Not the entire industry, just a big part of it including all the culprits you mentioned. Of course my point is that there's plenty of shoulders to lay the blame on besides Imus'. It wasn't always like this, but you can't tollerate one then come out and slam some radio host when he uses the same words.

If it's only hurtful when a cracker says it then you're the racist, not Imus.