On second thought, those youtube caption translations don't make any sense.
I found a list for ya back and put it up in the comments on the video. http://videosift.com/video/Drew-Carey-101-Big-Dick-Jokes
Hey, I got robbed. Was that all 101? It seems to be cut off.
This faux news head is obnoxious.
what was she talking about?
Is the real story here that Americans might get spied on by someone other than the NSA?
Not unrelated: Robert Lustig's talk on the sift: http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
I got stuck in the Toronto airport last week. My connecting flight was cancelled due to it being too cold... in Canada... for Canadians... to work... at the airport...
I.. er.. um.. I just agreed... with a central argument... made by Glen Beck.. ... ...
If there were drugs in the car, wouldn't the police have found them once they caught up?
But onto the content of this video, this has little to do with the high speed limit. The mother was probably concerned with the drugs she had in the car--which could have resulted in the loss of her children. First there are many factors here. The biggest one is that the last officer to arrive was most likely unaware of the children in the vehicle (Since it looks like he had just arrived at the end of the video.) Second, there were a lot of people there who were defensive of their mother, one of which was already physically aggressive. The third point to make is that a vehicle is a deadly weapon, no matter what kind. By driving off you are showing a dangerous recklessness and willingness to hurt/kill other people (Including your children) and that you are fine with the worst scenario happening. (This is also why there is a no chase policy, unless circumstances outweigh the risks.) I personally think this officer was indecisive and used far too little force to start with when the mother drove away the first time. In fact, it resulted in far too much at the end. The officer holds his tazer at the son without using it. What was he thinking? In truth, he let this happen by trying to be kind. Make no mistake, I don't agree with how the officers handled it. There are policies to avoid this. And shooting into a car, for the simple fact that it can then be driverless and a danger to others, is/should be prohibited (Again, based on the totality of what a reasonable officer thinks is the danger to others.)
*blocked in Canada.
The skipped the moon...
Unfortunately things aren't so simple. My understanding is that the land in question is traditional Native land which was never surrendered to Canada. Rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada and lower courts have established a duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal people when development is considered on their land, even non-reserve traditional lands. This was either not done, or wasn't successful. There is also some suspicion that one of the individuals who set fire to the police cruisers is an RCMP informant. But I haven't found satisfactory evidence of that yet. If true, it would not be the first instance of police provocateurs infiltrating protests in Canada.
I'm gonna give the knee jerk Canadian perspective. I may change my opinion after looking closer. From what I currently understand, the land being worked on is owned by the Canadian government, not the protesters. The police arrested protesters that were preventing work from being done. The protesters then set fire to several police cars. This is ugly and not really sure what more the police/gov were expected to do?
*promote *quality I don't expect this is the last the protesters will see of the police. Gasco's want their money, and fracking wells is how they will get it.
It's almost like every one of these news anchors is reading the same script...
Not yet a member? No problem!Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?Recover it now.
Check your email for a verification code and enter it below.Don't close this box or you must fill out this form again.
Already signed up?Log in now.
Remember your password?Log in now.