Suggesting that Reason ignores reality that doesn’t fit its narrative is simply false.  

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/21/george-mcgovern-rip

The two head-honchos there are happy to express their belief in environmental regulations and a social safety net.  But they have no problem in explaining how those things could be managed more efficiently and effectively.

They address reality and they suggest ways of dealing with it.  Like I said, I don’t always agree, but not agreeing with the proper role of government, doesn’t mean that they’re ignoring reality. 

I don’t agree with Reason on lots of things, but they do some solid reporting.

If I find a Boing Boing (or Time or Newsweek or New York Times) article with a hyperbolic or factually incorrect article, it wouldn’t really be fair or reasonable to dismiss everything from that source, would it?

Just sayin’.

but I don’t think we can say for sure that this guy was completely innocent either.

“Well we can imagine he maybe did something wrong…so he deserved it!”  Terrible argument, dude.

In fact the USA has recently jailed people who broke those rules while in combat areas.

Only when the incident is so bad it can’t be covered up or otherwise excused.  From what I can tell the rules of engagement provide quite a bit of leeway.

The most pertinent case IMO would be Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” 

Or, perhaps State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260. “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.”

Also See
John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. 
State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306
and on and on

Any time a homeless person gets a job and receives a check, they are fined by the bank cashing their check (even for checks drawn on that bank) since they don’t have an account they cannot get since they don’t have a home.Stay classy bankers!

Military training in no way prepares you to be a police officer. These are entirely different disciplines. 
Don’t be fooled because both cops and soldiers wear uniforms and carry guns. Training as one does not qualify you to be the other. The police are to protect the people. The people are their boss and their charge. The military are trained to kill people. 

It’s called proper use of force and proper distribution of resources.

Then the male cop punched him, and knocked him down onto the couch, and continuously punched him for about thirty seconds. We can see the homeless man curled up in a fetal position, protecting his face. Eventually the male cop took a break, and the female cop started jabbing him with a baton. Then they propped up the homeless man for a moment, then pushed him back down and started beating him again.

In other words, the homeless man looked threatening for an instant, and then was continuously beaten, even though he immediately stopped showing any signs of resistance.

Resisting without violence is a misdemeanor offense, you can get up to a year for that.
Raising your hand, as if to hit a cop, is assault on a PO.
Hitting another person is battery. Battery doesn’t have to be a hit or strike, touching a cop will typically be considered a battery, a third degree felony with a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Touching, shoving, spitting and all that are battery.
Yes, the laws are that fucked up.

So, by law and according to this video, the sleeper seems guilty of resisting arrest, assault and battery, before the cop attacks him, unprofessionally, as if this was a bar fight.
Those are two different things.

Just my opinion, as someone that has probably amassed a century in possible prison time for not playing nice with uniformed authority, because they don’t.
I’ve received all the beatings I can stand in this life when I was a child. I don’t let anyone hit me or others now that I’m big.
The sleeper does. The attached picture shows how he opens up, moving his arms behind him, giving the cop a clear shot at his face and throat, when the cop, n00blike, “announces” that he intends to hit him and even where he is aiming.
The sleepers motions at the time immediately before he gets hit are equivalent to that of a puppy rolling over exposing his throat and belly.
He doesn’t even fight back at all, he just really doesn’t want to get restrained and arrested.

Why are there so many cops?
They would have needed them all for me.
(Internet tuff guy-ish, I know, but I just happen to get a kick …)

One of the most corrosive effects of the Iraq war is that from the top level of civilian control down, the military was encouraged to let that standard slip.  It’s poisonous damage that will take a *long* time to heal… if ever.

But AllenMcBride is right; it’s stupid to make this problem about soldiers.  Brutal and stupid cops have always existed; nothing to do with whether they’re veterans or not.  The problem is that police are badly trained by a badly designed system and then allowed to be free of responsibility for their actions.  End of story.

(Although his argument that vets have run for president recently rather badly undermines his case…)