c13

If he didn't mean all officers, then he wouldn't of said "how dirty police can be." That implies that all officers are capable and willing to act that way. And I never defended the actions of cops involved. I just pointed out his hypocrisy.

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

He most likely created this thread in response to the St. Louis thread, where he argued that the cop must be guilty because he's a white male who killed a black male. I compared his blanket labeling of cops to racism, because both his stance on cops and racism come from seeing examples from a minority of people in a certain group and then drawing drastic conclusions from it. From the St. Louis thread>, here's one of his posts, about how white male cops are racists and on how all cops commit police brutality:

The law may come into existence and it may be enforced, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to approve a law before it goes into effect. The court system comes into play when people dispute the constitutionality of a law.

http://gtapolicemods.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=721 http://gtapolicemods.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=648

All jurisdictions can create laws that may limit the bill of rights, but the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to interpret the constitution in Marbury v. Madison, therefore they have the final say in any case where rights are questioned. Supreme Court decisions can make laws null and void or they can allow for much stricter laws to be passed.

Yes, because the actions of 1 case represent the actions of 780,000 police officers. This is called unjust profiling. When applied to a race of people, it becomes racism, which you claim to be vehemently against. But here you are applying judgement to an entire group of people based on the actions of a minority of that group. This is awfully hypocritical of you.

The same way you know everything is a case of racist police brutality.

Some one is pointing a gun that looks like an ar-15 at people, including children, in a public place, during a string of mass shootings, and then points it at cops. It's not a matter of race, it's a matter of stupidity.

"Execute" in the title indicates that police walked up to him, ordered him to the ground and shot him in the back of the head. Highly unlikely. Judging by other videos, particularly one of a man who was walking around with a pellet rifle and aimed it at people, titled "Police Murder Man in Wal-Mart holding Toy Gun", you can't claim that that news source is unbiased. Before anyone says anything, pellet rifles ARE capable of killing and have been used to kill dozens of people, just google it. They are not toys like many anti-police people portray them as, and some models have ballistics similar to a .22 caliber rifle.

How do you know what happened? His friends said so on the media (clearly an unbiased source)? Honestly, I'm not taking any sides on this. While I find it unlikely that a cop would shoot some one for no reason as it is being spun, I know that police have acted wrong in the past and no one is capable of being perfect, thus an overreaction might have occurred. However, I also know that every single source on this is biased, which is why I'm waiting for video (Body mounted cameras would really help with cases like this), a trashed interior of a police car or shell casings inside the police car. Until any of these things are presented, it's stupidity to assume to know exactly what happened.

Depending on if you like ELS or not, one of these should suit you: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

Honestly, free speech is free speech and nothing will come of a petition to suppress free speech. While free speech isn't intended for this, it is intended for unpopular opinions, and because of that it is impossible to shut US based sites down without slander involved.

Burn down your neighborhood. That will prove your point.

http://www.gta-universe.com/forums/index.php?/files/file/3-2012-chevrolet-caprice-liberty-city-police-dept/

Now the British SAS has been sent to Iraq:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-deployed-iraq-british-special-4026869#.U-er2fldXZ-

But no one has maintained control of Afghanistan outside of the locals. Your theory would mean that instead of giving the Taliban government a slice of the pie, which wouldn't be far fetched considering their cooperation during the Soviet-Afghanistan wars, the US decided to kill 4000 of its own people then blow the crap out of the Taliban and completely destabilize Afghanistan for the next few decades, making the pipeline goal impossible to attain. It makes no sense for a corporation build a pipeline, that has hundreds of miles in Afghanistan capable of being blown up, then send valuable contractors out to repair it weekly or more when those contractors would most likely be ambushed and wiped out due to having very little support. The only potential way that could happen now is if Afghanistan got nuked, but then there would be much bigger problems than a pipeline.

The problem is that concrete given to Hamas since 2007 for building schools has been used instead to build over 40 underground tunnels for militants, and the civilians are once again suffering because of Hamas. While I don't know much about the Kashmir and India conflicts, I would assume that the Kashmir's don't have a charter that calls for the killing of all Indians.

Do you really think a corporation is stupid enough to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, when a part of it would get blown up on a weekly basis?

That's the problem with guerilla warfare, that cowards often hide behind civilians. According to the Geneva Accords, while militaries aren't allowed to target civilians, civilians can still be killed if they are acting as human shields for military targets. Israel tried with air dropped leaflets and broadcasted messages, but they can't help it if civilians, some purposefully, put themselves in harms way at the urging of the guerilla force. And it's especially cowardly to urge civilians to be extra bodies for your cause.

Hamas is firing missiles from schools, telling civilians to ignore Israel's warnings of future attacks and in some cases running forward carrying assault rifles and babies. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/wap/Item.aspx?type=0&item=183211 Since Hamas initiated the actions and put the civilians, including children, at risk, the responsibility lies primarily on Hamas.

I never said it was good. I said Israel can't be blamed as the primary cause when Hamas purposely puts the children in the situation, and that Hamas is most likely lying about the affiliations of most casualties, like in the 2008-2009 conflict.