500 innocent Americans killed is total bullshit anyway. I want to see names, not just some strawman argument. 11 million people are arrested every year, and many of these 'American citizens' are mental cases, gang members, hardcore criminals, drug addicts etc.

The video states that 'the DOJ estimates that 500 innocent Americans are killed every year'. I would love to see where the DOJ determines their 'innocence'. I want to see the document on that one.

And if one example (Trayvon martin) doesn't invalidate their argument, how can a handful of other examples (as seen in the video) validate it?

If 'a black man is murdered every 28 hours', then ask yourself why so many black men are resisting arrest or engaging in conduct that leads to them getting killed.

You can listen to a police scanner in any major city and the majority of calls will involve police calls for assistance regarding a black man or men engaged in violent criminal behavior. Go ahead and listen, you might learn something. And these calls are generally coming from other black people who want to be protected from the criminals who live amongst them.

The video also states that police officers always get off scott free after killing people. Give me some names. The DOJ went after Darren Wilson with everything they had and eventually had to admit that he acted properly and within the law.

'This ain't a war zone!' the man cries. Did he search everyone in that crowd? How does he know they are unarmed?

The video also concerns an Australian police action. What does that have to do with American police, which is the subject of the video?

Furthermore, the police acting improperly on the video...what is the story behind each officer? Was he/she reprimanded, suspended, fired? There is no followup, it is just assumed that they all got away with improper behavior.

The whole system is racist, says the sign. Tell it to Eric Holder, the black attorney general! lol give me a fucking break

Where is the attention given to black on black crime? You don't hear about it. 2500 people shot in Chicago last year, look it up.

Charles Shaw, you are a fraud.

think you will dig this:
http://videosift.com/video/release-us-a-short-film-on-police-brutality-by-charles-shaw

Ahh, that's a great example too. Violence isn't really a discreet term, it means almost anything aggressive. Which also means using it as a legal term is hazardous; a bully being in the same realm of a terrorist seems a bit much for me to leave up in the air.

So ya, I disagree with him just a bit on that and his animal liberation front. And I credit more to general entropy than to flat out planning of our oppression, but I could be wrong.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like this, though, I still would call blowing up something a violent crime. Haven't really examined if I think violence is something that can only be done against people, not property. Knocking down mailboxes with a bat could be a good counter argument to that, though. Perhaps what I mean by violent is the result not only the actual result, but the potential result, and it is easier to get hit with a bomb incidentally, and it isn't so hard to hit someone you don't mean to with a bat. Or like that Myth-busters cannon that went off, it was violent to be sure, but wasn't done out of animosity. Perhaps what I mean by violence is a word better used as carnage.

QFT. Ask any abused wife if actual damage needs to occur for violence to be perpetrated. Threat of violence is still a violent act. Blowing up a Hummer conveys a threat against the owner by it's very nature.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Like this, though, I still would call blowing up something a violent crime. Haven't really examined if I think violence is something that can only be done against people, not property. Knocking down mailboxes with a bat could be a good counter argument to that, though. Perhaps what I mean by violent is the result not only the actual result, but the potential result, and it is easier to get hit with a bomb incidentally, and it isn't so hard to hit someone you don't mean to with a bat. Or like that Myth-busters cannon that went off, it was violent to be sure, but wasn't done out of animosity. Perhaps what I mean by violence is a word better used as carnage.


QFT. Ask any abused wife if actual damage needs to occur for violence to be perpetrated. Threat of violence is still a violent act. Blowing up a Hummer conveys a threat against the owner by it's very nature.

thank you for the quality!
In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Watched it in one sitting.
*quality

>> ^Payback:

The Holocaust = Problem Reaction Solution.


the hegelian dialectic.talk about a vile tool but effective.