>Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told Action News that Internal Affairs is investigating the incident involving the officer, 32-year-old Matthew Zagursky.
He’s a nine year veteran of the force.

Extortion, homophobic slurs...
How long do you think it'll take this shitface to work as a cop in another city?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Amy Schumer, Inside, Aaron Sorkin, Josh Charles, Foodroom, Newsroom, politics, sketch' to 'Amy Schumer, Aaron Sorkin, Josh Charles, Foodroom, Newsroom, inside amy schumer' - edited by Grimm

I watched this when I was bored as fuck in Oaklahoma during the summer of 2002 at my ex's grandma's house. It's too hot to go outside, let's watch grandma's VHS collection. 12 volumes of Conway Twitty specials, Once Upon a Time in the West (Sergio Leone: Henry Fonda and Charles fucking Bronson motherfucker), Breaker Breaker starring Chuck Norris, 9 to 5 starring tig ol bitties, and Mississippi Burning with the Gene HACK-man.

Yep. I watched Mississippi Burning, Once Upon a Time in the West and Breaker Breaker over and over AND OVER all summer in the back woods of Oaklahoma. And played shit tons of magic the gathering (and sex). Even now, when I play magic, all I think of is the word Shitkicker, semi truck car chases, dreary harmonica drifting over a desert, and Dolly Parton's tits (and femdom bondage).

White American culture, huh? This clip is awesome.

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-charles-barkley-supports-ferguson-grand-jury-decision-163736319.html

No disrespect intended towards your cousin, but Darwin espoused a different view about transitional fossils:

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

Darwin didn't believe all fossils were transitional in the sense I am referring to. He believed that there would be specific fossils showing the links between families, but he thought the reason they couldn't be found was because of the relatively few amount of fossils we had back then. Today hundreds of millions to perhaps billions of fossils have been found, but those pesky transitional forms are still nowhere to be seen.

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

Mr. Charles Darwin to the white courtesy phone . . .

Eh? I don't think @newtboy was comparing anyone to Charles Manson.

He was essentially saying "two wrongs don't make a right". Feels like a valid point to me.

If you want hyperbole, look at that bullshit Higgs quote. Let's actually ask how many police assaults are happening. Instead of making up figures (on a fucking logarithmic scale, no less), let's get some actual data. Let's find out who these police are, and let's prosecute the bastards. And then while we're at it, let's get a percentage figure on the number of decent cops doing their jobs vs assholes abusing their power.

But nah, fuck it. Far easier to just claim that any contrary evidence "no longer have any standing whatever" (by the way, it's "whatsoever") since grammar pedantry is so apparently important.

Data?? That just a fancy liberal word for story!

The comparison to Charles was an extreme example I assumed everyone could agree with to illustrate the point that one person doing a wrong does not excuse another person doing a wrong, and not a comparison of any person to Charlie. The analogy was apt, as this person was saying because Obama doesn't follow the constitution, he doesn't have to. Even if you believe the first part of that statement, the second part does not follow.

Very rarely...okay, never have I agreed with Bobkight...but I will say this--no President (or at least in many years) has followed our Constitution if it has not suited them. Sometimes this disregard has been necessary in fact. But the comparison to Charles was a bit hyperbolic. I expect it from Bob, not you...

That would only be "better" if
1)this ass clown was right about Obama "decimating the constitution" (even if Obama has violated it, and there's no legal evidence yet presented that he has, that does not 'decimate' it, it would in fact strengthen it if he were called to task for such a violation...the document, the system it creates and delineates, and the rights it codifies are far stronger than a single person).

2)it would actually make a difference in this guys mind if it were somehow PROVEN that Obama had not (or would not in the future) broken a law or violated the constitution (contrary to the hyperbole he bases his baseless argument on).

3)if Obama's (or anyone else's) actions could somehow excuse the incontrovertibly wrong actions of another person. (eg. Charles Manson got crazy zealous people to kill and terrify others, so it's fine for me to get people to break into your home and kill your family? I think not, one person's wrong actions never excuse someone else's wrong actions....simply never.)

Because none of these are true, I find that your foreseeable, useless, partisan based suggestion is not 'better', proper, or useful.

Charles de Gaulle?

Seth Efrica, bru.

And they apparently did get caught, there's a link to a news story about it in the YouTube comments if you can face scrolling through the inevitable racism and debates over going all Charles Bronson on their asses.