Maybe...maybe not. It's a claim, with no verifiable evidence either way available.
What I found was wiki claims only 14 American officers of any color have ever been convicted of murder 1. Often, that's because when a cop wrongly kills someone in the performance of their duties, that's manslaughter. Murder is a far higher bar requiring proof of premeditated intent to kill without a legal reason or to hide a crime.
(Side note: I have a friend who was convicted of manslaughter decades back....he pulled out a knife and stabbed someone in the stomach and chest over 7 times and left them to die. If he's not even charged with murder, the bar must be incredibly high, no?)
How many have been convicted for killing a black person? Totally unknown.

Even if his claim is correct, here's a chance to change that.....one is charged with murder right now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/06/texas-police-officer-who-killed-black-teen-could-spend-rest-of-his-life-in-prison/?utm_t
erm=.3c90c35abc6c

I've never seen anything that beats the car chases in Ronin.

This is good, but suffers too much from the current culture of many fast cuts rather than really setting the scene and letting us join the action. I also think the cutting is a little too predictable, partly because they basically re-use three different shots over and over with only occasional drops to different POVs. It also feels a little too much like "look what stunts I can do" rather than an actual life (in prison) or freedom car chase which drains much of the tension from the scene.

When should you shoot a cop?
Answer: any time a cop threatens your life or that of your family.
You can always morally use actual self defense to excuse homicide. Take it to a jury trial, prove they threatened you or your family, and most likely you'll not be convicted. I sure wouldn't convict someone who shot an armed intruder in their own home, no matter what color the intruder's uniform was.
I would prefer life in prison to having my family murdered, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

"Life in prison here is draconian."

Because they can't talk to other inmates, read books, watch TV, use exercise equipment, etc. all the time?

I think I'd take those "draconian" conditions over the ever-present threat of ass rape, getting shivved, etc. (to be fair, I'm operating under the assumption that those threats aren't as ubiquitous in the Japanese prison system, which may not be the case.) It is a prison, not a health spa; I think it is reasonable to expect some losses and limitations on privileges.

But in any case. the US system of getting pushed into a life of crime because there are extremely few other options for an ex-con (who probably ended up there due to a trivial drug charge) seems rather more "draconian" to me.

Manning is a world-wide hero, and we will lose him to a life in prison. I hope I can find some way of honoring his sacrifice in my lifetime, as he has essentially given up everything simply for having a greater understanding of conscience, and superior moral compass, to an entire nations military complex.

Sounds like you've still got hibernation sickness.

>> ^kulpims:

I'm not sure you can call this music. someone should get life in prison for this song ...

I'm not sure you can call this *music. someone should get life in prison for this song ...

That trigger-happy racist motherfucker needs to spend his life in prison.

>> ^budzos:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe some day you'll become enlightened enough to realize that the conscious choice to end a human life is ALWAYS wrong. It doesn't achieve anything but the psychic/spiritual degradation of us all.
I have to take offense at the stupid canard/strawman in your second paragraph. In an ideal world, it would be impossible for governments to declare war (AKA ordering mass murder). But it's not an ideal world yet, so war is going to be around for a while longer. However, elimination of the death penalty does not require an ideal world at all. It simply requires a sane, humane, empathetic approach to the issue (see the dozens of countries around the world with no death penalty as an example).


Always wrong though? Like if someone is trying to kill my daughter and I kill him in the struggle? I don't really have absolute moral authority to dictate right and wrong for you, but for myself, yes, death is something to be avoided whenever and wherever you can. Animal carnage, I despise. However, I do consider using death as a form of justice; a form of rational punishment. For instance, if I caused 400 damage to your property, I consider it a rational course of justice that 400 dollars of fine/reciprocity be extracted from the offender, and perhaps a little extra to discourage the activity. Likewise, it seems rational to expect that someone who takes a life, should in turn, have his life taken, it is a consistent course of reason. The one flaw being that, even after his life is taken, the life of the original party is not restored. That isn't our fault, though, just our inability as humans to ever achieve perfect justice. Like those in Enron, they stole far more then they could ever repay...no perfect justice could ever be done.

So I agree, animal barbarism as a justification for murder is pretty much always bad, or wrong as one might say morally. But I think you can support completely rational grounds for ending a life. Hell, I have considered suicide many times, which one can say is a form of self murder. That is where I find the argument for "ending a human life is always bad" breaks down. Likewise, my grandmother recently passed from emphysema. It was dreadfully painful watching her die. And in that, if she asked someone to help her die, I could not say it evil...the pain was so great. I am no utilitarian, but I don't think that dying is so bad or living so good. Living a life in prison being butt raped doesn't sound much better than just dying, I would rather die. To each his own, it sounds like you have stuff to live for and junk, so I can understand your zeal against death. I don't find humans entitled to anything, like life, I only value our rational agreements between each other. And those who choose not to play by the rule of rational existence, well, then they are playing by the rules of the jungle; and the jungle is a harsh mistress.

Beyond all that though, the practical notion that we are murdering innocent people is enough, to me, to call the whole ordeal off. I thank you for your response, and I didn't mean to offend with the war comparison. I was making the comparison that we do, indeed, live in an imperfect world where wars happen, so governments have the ability to counter act that. I thought that laterally compared to murder. though. Murder is in essence war against that person. A person at war with the state, in an imperfect world, can rationally be "terminated" by the war example. I don't mean to offend, and I am usually horrible in arguing such things in text, I should refrain from doing so ever again.

edited (like always, I am so bad at writing )

@BoneRemake That's your opinion, which is fine in your own home. Just don't stand in judgement of this father, or try to control what happens in his home.

I don't think it's over the line at all. In contrast, I'm sure some people think any form of spanking should get you life in prison.
________________________

As far as the girl posting this to reddit, seems like a cheap trick to me. A site that tolerates bigots and child porn doesn't strike me as the right forum for critiquing true abuse.

She's not running: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/05/breaking-sarah-palin-will-not-run-for-president/?hpt=hp_t1

>> ^quantumushroom:

Sarah Palin is the only potential candidate with the same "rockstar" power as The Kenyawaiian. Cain is smart and would make a fine candidate, but people are not logical or overly using their reasoning abilities; they are emotionally-driven from the reptilian brain, with only a thin veneer of reason. Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. No other candidates anywhere have this power at this time.
Palin is far smarter than the meager credit given by her critics. You don't become governor of Alaska by being a dummy. Nobody kicks a dead dog, and the disgraceful way Palin and her family have been treated by the libmedia since Day Uno should give anyone who 'trusts' any kind of media pause. I can't think of anyone else on the entire political spectrum who has been the target of such outright vitriol, personal and political, including Obama.
We can discuss Palin's verbal gaffes or 'hypocrisy' on issues; it does not matter. Palin loves America; I have never gotten that vibe from Barack. Ever. He seems a disdainful tea-sipping Eurointellectual, which would be forgivable if he ever did anything of note.
Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. That's really it. It would be no shame for her to run and lose, but if she didn't run at all, that would be cheating herself. If she doesn't run NOW, she'll be a ghost for 2016 and beyond.

Re: executions. Sorry, I did not see this question before now. Correct me at will, but I think the question you're really asking is, given the risk of accidentally putting an innocent person to death, do you still condone executions?
My answer is Yes. Liberals have not been able to prove an innocent man or woman anywhere in America has been executed, since at least 1950. Even were it so, it's a risk I'm happy to take.
The System needs to be fixed. This endless appeals bullshite needs to stop. No one sentenced to death should live longer than 10 days more.

The only way I would support ending the death penalty is if life in prison w/o any chance of parole was actual punishment. Federal crimes should be served in a federal gulag somewhere cold in the middle of nowhere, with few amenities. Every day should be hard labor until natural death. Once a month we can offer all the inmates a suicide pill. I'm sure you won't agree with much of this and that's fine. Most people in prison belong there. They are not nice people.


>> ^bareboards2:
Even my uber conservative father is somewhat embarrassed by her now. Started out a big fan.
So really? You really think this person is a viable political candidate for anything?
She does make a great Fox pundit. PS. That is not a compliment.
PPS Still waiting to hear from you about whether you are okay with the state executing innocent people. Yes or no. (Hint -- If you can't say it, you probably shouldn't be doing it.)

>> ^quantumushroom:
Palin out of the picture?
Wishful thinking from the libmedia assassins.

Sarah Palin is the only potential candidate with the same "rockstar" power as The Kenyawaiian. Cain is smart and would make a fine candidate, but people are not logical or overly using their reasoning abilities; they are emotionally-driven from the reptilian brain, with only a thin veneer of reason. Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. No other candidates anywhere have this power at this time.

Palin is far smarter than the meager credit given by her critics. You don't become governor of Alaska by being a dummy. Nobody kicks a dead dog, and the disgraceful way Palin and her family have been treated by the libmedia since Day Uno should give anyone who 'trusts' any kind of media pause. I can't think of anyone else on the entire political spectrum who has been the target of such outright vitriol, personal and political, including Obama.

We can discuss Palin's verbal gaffes or 'hypocrisy' on issues; it does not matter. Palin loves America; I have never gotten that vibe from Barack. Ever. He seems a disdainful tea-sipping Eurointellectual, which would be forgivable if he ever did anything of note.

Palin = Rockstar. Obama = Rockstar. That's really it. It would be no shame for her to run and lose, but if she didn't run at all, that would be cheating herself. If she doesn't run NOW, she'll be a ghost for 2016 and beyond.


Re: executions. Sorry, I did not see this question before now. Correct me at will, but I think the question you're really asking is, given the risk of accidentally putting an innocent person to death, do you still condone executions?

My answer is Yes. Liberals have not been able to prove an innocent man or woman anywhere in America has been executed, since at least 1950. Even were it so, it's a risk I'm happy to take.

The System needs to be fixed. This endless appeals bullshite needs to stop. No one sentenced to death should live longer than 10 days more.


The only way I would support ending the death penalty is if life in prison w/o any chance of parole was actual punishment. Federal crimes should be served in a federal gulag somewhere cold in the middle of nowhere, with few amenities. Every day should be hard labor until natural death. Once a month we can offer all the inmates a suicide pill. I'm sure you won't agree with much of this and that's fine. Most people in prison belong there. They are not nice people.





>> ^bareboards2:

Even my uber conservative father is somewhat embarrassed by her now. Started out a big fan.
So really? You really think this person is a viable political candidate for anything?
She does make a great Fox pundit. PS. That is not a compliment.
PPS Still waiting to hear from you about whether you are okay with the state executing innocent people. Yes or no. (Hint -- If you can't say it, you probably shouldn't be doing it.)

>> ^quantumushroom:
Palin out of the picture?
Wishful thinking from the libmedia assassins.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

Thank You, Duckman.

I have to agree with TYT here. Life in prison for ALL of them.
I also agree with them about the coverage (I hadn't heard it at all).

We can't fix it if we don't acknowledge it.

I'm not going to address the rest of your long post, because really -- it does just get down to this: if abortion is murder, then the death penalty is murder.

The death penalty is not murder, it is punishment, if you even want to call it that.

Three squares a day, activities, mail, internet, tv for decades on Death Row, followed by a chosen last meal and a chance to say last words, not dying alone is far better then what the vermins' victims got.

I'd be for abolishing the death penalty if life in prison really meant life in prison, and time was served on a frozen rock gulag in Alaska with only the barest of necessities.