SkyDekker

Without more information it is a stupid exercise. Take the 12 year old in Cleveland. The way the police handled the situation it is a justified shooting. Most sane people realize that if the police had handled the situation with tact that 12 year old would likely still be alive. So, in the US that is a justified shooting. In the rest of the modern world that shooting would not have taken place.

LMAO, those facts don't help you Anvil. They hurt you. In the 12 months ending March 31, 2013 in England and Wales, police discharged a firearm in 3 incident.....that is 3 incidents. Compare that to the US..... so with 6.8% of guns per 100 compared to the US, they have 0.8% of the number of police shootings compared to the US. (And that is only if you use the 400 number, many people believe the number is significantly higher) Don't you hate it when the facts you think support your argument end up blowing it out of the water? You guys just love to shoot and kill people. Just a very agressive society, where violence tends to be the answer for most problems. It is how you run your foreign policy, no surprise your society runs the same way.

' Bullshit do your own research the number of shootings is about right, but only about 12 of the shootings are legit and legal. Yup, generally determined by the same police department the shooter was from. I am sure there is no bias and it is a completely neutral process.

Do they have a mock up of a school, a cafe, and a police station? Too soon?

Isn't she a singer? I am sure some of the infants this was performed on sang through the whole thing

I love the back and forth justifying why the US has so many more civilian on cop and cop on civilian shootings than the rest of the western world.

I think you may have missed the sarcasm in my post

There is debate about why Japan surrendered. Here is the timeline: August 6 1945 - Hiroshima is bombed August 9 1945 - Nagasaki is bombed August 9 1945 - Soviet Union declares war on Japan August 9 1945 - Soviet Union launches invasion of Manchuria on 3 fronts: - Khingan–Mukden Offensive Operation - Harbin–Kirin Offensive Operation - Sungari Offensive Operation August 15 1945 - Japan surrenders Whatever....the American history books say it was because of the bombs.

We have always been at war with Eastasia Exactly! Now why, since everyone here is so smart, hasn't anyone offered their solution? I am not scared to tell you mine. How do I know it would work? Well I have history on my side. Ask Japan. 2 bombs and they changed. Not one single liberal that has posted has offered any opinion on a solution only attacking those trying to keep us safe. I also agree 100% that I should not be the one making those decisions because I would have no problem making the hard and frankly the only decision that will end it once and for all. Every other decision only prolongs the problem until one day they end us. Which is THEIR SOLUTION to the problem and how that completely escapes each of you defending this evil is mind boggling. Your all so set on defending some sort anti-god yet twisted humanity spin you cant see the truths staring you in the face. I was taught how to see and paly both sides a very long time ago by a great man and teacher. I can play the whole scenario out and yes I see and have thought your side through. I could argue just as well your opinion and be convincing but it would be wrong. Not because your wrong but because the ones we are talking about get a vote in the decision and that is the biggest thing your missing. Lol, yet somehow you think that just turning the middle east into a "glass parking lot" will end it all. Let me know how twe rest of that scenario plays out. Cause, if you think the rest of the world would not react to that, you are delusional.

Isn't this exactly what the 2nd amendment is for? When the populace believes government is out of control. Many believe that the police and the judicial system are out of control and biased against minorities. Didn't the founding father's allow for an armed response? Obviously this is very sad, but I think pretty reflective of the type of society that has been created. In American society the answer to many problems tends to be overwhlemingly in favour of violence.

Not be a coward. Period. I know you're going to give all sorts of excuses why that's not the answer "corporate counsel" should/would/could give, but you asked me what I would advise. I would find a way to stand up to the bully. I would get the protection of the National Guard if I had to. I would run disclaimers in the papers saying the theaters are under threat from North Korea and IF people don't want to come to the showings they are certainly welcome to stay away. But . . . I'd find a way to show the film. And how would you deal with the repercusisonf rom the other studios, because their movies are now taking a financial hit, because of the actions you as the movie theatre have taken?

Why not...all black people are responsible for what happens in Ferguson unless they openly speak out against it via youtube...isn't that the point you have been trying to make in other threads?

just to interrupt, yes, yes I do, I would absolutely not do anything that this family has done, would YOU? I would like to think that I wouldn't either. But nobody knws how they are going to react in a high stress and high emotional situation.

unless you can prove they are lying, I don't see how one can exclude them however, I would think their testimony is less than complete unless the other side also gets to put forth the 'rest of the story' it's why there is a prosecution and a defense - and both need to do their jobs (that said, I don't know how a grand jury proceeding might have different rules than what I'd expect from a jury trial proceeding) What I'm more interested in, is whether all this stuff in those two links....was it presented to the grand jury also? AND, were any of the counter arguments also vetted as thoroughly and completely presented? There is no defence on a grand jury....just a prosecutor. There simply isn't anybody else to provide "the other side" of the story. It is assumed the prosecutor actually wants to get the indictment. It is very rare for a prosecutor not to get the indictment. OK, so what is your issue with the outcome? If the outcome was influenced by very questionable witnesses like this, witnesses who would have never stood up in court, then there should have been court proceedings.

What they don't do is kill eachother so much.

unless you can prove they are lying, I don't see how one can exclude them however, I would think their testimony is less than complete unless the other side also gets to put forth the 'rest of the story' it's why there is a prosecution and a defense - and both need to do their jobs (that said, I don't know how a grand jury proceeding might have different rules than what I'd expect from a jury trial proceeding) What I'm more interested in, is whether all this stuff in those two links....was it presented to the grand jury also? AND, were any of the counter arguments also vetted as thoroughly and completely presented? There is no defence on a grand jury....just a prosecutor. There simply isn't anybody else to provide "the other side" of the story. It is assumed the prosecutor actually wants to get the indictment. It is very rare for a prosecutor not to get the indictment.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Why include an eye-witness who wasn't even there? One who has previously obviously lied to get involved in a police investigation. One who is so obviously racist? Even though those parts did not get presented at the Grand Jury. Why include witnesses whose story is so unbelievable, that it likely will get dismissed instantly? And not sure how Thesmokinggun.com is part of the "race industry"?

So far witness 40 and witness 41 should simply not have made it to the grand jury. It calls into question the quality of the other witnesses presented. It also should make you wonder why witnesses like that were presented in the first place.

Interesting article about the constant failures at CIA and the woman who appears to be in the centre of it all: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture?mbid=social_twitter

Great victory for the freedoms in the US.

Some more interesting reading: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/Ferguson-toilet-tale-687543 Interesting choices in "witnesses" to bring to the Grand Jury.

Interesting read: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236 Am

If a movie is made and no one can see it, does it make a sound? Only when it falls in the woods.

I think you are reaching for something that's not there. thanks for trying to clarify. Actually I was hoping to get actual answers to the questions, since you appear to agree with Mr. Powell.

Bullshit. The movie has been made, the expression has taken place. So far it appears what they have lost is the ability to make lots of money from it. Though that may change in the future. And it wasn't Sony really, it was the movie theatres who caved and decided not to show it. Probably on the advice of their lawyers.