Please follow along here:

Ascribing guilt, and the degree of that guilt, to individuals committing crimes is the job of Juries, prosecutors and judges. The job of defense attorneys to reduce that degree of guilt ascribed to their clients.

If 5 men go into a bank, all intending on robbing it and some people get killed, the old task was to see who shot, who restrained people so they could be shot, who said "don't shoot" to their fellow robbers, who left in the middle of the crime and who drove the get-away car. And what if we then see there is a crime boss that didn't go, but planned the whole thing and caused a diversion to help the crime be successful. Such bosses often don't kill anyone or even rob anyone,--- but they are not guiltless. Like Charles Manson ----or for that matter Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini.

Today the law simply charges ALL participants with murder and robbery equally. In fact if a patron kills a robber the other robbers will be charged with murder, because had it not been for them committing that crime the dead man would be alive. It's the crime that is the focus here

Ok.......same line of logic here.-------- Lets follow along.

Cops now act outside the law in enforcing political agendas against innocent citizens involved in 'non-crimes'. Some of those non-crimes are listed in a statute as a crime because the Courts have failed to strike them down as unconstitutional, such as "trespassing" in public places, anti-gun laws, "hate" speech, (part of free speech) But non-mask-wearing is a non-crime and not even a law anywhere. Policy IS NOT LAW!!!!! NO state has passed such a law, and even if they did it would be unconstitutional because of it's health problems that are proven to exist from wearing one and a mountain of evidence that says they do no good for combating the spread of ANY virus.

So we see people arguing about what that cop was doing. Was he arresting the young mother for not wearing a mask? Was he arresting her for not leaving a public place that is NOT owned by government officials who demand she leave? Was she arrested for not leaving a place that in literal terms is partly her property, as being one of the public who was and is taxed to pay for it?

All questions to be hashed over, but the fact that government is trying VERY HARD TO NOT SAY is the cop, like the criminals at the bank robbery is the core of the problem for joining the side that is against the public, and NO crime was committed at all. So there is no cause for the hostel contact (even conversational) in the 1st place. The criminal there was the cop and ONLY the cop. The other criminal is the politician who told the cop to go do these things and any cop with an IQ higher then a hamster should understand the Bill of Rights. Any that can't should not ever be a cop. How can you uphold and defend the constitution if you don't even understand it?

And any incorporation of ANY state is in contract with that state so 100% of all rights, privileges and all immunites apply to all patrons of ANY business that is incorporated. In fact from the foundations of law, the very word "Incorporated" means "creation and partner with the state"

So when an incorporated bakery didn't bake a cake for 2 homosexual females they were successfully sued and the right to freedom of religion of the bakers didn't protect them initially, because the suit was not brought against them in the position of national or citizen. It was brought against the corporation and being part of the state, the bakery COULD NOT refuse to transact business with 2 queers because of their sexual preference Later in the appeal the higher court reversed the conviction, because organic rights trump contractual agreements in all cases wherein the terms and conditions are not fully explained to the parties therein to be bound (same set of laws that gave us the Mirada VA Arizona. ("It is impossible to unknowingly waive a right")

So...... back to the logic of my point.

Arguing that the cop was doing this or that is not relevant if no crime was committed and it doesn't matter if the principal called, a citizen called or the queen of England called the cops. What is relevant is her absolute right to be secure in her "person and her place and effects." The Issue is and will always be the Bill of Rights, and the fact that cops need to understand that is by far their greatest responsibility. NO WHERE do they swear to be enforcers for unconstitutional policy if they get paid to do it.

Also it needs to be pointed out that ignorance of law is no excuse. ESPECIALLY for judges and Cops.

We see MANY symptoms of a broken system here and it's all over the news but at least 99% of it is the fault of cops that do what they are told instead of learning about the history of the document they SWORE an OATH to up-hold and defend. They do what they are told as long as they are paid and in so doing bring the USA to the brink of civil war.

And we are told to look at Dem/Comms and ANTIFA, and BLM and any number of fools in elected positions out there, but 100% of them would simply be mad-men and idiots to everyone-------- if COPS would uphold and defend the Constitution as it is written and as they are sworn to do. That means arresting criminals for the worst crime there is, TREASON, which is committed right in front of their eyes.

But no..........they go along and do the actual harm and force the will of their masters on innocent folks because of willful ignorance and Satanic pride.

They choose a side, and it's not the side of the regular citizen. It's the side of those that pay them. The power hungry evil people and the cops give no great thought to any of it, even if they destroy the nation their own kinds will live in.

Reminds me a 30 pieces of Silver.

Gospel of Mathew chapter 26. Verses 13, 15 and 16. He was hired -------------- and he "just did his job" too.



Last edited by szihn; 09/25/20.