Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Let people loot and burn at will, arrest and tase a woman minding her own business...

99% of ALL cops are .........well...........cops.

They say "I'll get fired if I don't obey the evil orders". They choose not to engage their conscience at the point it attaches to their brain.

The 1% that do often do get fired, but then fail to sue over wrongful termination, which being told to directly violate their oath of office IS 10000000000000000% wrongful.

But it's a lot easier to be one of the "team" and not show any integrity or courage.
Just follow orders.
Just go along.
It's easy.
it's safe.

It the death of the freedoms of the nation and their OWN kids. But hey,,,,,,,,,,,not a big deal to them.

Right?


You see, they are their own worst enemies but are too proud to listen to any truth, and too unintelligent to put 2 and 2 together. It's just "so wrong" to hate them, distrust them, and to want to see them defunded, and to want them to be harmed.

But it's even worse in their minds to DEMAND THEY UPHOLD THEIR OATH and arrest those giving them the order to commit treason and malfeasance against the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend.

They are like suicide bombers who work for someone who hates both them and those they are ordered to blow up, but they are too willfully ignorant to see the truth that their own bosses will worth to see them destroyed too.
To say they are a little bit stupid seems like an insult instead of a simple fact, but if someone here can suggest a more tactful word, which means the same thing as stupid, please help me out here.

I am sure many will hate me for writing this but I do notice that 100% of them so far have fallen back on lines that are exactly what I just quoted them to say, -----------instead of seeing the truth and saying to me, you and the whole USA "yeah, we were wrong to obey those orders, so starting RIGHT NOW I am going to repent of that mindless obedience to unlawful politicians and I WILL NOT carry out those orders any more, and I WILL arrest anyone trying to give them, for crimes of Malfeasance, and operation under color of law, breach of oath, sedition and anything else that applies as per my oath and if need be I will be the national example of what a Cop is SUPPOSED TO BE!!!!!!!

There was a time in out history when cops were highly respected and admired. YOU Mr. Cop----- reading this,--- can be the one man that starts a trend and makes national news by simply doing what you swore to do and if you do that I would bet you will find you are not left to starve .. Remember private New, who defied the orders to be a UN thug? he didn't have his future ruined. In fact he had several very profitable thousand job offers for BEING A MAN and showing some guts. maybe you should try to think and see that I am right in a legal, moral ethical and factual way and stop ebing a tool for evil people. And don't fall back on the quote "I am only one man". EVERY MAN IN ALL HISTORY WAS ONLY ONE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or maybe you can simply hate me more like all libs do when they are told the truth. that's the usual plan.
You may say you are not a commie lib-tard, but doing their bidding makes you even less then them. Let that sink in for a few minutes if you are capable.

You want to get some public respect back for the profession? How about starting to earn it instead of just trying to earn a pension and a paycheck.

Start by actually THINKING, and re-reading the Bill of Rights and then re-read your Oath.

but you do not blame the cops you blame the person that called them . both are wrong but the snitch would have NO power over an individual without the cops to do the dirty work

We had an old judge who used to hammer folks for resisting arrest. His philosophy was to see what the original charge was and work out an agreement in court. But, if you resisted, you got hammered.

kwg

would that judge pay for your lawyer? you know the answer to that. so if you win you lose (money) they win either way

Look, I did not come right out and blame the cops. That was part of what was wrong with the video. Had I been there, he would have forgotten all about the girl, guaranteed. Whether or not she was known to me. But I think we all understand, or should, that we have a real cop problem in this country. Problem with their training, their placement of convenience over principle, the methods of handling conflict. Guess what, we have those same problems with the population at large, where we draw cops from. What a shock when cops, especially young ones, have no trouble abusing power and acting badly, huh?

Yeah, the cop needed a nap. More concerning to me is the snitch that drew his fat azz down on that girl, and the cucks sitting around letting it happen. The cop is the least of her problems. Without the snitch, she never would have met the cop. And without every damn body being a bitch, she would have gotten some help. I get it, the cops are often a real problem. But they can’t watch everybody. They depend on the snitch for that. So you tell me who gets your azz in a sling, really?

Rather then write more of my opinion, I think I'll just copy and past the ACTUAL LAW here.


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping [which includes unlawful arrest and imprisonment in violation of law or deprivation of rights secured by the constitution and/or the "Bill of Rights".] { My note} or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

More to read, for those that believe resistance is never in order or lawful. The law and the courts disagree, and have since the beginning of this nation until the communist took things over.
Remember this principal question in contrast between the 2 point of view:
Who is the greater fool? The 1st fool, or the fools that follw and obey him"?





"Citizens may resist /unlawful/ arrest to the point of taking an
arresting officer's life if necessary." /Plummer v. State/, 136 Ind. 306.

This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: /John Bad Elk v. U.S./, 177 U.S. 529.


The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the
disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is
resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction,
when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if
the officer had no right.

What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than
manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had
been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." /Housh v. People/, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.



"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a
right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel
by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self
defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." /Runyan v. State/,
57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.



"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." /Jones v.
State/, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore
v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.



"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted
to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (/State v. > > Robinson/, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).



"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a
case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a
wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-
defense." (/State v. Mobley/, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).



"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (/Adams v. State/, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).


"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally.
In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in
which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story
concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never
provided for by human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of
all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply
force against ruinous injustice.'" (From /Mutiny on the Amistad/ by
Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading
of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.


As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet,
peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not
a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach
of the peace." (/Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure/, 12th Ed.,
Vol.2: /Judy v. > > Lashley/, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

He'll probably be moving to Minnesota in four years with you and the rest of his kind. He won by about 6000 votes, 20000 of them being teachers and I think in four years even teachers should be smart enough to figure him out. He would seem damn right patriotic compared to that raghead Ilhan Abdullahi Omar you boys sent to congress to represent you.

Amen.
That volume of cases is worth its weight in gold to many victims of official oppression.

The school board gives authority to the admin who hire thugs like fatboy to push people around if their edicts aren't followed. Somebody has a mask rule. If you don't follow the rules, one of which is mask up, then you can be deemed a trespasser and told to leave or they'll make you leave and probably charge you. Usually cops are hired for security if they aren't already being supplied by the county or locality. So if you resist, you can be prosecuted for more than resisting a mall cop. Here's the thing...she had a condition that precluded her from wearing a mask and yet the cop persisted. The board policy may have made no note of conditions like asthma, but they're supposedly following the state mandate. All of this can be attacked legally. The cop should have known that there were caveats to the mandate. Probably if he's a real cop, she'll get charged with resisting anyway. In a country that was truly free, it wouldn't be the case. Ultimately, the school district is at fault for not following the state mandate correctly and/or you could say, hiring people who aren't intelligent enough to follow it or listen to somebody when they tell them something which is correct, legally OR call somebody who does know before getting physical. This assumes whoever said she was asthmatic is right and that she told them she was. I couldn't hear it well enough to know. I don't know if there will be any leeway with the resisting stuff if they were just rent-a-cops or if they're the same as off duty deputies or suchlike in the eyes of the law.

Ok. Now tell me what would have happened if she'd been black.

Anybody?

This should get real interesting.

PaulCovtard woulda posted the opposite of whatever he posted in the thread.

Here's a couple of good observations that we missed as the girl is being drug of to the rape cage.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lYQLtwEP6eo/

This guy doesn't even look like an actual police officer. He looks like a fugging rent-a-cop.

You never can tell, but he didn't look well trained and his uniform made me think he was not a pro. The woman who came up later looked like an actual cop. She seemed like she really didn't want in on that goat rodeo either.

The more I think of it, I think you're right. If the black fella was a real cop, backup would have been called, more drama would have ensued and they would have at the very least, dragged the other woman off too. The one who was trying to help the tazed chick out. There probably would have been a beat down and possibly drawn weapons.

Three trains of thought here, one is not commenting which is probably the smartest. Two is speaking out against this and three is condoning his actions and those Sheeple/ people and their mentality ARE the problem.

Bullspit.

I'm simply going by what somebody else said on this thread. They said she had Asthma, which they also said was one of the exemptions from the state mandate. I have no idea of the accuracy of these things. I think it was also said that she told the fatty but he ignored it. If not, she was guilty of trespassing after she refused to mask up. Was it a good idea, to push things the way the fatass did? I don't think so.

Hope her lawyer is successful in suing the living chit outta that city and Mayor..

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.