Jump to content

strengthandcourage

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Therefore, you can attack anyone you dislike. The mental illness of antifa....
  2. Someone who actually pays attention to the facts which you abhor, obviously. Ignorance is bliss....
  3. Or, perhaps he is following orders and fears he will lose his job if he doesn't.
  4. The end result sadly is that even many of those who are more informed than average still are incapable of dealing with facts rationally and instead resort to juvenile name calling, wishful thinking and deliberate denial of the relevant evidence. At least one poster has posted the exact same post at least three times in total denial of the evidence from the alleged "victim" herself!
  5. Again, instead of addressing facts about the actual technique, overall "by the book" and some of it unwarranted (neck control), yet clearly not resulting in any injury, let's resort to name calling, ad hominem and with a total refusal to address the totality of relevant evidence. I expected better from this forum. Hysteria rules instead. You can't mount an effective resistance through wishful thinking, much less delusion.
  6. I don't think it's irrelevant or derailing: just an example of folks who can't think straight being corrected. Bizarre delusions of "I can do whatever I want to people I don't like" or "policeman always wrong" doesn't fly here. Or anywhere really.
  7. Escalation of force is allowed. Theoretically, you should only use as much as is required to effect arrest. Neck control looks bad, but clearly, there are no injuries of any kind suffered by the citizen arrested. She was in high spirits during the ensuing interview, and clearly egged on and antagonized the officer in order to elicit as extreme a response as possible. Overall, the officer performed with reasonable restraint. Again, neck control is poor PR but not necessarily poor policing. These are instantaneous judgement calls and there is literally no way in those inclined to convince them that any form or degree of force is justified. Notice that your characterization makes no note of any action that officer took. Grabbing an arm, a gentle sweep, sitting on her bum, none of this is even remotely dangerous. Neck control looks bad but left no injury. The officer was in the right, and there was little he could have done to prevent a violent reaction on her part. The reality is, police have little choice to comply with the directives of superiors, or they themselves will be fired. It is up to their superiors to give top down orders instructing their officers to either obey the Constitution or not. In Australia, the directives are clear. In some counties and cities, sheriffs have taken the opposite approach, which I commend. Right now, if you choose to escalate rather than defuse a situation with a police officer, you risk a physical confrontation, one which are very likely to lose.
  8. Again, your facts are totally wrong. It is clear that you will engage in both: 1. ad hominem attack (irrelevant) 2. factually incorrect statements. a. failure to provide identification, a lawful order, subjects you to arrest or at least detention (the former in this case), at officer's discretion b. failure to comply with any lawful order of an officer subjects you to arrest c. verbal and/or physical belligerence subjects a citizen to arrest d. not showing medical documentation COULD be interpreted as failure to comply with a lawful order. Failure to comply with ANY lawful order subjects one to detention or arrest. In this case, the citizen not only failed to comply with one, but also resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer. Bringing up anything about paki rape gangs, the appearance of the boyfriend, ad hominem speculation, are all irrelevant to this case. Again, she was NOT arrested for not wearing a face mask. She was arrested for assault, resisting arrest, and failure to comply with one or more lawful commands from an officer. Repeating your erroneous statements over and over again doesn't make you right. It just means you keep stating inaccurate, false statements over and over again. This is precisely the strategy of the Orwellian police state you claim to despise. Two birds of a feather, it turns out. Along with the irrelevant name calling to distract from being wrong.... ...you're a broken record quite frankly. Best get that checked out before it becomes a habit.
  9. Now you have changed your tune quite a bit. You claimed I was not portraying the situation accurately. The reality is is that you took a small fragment of a video and claimed it was an instance of police brutality. Far from it. Now you claim that anyone can behave in any manner they like, as long as the person subject to their illegal behavior is unlikeable or unpopular. This claim is out of touch with reality. Citizens must behave lawfully. There are instances where police do not, and I disagree with this but so far the "rights" of some officers to lie in specific situations has gone unchallenged. But now you are making the claim that total anarchic lawlessness is always justified if a target is unpopular or deemed unlikeable in your subjective opinion. This position is without merit. This is what has led to BLM and antifa looting, rioting, pillaging, murders and assaults of every kind. The reality is that a citizen failed to comply with lawful orders from a police officer. Once you do so, you are subject to arrest. After being subject to arrest, she resisted arrest, which is another crime. Third, she was not "choked." The officer utilized neck control without restricting her breathing. The sweep as I mentioned, was as gentle a sweep as I have ever seen. The officer further controlled her movements by applying his weight in a manner in which injury to the citizen would be impossible. Neck control doesn't look good, it's not necessary, but an officer can absolutely escalate force when a suspect resists lawful arrest. The officer behaved lawfully for the most part, as arrests can be messy operations as we have witnessed many times. However, the "suspect"/citizen did not. An officer can ask a question. An officer can require someone to identify themselves. This is lawful. Pretty much everything the officer did was "by the book" appearances aside. And why did you bring Paki rape gangs into the conversation?!? That is so far off topic it is laughable. And the appearance of the boyfriend? It's irrelevant also. You keep changing your argument and introduce ancillary irrelevant points to distract from the fact that no, you don't grasp the reality of the situation because you refused to gather the relevant facts in the first place. After the relevant evidence was introdued you now claim that anyone can do anything to anyone at anytime regardless of the law as long as you "don't like them." This is completely ludicrous, by any standard.
  10. She was subject to force not because she was not wearing a face mask, but because she was resisting arrest. In the videos above, you notice two things: 1. she admits that she was confrontational and abusive towards the officer, she gave him the middle finger, when the officer asked why she was not wearing a mask. 2. the officer attempts to restrain her, either because he is concerned about a possibility of her attacking him (see no.1), or because he was initiating an arrest. 3. she has refused to comply by showing ID, and/or exemption, been verbally abusive, and is now resisting arrest after possibly several lawful orders. 4. she kicks a second officer repeatedly 5. the officer rolls her over to her back to handcuff her in a rather gentle sweep. 6. He appears to sit on her lower back and butt, which would not restrict breathing, and probably not painful if his weight is on her bum 7. the citizen then rolls back on to her stomach, and refuses to comply several times to arrest. He attempts to control her neck (unnecessary as wrist control is what he's after). 8. the citizen is interviewed later, and is clearly not injured, and is smiling throughout the post arrest interview 9. it is unlawful for a citizen to interfere with the lawful activity of a police officer. Police can lawfully order citizens to move away from an officer or officers effecting an arrest. That is certainly not a strategy I would recommend or try personally. Police can lawfully order a citizen to provide identification and it may be lawful to require documentation of an exemption (I doubt it, but possible). If you do not comply with lawful orders by an officer, you are subject to arrest, period. If you are verbally or physically belligerent, and the officer fears for their safety, you can be lawfully restrained. The officer utilized some degree of force, grabbing her by the arm, and the woman then clearly resisted, and then the officer escalated use of force. A choke hold is probably excessive in this case regardless. Sitting on her lower back which did not restrict her breathing is almost certainly not. Having said that, it is quite clear that almost every western country is operating unlawfully, treating guidelines and recommendations as if they were lawful, which is almost always unconstitutional. However, this does not give citizens a right to abuse officers, resist complying with lawful orders or to resist arrest after having done so. So this woman in no way shape or form followed the model I indicated.
  11. It's a great idea and I hope and trust you'll find success. The reality is, the normal bonds of community have largely evaporated. Friends of family, stable social circles from school and work are all increasingly uncommon. People change jobs every year or two, and tend to move from one city to the next almost as frequently. The common bonds of language, culture and nationality are largely a thing of the past in many parts of the west, especially in large cities. To put it simply, the corona hoax has made what was once challenging but manageable, a frightening and even unimaginable prospect for perhaps a majority of people these days. You can make do, just be at peace that there are many fewer options for real interaction at this moment than in the past. That's not to say things couldn't change on a dime....
  12. All of it. This includes both news media and entertainment/fiction. Absolutely all of it is designed to imprint us and get us familiarized with the new cages and prisons we will be living in in the near future, or simply to upset and traumatize. Simultaneously, each of these forms of media also highlights how we can DEFEAT those who seek to imprison us. This is the gambit of the evil-doers in power: THEY MUST TELL US EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO TO US, AND NEVER IMPOSE ANYTHING WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY WE ARE SUBJECT TO IS ONLY WITH OUR CONSENT. WE CAN OPT OUT AT ANY TIME. For example, with face masks. None of us have to wear them or use them. Ever. All we have to do when questioned, is to simply state: "medically exempt." Or, you can just ignore them. Game over. Now, if you choose to "fight" against face masks when you could simply ignore this pseudo-requirement on absolutely solid legal and moral grounds, then you face hazards and risks associated with fighting any phantom: you can never win. You can't defeat something which doesn't exist: example: "coronavirus."
  13. There's been a broad consensus among conspiracy researchers in terms of overall trends, but remarkably poor rates of prediction about specific events. For example, Alex Jones is clearly correct that authorities are rolling out a police state. David Icke has a solid analysis of how a very small number of people are able to control a population of billions. But how many of these researchers have actually predicted or foreseen specific events? The only one was Bill Cooper, who correctly predicted 9/11. Clearly NO ONE predicted that a hoax virus would be used to roll out sweeping authoritarian measures in just a few months' time, this caught everyone by surprise. Likewise, there's overwhelming confusion about who or what is actually in control of global affairs. In that sense whoever is controlling us has done an extraordinary job of remaining in the shadows.
×
×
  • Create New...