Even if you're a criminal carrying a gun illegally, you're better off just letting the cop take the gun.
Hell, if you're 100% innocent, and it's an illegal arrest and detention, you're still better off letting the cop take the gun from you, rather than fighting.
Survive the stop, fight it in court. You can't win a case you're too dead to attend.
I just have no idea who or what fired first. To be honest, I think the problem is that the ICE agents didn't know either, but they thought they did, and the rest is sympathetic fire.
Hell, there's still an argument about how the gun got out. Robert Barnes claims the shooting is unjustified because he's under the impression that an ICE agent removed the gun. But there's no clear evidence to support that yet, as the gun got picked up from the ground. It looks like the suspect tried to draw something from his back, which might have been the holster, which I still can't confirm.
If the situation is that the suspect was attempting to draw the gun, but it got dislodged, and the gun fell to the ground, and he ended up drawing his holster because he still thought he had a gun in it, it makes the whole shooting 100% justified.
I still can't tell if that's a true accounting of events.
Nope. You can tell his cognitive decline happened after his first cerebral hemorrhage in 2014. His speech at the NAACP that year showed he was fucking all over the place, and in a completely goofy mood. He got progressively worse with each passing year. no lobotomies needed, he just had three cerebral hemorrhages.
It's actually a skit he liked to say. He was trying to say: "I was in the foot-hills of the Himalayas." Basically he recants a long winded story about how he was talking to... varying Orientals (I'm not kidding he changed it dozens of times, sometimes it's a Chinese person, and sometimes it's a Buddhist monk, etc)... and then he concludes that America is defined by the word "possibilities" because in America you can do anything.
I don't' see how missing a meal and being hungry because you missed the meal is a "magic spell" answer.
If you are asked how you would feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast, after you had eaten lunch, I don't think you can assume it would be the same. If you ate the same size lunch, you would probably still be a little hungry, as opposed to "full".
Yes, but only sort of
First you have to recognize that "the police" is an institution that has only existed since the 1850's. It was an institution built, not to catch slaves, but to quell violence in major cities where you had extreme density and immigration causing a shock in crime.
However, I can give you something close to an example from the English Civil War (or immediately thereafter). Basically Charles the 1st, and his loyalist cavilers had actually lost the Civil War which was primarily about heavy handed enforcement of unagreed to taxation to support military campaigns that had gone poorly (IIRC), but he returned from exile in France, landed in Scotland, and then led an army of Catholic French, Scotts, and a few loyalist English down into England and began burning towns.
Once he was captured and the armies defeated, he was charged and executed in a show trial for treason against the people of England. This didn't make sense at the time, because (as he argued) no King can break the law that he is the creator of. However, the argument against him was that no one can claim the divine right to steal the wealth of his barons and invade his own country with foreign armies, with an alien religion, and burn his own towns, and claim to not have committed some crime. This is where the concept of Popular Sovereignty actually originates.
Technically, the English loyalists would have been siding with foreigners, but at least they had the argument of the divine right of kings. Our maniacs have... The Divine Right of Neo-Liberal Moral Relativism.
So, no, but that's the closest thing I can offer you.
But I think WhatIfAltHist is correct in his analysis of the civilizational situation. We are enduring a Psychological Black Death. Where, a kind of mental insanity, brought about by ideological capture of Fabian Socialism, and the creation of an aristocracy of rootless cosmopolitans, using mass media and emotional abuse tactics, has created the conditions for a civilizational death as clear-cut as the end of Feudalism. We can see this in not only the extreme demoralization, degeneracy, and historically unimaginable suicide rates; but also in the fact that we believe things that no civilization on earth has ever believed in the past 40,000 years of known civilization.
I believe the truth is that we are all literally insane. That due to the spread of modernism and Fabianism, most of the world is a little crazy; but every since the wokeness crusade began in earnest around 2012; I believe that the majority of the west is literally, genuinely, insane. To be clear, I mean to say that we are almost totally divorced from reality. I think even the dissident Right is still mostly divorced from reality, but grounded enough to operate in an adjacent manner to it. The Normies, are almost choosing to operate in a world of escapism, because what they've been told reality is makes no sense. The Leftists are actually fucking bonkers, and every time reality abuses them, they come up with another excuse with how it's some sort of vast international, intertemporal, conspiracy to keep them down. (ie: The reason that woman got beat up by that man is NOT that women are physically weaker than men, it is that all of human society works tirelessly to brainwash women into thinking and acting weak, while it grooms men's diet, exercise, social sentiment, and aesthetics to make them into becoming strong. If I had power over society to do the same but in reverse, everything would be different)
We are all insane, I just think some are less insane than others.
I still don't understand why the answer to that question isn't always just: "Hungry".
But to the rest of your point, we intentionally do not educate people in public school with the concepts of introspection, long-term-time-preference, stoicism, and multi-perspective analysis.
I ain't gonna fight you with this. Best I can say is that this is probably "awful but lawful" shooting, and as we've seen in the past, that doesn't mean shit in a court in the real world nowadays.
The issue is not that filming the feds, and bringing guns to protests is what makes you a terrorist. It's that these are terrorists bringing guns to protests and filming feds.
The Signal Leaks basically shook everyone familiar with COIN operations, because this is one of the most well-organized, well funded, well equipped, and legally supported insurgencies that they've ever seen. They Maidan Coup wasn't this well organized, and it was a fucking CIA op. I don't like Trump walking back on this, but the ugly truth is that ICE might have literally bit off more than they can chew. Waltz was absolutely prepared to kill as many people as necessary to deflect from the fraud investigation. He had national support from the dems, as well as what appears to be the CCP. It absolutely looks like the revolutionary Left is trying to use this momentum to expand the whole thing into a full-throated General Insurrection. Waltz may have actually been prepared to start a full scale civil war, but I doubt that was his end goal.
Truth is, no one on the right has anything like this. Not the funding, not the organization, not the support. Not even the federal agencies. Maybe the FBI could build something like this, but they are clearly refusing to assist as much as the Minneapolis Police are because they are an enemy agency. There is no right-wing structure that can organize mass surveillance and deploy lynch mobs to search vehicles. There's nothing. It's not close.
Minneapolis, DC, and Portland are Indian Country. Waltz could have easily ordered Bonvino assassinated, and no one would have objected. No judge would have convicted him. Probably not even Federal judges. The only reason he didn't is because (as the leaked insurgency guidebook pointed out) the point was to maintain low-kinetic action to maintain a constant state of political pressure. High-kinetic action is very disruptive, but causes more severe blowback. It's a very old Communist strategy.
I think this reinforces to me that our strategy can't be reform. It can only be abolition. We need to push a lot harder for state secession, and we need more well organized local political groups.
This is why although I've said I lean heavily towards Libertarianism (because in reality I'm more aligned with Lockean Liberalism which could be confused with Libertarianism); I'm really more of a Militarist Minarchist.
A moral, educated, and homogenous population isn't enough. You need complete armamentation, and a marshal society. Really, even outside of Liberal philosophy, the only societies that ever respected individual rights and liberties were societies where the population was trained, equipped, and on-call for military service. Effectively, such societies had governments that accepted that autocracy couldn't work, and that they could quickly end up being executed by the general population that was also their army. As such, it made a hell of a lot more sense to betray no one, and keep the soldiering population happy with reasonable governance. State craft was also better because it meant that the political leadership was also the officer corps and only got that way through trust from subordinates, agreeableness with higher-ups, and competence of command. Before America, we only ever really saw this in England, Switzerland, and the Sikh Confederation.
If everyone is capable of serving with one another in a military capacity, you've just achieved the morality, education, and homogeneity that you're looking for; but now you can actually use it.
Name the amount of times you've literally had to bribe a police officer with cash-on-hand at a traffic stop.
I haven't ever done that.
That is the difference in corruption between the west and everywhere else. That shit is so normal they'd hold their hands out for the bribe.
The most common employer for individual donations to the 2020 candidates:
- Joe Biden: Librarians (around 300,000 donors)
- Donald Trump: US Marines (around 200,000 donors)
That was probably one of the most aesthetically informative stats from that election.
Correct. I'm not interested in the 2A opinions about people who think that Rittenhouse "crossed state lines", or that Ashley Babbit deserved to get shot because "the stupid bitch had it coming".
The people telling me to have empathy are the ones who cheered Charlie Kirk getting shot through the throat while they attended the event lived and literally turned to cheer on the shooter, and also agreed that the VA AG did nothing wrong by wishing that his political opponent's children be killed in front of his wife so he can understand why progressivism is a good thing.
When a transgender shooter went to a Catholic school and murdered a bunch of children, their only response was to rationalize how the children deserved it because Zim/They must have been bullied at school.