The effect you're saying they could have they are already having. I think the argument that someone can't say they're being squeezed out by the left because they'll use that to squeeze people out is relatively weak.
One way or another the left are destroying the police force. It will become one that is no longer crime oriented.
That's what the person who wrote that story did. Try to look past the individual story and ask yourself what you make of it when the people running your country on a local level in addition to the media which sets the standards of the public to a great degree makes the expectations of being a police officer so high it's an impossible role to live up to?
Übermensch need only apply. Skills much include telepathy, the ability to see the future, human whisperer, remote viewing, X-Ray vision, PhD level expert in all fields, etc.
When I'm face to face with a cop or see one in action then I'll be the decider of if they're that or not. Some of them are. I would personally give them a different uniform and deploy them where possible in a targeted fashion (the bastard police). Pricks deserve pricks.
I think your concept of a job needs to improve. It's not just something you get and then the money comes in. You actually have to work, that's the hard part. Bad management can make the job virtually impossible to do. A lot of what they're facing they didn't sign up for. It's being made increasingly difficult but there's also things that weren't in the job description.
That's also quite a lot of data for intelligence services but indeed what I want to experiment with will be proximity based.
Down to also being able to connect GPS and see others around you and chat like in Runescape.
That's easy to program but there are serious concerns around security and privacy.
I've seen a lot of that kind of moneygrubbing by corrupt officials.
In his case though I wouldn't assume he wasn't up to no good thought without other qualifiers a very mild offence.
His case is the same as Floyd's. All the same dirty tricks. Almost certainly died of a heart attack or some similar condition.
You see the same up front lies, for example...
Garner's family hired Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner, to perform an independent autopsy.
In the same sentence they call it an independent autopsy they explain that it is not.
I think lots of us here do. I might make one as a hobby just to see how it goes.
If something like that manages to become popular it will draw a huge amount of enemy fire.
There's a lot of services I won't be able to use so would rely on a lot of open source which I am certain is going to lead to a very interesting new battlefront.
Hypothetical: I use some service that's discernible on the frontend. They find out who provides that service. They will create news articles saying so an so lets white supremacists use their stuff. "White supremacists use jQuery!" "GNU drafts new license prohibiting white supremacist use!"
I suspect if there isn't already expect to see a new OSS license with restrictions on political use.
This prediction was brought to you entirely for free.
I can only slightly disagree because cops will eventually stumble into something bad and want to be prepared for that but otherwise it is correct that the intensity of the domestic war they're fighting is beyond the purview of every day cops. These are hordes of savages and well you need to be a lot tougher in many places but also a lot smarter. Civilian policing doesn't cover it.
The point when you realise that no matter what you do you're racist is the point realise you can do anything.
I remember when they first started screaming defund the police and we all know the inevitable response to that will be that first you'll need extra crime insurance and you'll also end up with a far more inequality with only the rich being able to afford protection.
You will end up with a lower class of people that have no protection under the law at all. It's bad enough that very few people are protected under civil law due to the costs involved.
The individual fleeing the sinking ship in this case might be fine. It's what they leave behind that's the problem and you have to ask what that means for the cities and then the country.
I would say it's the result of demoralisation propaganda which may become self sustaining in a sense. For the original demoralisation propaganda I guess you'd want to look at CNN, only you wouldn't.
A mod who presented it as presumably a part of a joke but semiseriously too in another thread, then I posted it as a laugh but also because I happen to strongly agree with it. Before that revolver news, then Darren Beattie who is on Twitter and apparently shamed for guilty by association happening to attend some conference with "white supremacists" whatever that might be.
You can look up the Shopping Cart Theory or something I assume to find the real author. That seems to reflect back to 4chan.
Spc. Sean Walsh was killed by indirect fire in the Khowst province of Afghanistan on Wednesday.
The Department of Defense says the 21-year-old Army soldier, who was listed as a military police officer, was attached to the 185th Military Police Battalion based out of Pittsburg.
It all seems to trace back to anonymous but regardless of the messenger the content of the message is basically correct.
On the surface it may appear to be retardation and it's the easiest explanation for what seems like chaos but there is a method to the madness and some people can see patterns better than others.
That's not to say retardation isn't a big part of it but I don't think you're good at seeing beneath the surface despite your crude attempt.
To a great degree retardation often rallies to the defence of the corrupt. You're seeing the waves but not the source.
There's a saying, never attribute that to malice which can be attributed to malice. It's wrong. The real truth beneath the surface is that you can't always tell the two apart.
While being a few senators short from a coup?
The left is shedding the profession of any and all good actors. Ironically by the time they're done in a few years they will have made ACAB true. They are actually asserting their false reality and trying to impose it in ways people haven't all yet cottoned on to.
If you're going to rage against Trump for failing to achieve the impossible or near impossible 100% of the time then yes I would say that is unequivocally anti-Trump.
Holding people to selectively unreasonable standards is a page right out of the New York Times.
If someone is going to do that they should apply for a job there.
I would assume he means things like people coming in and saying blah blah Trump should have cured cancer and AIDs and travellers diarrhoea and wahhh wahhh wahh why didn't he stop election fraud mommy I need a new nappy wahh wahh.
More recently stuff about Trump's position on the vaccine which is probably one of the few things I would disagree with but a lot of people fanatical about that or pushing it too hard.
He's not the one telling people you're not allowed to disagree with claims about vaccine safety and he's not the one coercing or forcing people to take it. He's entitled to his opinion though.
I see it a lot as well. I always just assume that if it sounds like a column writer from CNN or something like it then it is a journalist / propagandist scumbag. Of course it might be someone that's been exposed to a bad influence but that doesn't really matter, it really is just the journalist still using others as an extension of their body.
The easy way to spot them is not only that they anti-Trump. We're not talking people just being reasonable by treating Trump as a human being rather than some kind of supernatural infallible and perfect being in every way.
You can quickly identify them most of the time because they try to invalidate Trump unless he is somehow superhuman. That and other kinds of invalid critique.
Usually pinning anything and everything on him. I've been seeing it for a few months. I suspect there was an anticipated lull in traffic and they were expecting more people to lose interest so they could come in and take it over.
This really is a non-story. A witch hunt. What next? Paying for the bill at a restaurant is prostitution? A girl may have lied about her age and been every so slightly too young on a dating site that failed to verify properly and his friend may have started chatting with her before she turned 18?
I've seen this kind of thing happen a few times. Girl uses fake ID, gets into bar, guy gets screwed, etc. It's used for blackmail a lot too.
I only watch straight white males on youtube because they are more likely to ban them for saying the same thing and to only allow "minorities" to speak for us. This is part of their antitrust.
Do me a solid, message the channel and ask them to upload to rumble, bitchute, etc please. Only then will I listen to what he has to say.
You don't know what evidence is. The prosecution having people stand up and argue for them isn't evidence.
In some jurisdictions they prohibit "expert" opinion because it's notoriously unreliable. It's a real problem where it is reliable. Ban might be too strong a term but it's extremely restricted and I believe in this case many of their so called experts give testimony I would consider inadmissible and often irrelevant.
These people always try to pervert the course of justice to get their own way and it's people like you that soak it up and go along with it.
There's always a few famous cases of this that come to mind. I remember that case with the gays and gay camp that was won based on "expert" opinion. In that case I'm not sure if I can say the verdict was wrong but what it was based on was.
They basically came in with brain scans and bamboozled a jury unqualified to be able to challenge the pseudoscience. That's now become a part of the LGBT cult but it's based purely on the concept of people having to submit to people with stuff that's too complex for them and that it's prohibited to argue back.
Some of the reasons the prosecution in that case were able to get by using a false argument was likely based on the defence making a false argument which they hinged their specific case on.
Sort of forcing everyone to be as dumb as they are. Have you considered that there are people who are able to see problems with the prosecution that neither you nor the defence are able to perceive?
Now they're always going on about their "gay/male/female brains" which has had serious consequences such as severe child abuse leading to grievous bodily harm ultimately legalised by the precedent that court case established.
If of the same kind of things the prosecution is pushing pass in this case that's also likely to end up having very serious repercussions down the line contributing to what is already a dangerous set of cults.
You might be able to correct people on a few things in this case that aren't necessarily material and some are your own mistakes. You're bouncing around however like a ball in a tennis game and I don't think you realise you're being taken for a ride.
It's a silly guess that obscures perhaps the only useful observation which is they at least appear to be trying to go through the motions as much as they can. It's also a televised trial which really constrains them. They've got to make it look good and keep up appearances.
I think the real elephant in the room that you're missing is that it's really impossible in this case to guarantee a jury that hasn't been corrupted. That doesn't mean they wont do the right thing but it's all a gamble.
You have generations of people already constantly conditioned by lies in the press not even based on this case. Even people here running around conditioned with that ACAB criminal mentality and not realising where a lot of that comes from.
Bribery is an obvious case of a foul but in reality it may be more subtle than that even if the foul is bribery. Usually people use tricks they can more easily get away with especially if it has plausible deniability. They get so used to it they can do it barely thinking about it. They can do it without thinking about it, on automatic.
In this case Chauvin is innocent but if you're a jury can you take that to the bank?
Consider after the fact, if you're a member of the jury what has more value in most social circles they're likely to end up in?
Is there anything with less kickback than finding him innocent? What's going to get them social approval back in the office? What are people going to agree with more?
Retrospectively if you're the one who sent Chauvin away you're a hero. If you're the one who "let him off the hook" you're a villain. If you told people that after the trial you could be killed.
For an innocent man on trial it's a very bad situation. Only bad can come from it if anything.
That's absolutely reasonable. Your position is unreasonable. Your mind should be made up based on the evidence.
Do we put everything and everyone on trial all the time to establish truth? No we don't.
How can we verify the trial unless we put it on trial? Are trials infallible? Are all appeals invalid? What if I see person A walk up to person B and shoot them in the head at random? Do I have to wait until the trial to know that it wasn't person C that did it?
You need to get over the fact that people had access to the evidence prior to the trial.
This is another one of those subliminal messages you lot are dropping. "Trust the trial."
You're literally a billboard out of They Live. You're not even fighting against me. You're fighting against your own programming. Their brainwashing is insidious. It may take years before you fully deprogram yourself.
Commonplace crime doesn't really impact the left. They're very well protected or at least their elite are.
What they want in my eyes is not a police force wasting time on real crime and on victims they don't care about because it's not them.
They want a "white supremacy" oriented police force rather than a crime oriented one. They want one that criminalises their competition. They want one that deals with the things that causes them trouble not things that cause other people trouble.