Authority in the America

[Like]

The Lethal Illusion Called "Authority"



Killer on the loose: Ian Birk, seconds before he gunned down John T. Williams.


"Why did you shoot that man? He didn't do anything!"

The question was wrenched from a woman who had watched in horror as Police Officer Ian Birk pumped four shots into the body of John T. Williams on a Seattle street corner last August 30.

Birk claimed that he had been "threatened" by Williams, a 50-year-old alcoholic woodcarver who was carrying two closed knives at the time of the incident. The autopsy, however, documented that Williams wasn't facing Birk when he was shot: The officer approached him from behind and to the right, and Williams was shot in the right side of his body from an estimated distance of about ten feet. A fifth shot that missed the target was never accounted for.

No reasonable person would have considered Williams a threat to Birk; in fact, since the victim was partially deaf, it's likely he never clearly heard Birk's demand that he drop his carving knife, and died before understanding what was going on. The entire lethal encounter lasted less than eight seconds.

There were several eyewitnesses to the homicide. None of them saw Williams display threatening behavior of any kind. Then again, none of them was a member of the State's punitive caste, which means that they hadn't been indoctrinated to perceive even a momentary lack of cooperation by a Mundane as a "pre-attack indicator." During the January inquest into the shooting, Birk explained that he gunned down John T. Williams on a Seattle street corner because he didn't like the way the 50-year-old chronic alcoholic looked at him.



Seconds to live: Williams, just before Birk shot him.

While prowling Seattle’s streets last August 30, Birk saw Williams in a crosswalk carrying a knife and a block of wood. Birk reported that he was going to perform a "shake" -- an informal contact with a potentially suspicious person. He exited his police cruiser and, with his firearm in the "Sul" position, commanded Williams to drop his knife. No more than four seconds passed between Birk’s demand and the first of five gunshots fired by the officer. The entire encounter lasted roughly seven seconds.

Significantly, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, Birk specified that he had killed Williams for refusing to drop the knife, not because of threatening behavior of any kind. He also told another police officer that Williams "was carving up that board" -- which, if true, meant that Birk had seen the knife used as a tool, rather than a weapon.

In the dashcam video, Williams appears to be a small, middle-aged man with a shambling, tentative stride. While crossing the street the artisan does appear to be working with the wood in some fashion. Birk can be seen exiting the car and speaking casually into his portable radio before bellowing "Hey! Hey! Hey! Drop the knife!" Nothing in Birk's posture or tone of voice suggests that he was confronting a potential assailant, or in fear for his life.

Perhaps the most important fact, given Birk's claim that he was "threatened" by the confused, partially deaf woodcarver, is the fact that the officer was the one who was closing the distance in the seconds leading up to the shooting.



Williams had a troubled past characterized by alcoholism and occasional fits of improper public behavior. He was well known to the police as a “chronic inebriate.” In a video recording of an earlier encounter one officer is heard telling another that “I write him a ticket every time I can.”


In the days just prior to the August 30 shooting, Williams was stopped by police on several occasions. In one confrontation, Williams -- who at the time was so deep into his cups that he could barely stand upright -- can be heard making what was described as a “threat” to kill “all you police force.” This “threat” wasn’t taken seriously by the officers, who simply shrugged their shoulders and let Williams shuffle away.

The Seattle police were familiar with Williams, his alcohol abuse, and the occasionally unsavory public behavior that resulted from it. Officers had also seen him carrying a carving knife and a block of wood on previous occasions.


While he wasn’t always pleasant to be around, Williams wasn’t known to be disposed toward violence, and in any case wasn’t physically capable of any. At the time Birk killed him, Williams was carrying two knives, both of which were legal under Seattle municipal ordinances (their blades were under 3.5 inches in length) and were closed when photographed by crime scene investigators.

Officer William Collins, who arrived in response to Birk’s “shots fired” report, told him, seconds after the killing, that he had done a "good job." All that Collins knew at the time was that a fellow member of his coercive brotherhood had just killed a Mundane -- and that's all he needed to know.


During the January shooting inquest, Seattle police brutality lawyer Tim Ford asked Collins if a closed knife constitutes a threat to "officer safety." A closed knife is "a major threat," Collins maintained, "just as big as an open knife.... It's extremely dangerous, and you have to treat the person with utmost caution.... f you don't drop it, you may be shot" -- even if it is closed at the time. After all, Collins insisted -- regurgitating a familiar self-pitying police cliche --"We don't get paid enough to be hurt."


Detective Jeff Mudd, who also testified at the inquest, also asserted that Birk's decision was appropriate: "We're trained to shoot people who pose a threat to us."


In what sense was this puzzled, decrepit old alcoholic, "armed" with a small, closed knife, a "threat" to the young, vigorous, highly trained paladin of public order who confronted him with a drawn gun? The answer offered by Birk was that he was justified in shooting Williams because the woodcarver had given him a dirty look.

"He had a very stern, very serious, very confrontational look on his face," Birk testified during the inquest. "He was still holding the knife up in front of himself ... in a confrontational posture." Birk's use of the word "still" means that Williams's "posture" hadn't changed from the time the officer supposedly saw him "carving up that board" -- which may have been unwise, but couldn't be construed as "confrontational."


A detailed account of the inquest published by The Stranger points out: "No witnesses reported seeing Williams act aggressively toward Birk or anyone else. No witnesses reported seeing a knife in Williams' hand."


Birk mentioned that he and other police are taught the "21-foot rule," which dictates that a knife-wielding subject should be considered a lethal threat within the prescribed distance. But it should be remembered that it was Birk who insisted on closing the distance. Birk also testified that "I motioned for him to come over and talk to me. He walked away."


If Birk, pursuant to the "21 foot rule," considered Williams to be a "threat," why did the officer instruct the woodcarver to come closer? When asked to elucidate that point, Birk stated that "if he would've complied with that command, it would've been a sign that he was compliant with what was going on."

Of course, if Williams had "complied" with that demand, it's entirely possible that he would have been gunned down anyway -- and that Birk would have claimed that the victim had "threatened him" by closing the distance between them.
Birk's testimony, which was clearly scripted for him, is a splendid example of what police call "creative writing" -- or what more honest people call perjury. He claimed that somehow, during the course of their very brief encounter, he saw Williams become "increasingly aggressive.... His brow was furrowed, eyes were fixed in a thousand-yard stare. His jaw was set."


Somehow, in a matter of nano-seconds, the forlorn and inoffensive American Indian woodcarver had -- at least in Birk's eyes -- assumed the fearsome demeanor of the ancient Irish warrior Cuchulain, whose "eyes were dark, his expression sullen."


In a fascinating piece of performance art, Birk recreated for the courtroom the sullen expression and "attack stance" that caused the valiant defender of the public weal to soil his skivvies.



The officer supposedly recognized and acted on these "pre-attack indicators" within the space of about four seconds. The situation "escalated more quickly than I had predicted," Birk insisted on the witness stand. So this was a "split-second decision," correct? Well -- perhaps for the police officer, but not for the victim, who according to Birk had all the time in the world to comply. "Mr. Williams had ample opportunity to do a number of things preventing this situation from becoming what it ultimately became," Birk declared on the stand.


Birk's lavishly detailed description of Williams' threatening behavior is difficult to reconcile with his own behavior in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Nowhere in the video recording of the incident can Birk be heard telling other officers or onlookers that Williams had threatened him with a knife. In his on-scene interview with the above-mentioned Detective Mudd, Birk said nothing about "pre-attack indicators." In his testimony at the inquest -- a pseudo-judicial procedure that is neither a criminal nor a civil trial -- Birk recited his lines like a well-rehearsed soap opera actor, displaying the composure of a sociopath in assigning all of the blame to the victim.


The jury at the inquest was not convinced that Birk had told the truth about the supposed threat posed by Williams. On February 15, Seattle PD's Firearms Review Board ruled that the fatal shooting was "unjustified," and recommended that "Officer Birk must remain stripped of all Seattle Police powers and authority, as he was on October 5th, 2010 when he surrendered his gun and badge."



Birk had clearly committed an act of criminal homicide, and his only "punishment" was to be "stripped" of something nobody really possesses -- the supposed power and authority to engage in discretionary killing.


As we’ve seen on numerous occasions, contemporary law enforcement officers are on a war footing, which means that their default setting is “overkill.” (Birk, like so many other police officers, is a military veteran, having served as a paralegal in the National Guard.) It likewise means that they are functionally immune from prosecution when they commit acts of criminal homicide.


Shortly after the decision of the Firearms Review Board was made public, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg announced that although the murder of Williams was “troubling,” no criminal charges would be filed against the murderer. This is because it Satterberg believes it would be impossible to demonstrate that the unjustified killing was the product of malice.


“A jury would be compelled to find Officer Birk not guilty,” Satterberg claimed. This should be taken as an oblique admission by Satterberg that he would have thrown the case if it had gone to trial. The state’s homicide statute recognizes that it is not necessary to demonstrate malice in cases where death results from criminal neglect.


Furthermore, the relevant section Washington’s criminal code describes an offense called “homicide by abuse” in which one person, in “circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life,” causes the death of ” a developmentally disabled person”; although this statute was written to apply to cases in which mentally handicapped or otherwise dependent people die from prolonged mistreatment, a properly motivated prosecutor could find a way to convince a jury that the statute should cover an incident in which a police officer summarily executes a deaf, mentally challenged woodcarver.

As is generally the case when a member of the Krypteia slaughters a helot, the only ones punished are the local tax victims: The City of Seattle has announced a $1.5 million settlement with the victim’s family.


Birk himself will probably join the ever-growing ranks of "Gypsy Cops" and turn up somewhere else swaddled in a government-provided costume and invested with the spurious authority to kill.


Police authority" is a strange, mystical property that leaves a heavy residue of privilege even in those, like Ian Birk, from whom it is withdrawn.


Consider what would happen if the situation had been reversed on that Seattle street corner last August 30: What if Birk had been ordered to divest himself of his weapon by a member of the productive class? What if Birk had been the one gunned down four seconds after that demand had been made by someone who later claimed that he felt "threatened" by Birk's facial expression?


Were a sanctified personage in a police uniform to be killed in that fashion by a Mundane who displayed no malice, D.A. Satterberg would probably find the motivation, and summon the necessary creativity, to build a criminal case.


In a recent case of that kind in Eugene, Oregon, a woman reportedly suffering from schizophrenia allegedly gunned down Officer Chris Kulcullin, who -- his chosen profession aside-- appears to have been a genuinely decent man, with a wife and two children. While the specifics of that horrible episode differ from the killing of John T. Williams, both of those incidents were random acts of unjustified lethal violence. Ian Birk faces no criminal charges. Cheryl Kidd, who allegedly murdered Kulcullin, has been charged with aggravated murder, and could face the death penalty.


The only thing separating those two acts of criminal homicide is "authority" -- that quantity, at once elusive and illusive, that supposedly elevates the State's hired enforcers above the hoi polloi, permitting them to inflict summary punishment on any Mundane who displays so much as a flicker of defiance. It is this ineffable gift that allows Ian Birk and his ilk to gun down, without serious consequence, any Mundane who dares give them a dirty look.

[Original_Intent]

It makes my blood boil to see things like that - both in the fact that it was clearly unjustified and the cop is probably a psychopath, but also because it reflects poorly on the good men and women who truly are trying to serve the public good.

[fps.sledge]

If that police officer was instead just a regular citizen carrying a concealed firearm, you can be assured the police in Seattle would take a position exactly opposite of what they had.

Let's say for example this article was stripped of the event at hand and read only with the comments of the police department and those defending them. Read only those quotes, and then ask yourself if you would actually feel safe around that police department.

[Like]

There are still a few good cops like Sheriff Mack but I see stories of cop abuse more and more these days. I know I fear cops more then respect them, including my members of my family who are cops.

[Like]

There are still a few good cops like Sheriff Mack but I see stories of cop abuse more and more these days. I know I fear cops more then respect them, including my members of my family who are cops.

[KalelIsbell]

More and more cops are part of the "Gadianton's"
and I have no use for any of them,
they are just the enforcer's for the PTB, and they cause way more trouble then they ever solve.
they are good for nothing, in fact they are worthless X( X( X( X( X( X(
and they all make me sick to my stomach :ymsick: :ymsick: :ymsick:
as you can tell i am no fan of the cops. :-w
this story is just another in a long line of power corrupting and covering itself.

[Like]

Tennesee Law Enforcement Stealing Money from out of state innocent motorist

[davedan]

The point and ENDGAME of all of what the globalists are doing is the get us to LOSE FAITH in our government. So, that when the final "shock" happens, our government will fail and people will divide up into tribes just like 3Nephi 5-7. The globalists are hoping the constitution falls right along with the corrupted US government.

Look at our government leaders involved in scandal after scandal, we are losing faith in police, and doctors, scientists, and religious leaders and everyone in authority.

WHAT THE GLOBALIST WANT IS FOR US TO LOSE FAITH. Then in a divided country, they will create a race war. which has been fomenting in US prisons all across the nation. THEN CHINA, RUSSIA, allied with MEXICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS will strike.

The key is that the Sheriff is supposed to be an elected position. The county Sheriff and his deputies are supposed to serve and protect the people. They elected Sheriff has been replaced in many places by appointed city police or federal law enforcement who serve and protect the government against the people. THIS CREATES A DANGEROUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. What we need is to do away with appointed law enforcement and return to elected leadership.

[Jason]

Tennesee Law Enforcement Stealing Money from out of state innocent motorist

...posted article yesterday in Blipits about Tennessee law enforcement profiting from drug smuggling.

How does that line go about what happens when the majority choose wickedness....

[Like]

...posted article yesterday in Blipits about Tennessee law enforcement profiting from drug smuggling.

How does that line go about what happens when the majority choose wickedness....

Sorry I have not stayed on top of my favorite threads .... life is full.

Are you thinking of 2 Nephi 1:7

Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

[linj2fly]

sorry, nt; I'll post later

[SempiternalHarbinger]

You want to see something jaw dropping you have to check this out. Welcome to the police state!

G20 2009: Police Attack Students at University of Pittsburgh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etv8YEqaWgA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is another shocking one at the University of Pittsburgh during the G20 summit





There is one video i cannot find but it shows the swat team moving forward on some protesters. A young lady decides to sit on the curb and wait refusing to move. Right when the swat team is within feet they bombard this girl like a pack of wolves.. The first officer there came out of no where and pushed this tiny young lady to the ground and instantly it was like a swarm of bees was on top of her beating the life out of her. This was in 2009 at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. Right here In the United State of America. This girl was no threat to anyone. I will try and find it.

[John Locke]

I don't think you have the fully story on this one man...The Anarchist were causing some serious problems in pitt...

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Did you watch the first video?? Obviously not. There is absolutely no violence going on. Just listen to the swat microphone; "You have no right to be here.. You have no right to protest..... You have no right to be here no matter you reasoning." Maybe there are a few instance the protesters got out of hand, but who can blame them?? What I mean by that is the is America and if you are minding your own business and next thing you know you are being attacked and you feel your life is in danger you have the right to defend themselves. You refer to the as Anarchist. I could care less who they are as long as they are obeying the Laws of the land. You can label people all you want. "This isn't Minority Report" But, It like the Muslims, How do we allow them to live here when there core beliefs completely contradict, and are opposite of the Constitution? Well, until they break the Law, they cannot be punished. Even if there beliefs are complete opposite. You cannot be punished for you beliefs. But you will be for breaking the Law.

Just watch the second one i embed. No violence whatsoever. They just turned on their LRAD siren for no damn reason. gassed, beaten for sitting on a curb? Whatever. There are so many videos that confirm this.

[linj2fly]

You want to see something jaw dropping you have to check this out. Welcome to the police state!

G20 2009: Police Attack Students at University of Pittsburgh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etv8YEqaWgA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

X( X( X(

That's a serious abridgement to the right to peaceful assembly!
These people should SUE---wait--the ARE!

Pittsburgh G-20 arrest records ordered released
By Brian Bowling
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, May 11, 2011

With the city and 25 G-20 protesters no longer trying to settle their differences over a civil lawsuit, a federal judge ordered Pittsburgh to immediately turn over all the documents related to the protesters' arrests during the 2009 economic summit.

U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer also ordered both sides to meet before May 25 to work out which issues are still in dispute and scheduled a motion hearing for June 9. Last week, Fischer approved motions from both sides to end the court-ordered mediation sessions that were intended to resolve the case.

The protesters are claiming police violated their constitutional rights while making the arrests. The case is one of four filed against the city for incidents that occurred in the week of the international event.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 36330.html

[John Locke]

Did you watch the first video?? Obviously not. There is absolutely no violence going on. Just listen to the swat microphone; "You have no right to be here.. You have no right to protest..... You have no right to be here no matter you reasoning." Maybe there are a few instance the protesters got out of hand, but who can blame them??

Just watch the second one i embed. No violence whatsoever. They just turned on their LRAD siren for no damn reason. gassed, beaten for sitting on a curb? Whatever. There are so many videos that confirm this.

Ya because it must be me that doesn't have the full story...we should totally just give the anarchists the benefit of the doubt...Come on man you are smarter than that, I am sure there was wrongs on both sides, but the Anarchists did not in anyway help themselves, theirs was not a "peaceful" assembly...I can blame them for getting out of hand, and you should to...oh but wait violence is the answer as long as its directed against authority figures right?

[Like]

Secret Service Interrogates 7th Grader For Facebook Post

[linj2fly]

The point and ENDGAME of all of what the globalists are doing is the get us to LOSE FAITH in our government. So, that when the final "shock" happens, our government will fail and people will divide up into tribes just like 3Nephi 5-7. The globalists are hoping the constitution falls right along with the corrupted US government.

Look at our government leaders involved in scandal after scandal, we are losing faith in police, and doctors, scientists, and religious leaders and everyone in authority.

WHAT THE GLOBALIST WANT IS FOR US TO LOSE FAITH. Then in a divided country, they will create a race war. which has been fomenting in US prisons all across the nation. THEN CHINA, RUSSIA, allied with MEXICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS will strike.

The key is that the Sheriff is supposed to be an elected position. The county Sheriff and his deputies are supposed to serve and protect the people. They elected Sheriff has been replaced in many places by appointed city police or federal law enforcement who serve and protect the government against the people. THIS CREATES A DANGEROUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. What we need is to do away with appointed law enforcement and return to elected leadership.

Warning--I'm about to go on a sidepath...

Davedan, what you said has really helped me articulate something I've been reflecting alot on lately. They (Satan and his minions/secret combination), by encouraging ENMITY, want us to LOSE FAITH AND DIVIDE US (Which we have--lost faith in Jesus Christ; and now losing faith in the govts--the natural result, I believe, of trusting on the arm of flesh, which is really the philosphies of the false 'God of this world')--to our destruction both physically and spiritually. War is a consummation of these goals.

The Savior wants us to BUILD FAITH AND GATHER US (UNITY being the fruit of CHARITY and the foundation of Zion).

I've found an interesting juxtaposition in the scriptures that hits on this. I've recently finished reading first Nephi (and finally starting to grasp Isaiah...he seems much more plain to me this time around--it especially helps that Nephi plainly explains Isaiah's writing right after reciting them to his brothers). In 1st Nephi Ch 22, Nephi explains Isaiah 49. In verses 8 through 12, he explains the 'marvelous work' among the Gentiles, and the subsequent gathering of the house of Israel, bringing them "out of captivity", and being 'gathered together to the lands of their inheritance.' Immediately following, (vs 13-16) he describes how the the great and abominable church, which is the whore of the earth, "shall turn on their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood."

In D&C 98, I have always found it peculiar that RIGHT AFTER the Lord states "Renounce War and proclaim peace" (v16)--he states what we SHOULD DO:

...and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children; v17, and again, the hearts of the Jews unto the prophets, and the prophets unto the Jews; lest I come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be consumed before me.

These verses refer both to the gathering of Israel here as well as the 'gathering' under the covenant of our dead ancestors. So important is this work that the Lord states, "If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming." (D&C 2:3)

Is it possible that War is completely antithetical/antiproductive to the Lord's work. Is it possible that this is one of Satan's consummate tools in attempting to THWART GOD'S GATHERING OF HIS CHILDREN. Perhaps that is the very reason that we should 'Renounce war and proclaim peace?' Is it possible that 'renounce war and proclaim peace' is not just a trite, 'feel-good' saying, but essential to gathering as many of God's children as we can, so they are not sent out of this world before they are 'prepared to meet God.'

This is why I believe we should forbear in saying, as the Nephites said of the people of Ammon, "Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us." Just as the Lamanites were restored/reclaimed and became a delightsome people, so shall be the restoration of the peoples of the house of Israel and all those adopted therein. As it would have been a tragedy for the Nephites to have actually acted upon those feelings (and eventually, they did, to their utter destruction!), so it is/would be a tragedy for us to support and build up those who beat the war-drums against peoples (all nations) out of whom the House of Israel might be gathered.

Satan has been very successful at dividing us (or 'polarizing' us, as some say). When it comes down to it, all issues can trace back to the original issues in the Council in Heaven: force versus agency (ENMITY/PRIDE vs. CHARITY). There is an obvious division right now between those who value agency and those follow the philosophy of force, and all its spoils.

Another significant division brewing is that between Americans and illegal immigrants. I personally think this is not by accident. Several governmental acts and negligences have led to this situation and have FOMENTED ENMITY towards hispanics, (the CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM BY MANASSAH), those that have been prophesied to 'blossom as the rose.' They have become 'hated,' and a 'hiss and a byword among' us (3 Ne 16:9). This is so sad. These are our people, our brothers and sisters we are to assist in being gathered to the House of Israel, those whom we are 'to carry on our shoulders.' (I personally think they have become scapegoats and the blame for what has happened should be put squarely on the shoulders of our leaders, who seek to keep us, the House of Israel, divided).

Unfortunately, if we do not repent of this:

10And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

--then this enmity will escalate into OUR (Gentiles) destruction:

D&C 87:5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation[/b].

The footnote for remnant refers to the Lord's familiar prophecy:

3 Ne 16:15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.

I have read before that 'salt' refers to covenant people, but I don't remember which scripture refers to that. If that's true, he's not just talking to the Gentiles in general, but to 'covenant' Gentiles. (That invites some introspection )

The footnote for tread refers to the Lord's more specific prophecy:

3 Ne 20:16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

Sounds like a pretty 'easy' destruction on their part. This would certainly be the case if we are divided 'into tribes,' our country is in shambles economically, our troops are spread across the earth, etc., etc., etc. Or when we are again in the middle of Civil War.

Renounce War and proclaim peace! How do we obtain peace? Repentance. Repentance turns us to the work of Gathering, which will continue to have a snowball effect as we persuade our brethren and ourselves to repent.

Anyway, that's an articulation of my thoughts. Correct, add, take away.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Did you watch the first video?? Obviously not. There is absolutely no violence going on. Just listen to the swat microphone; "You have no right to be here.. You have no right to protest..... You have no right to be here no matter you reasoning." Maybe there are a few instance the protesters got out of hand, but who can blame them??

Just watch the second one i embed. No violence whatsoever. They just turned on their LRAD siren for no damn reason. gassed, beaten for sitting on a curb? Whatever. There are so many videos that confirm this.

Ya because it must be me that doesn't have the full story...we should totally just give the anarchists the benefit of the doubt...Come on man you are smarter than that, I am sure there was wrongs on both sides, but the Anarchists did not in anyway help themselves, theirs was not a "peaceful" assembly...I can blame them for getting out of hand, and you should to...oh but wait violence is the answer as long as its directed against authority figures right?

Your right John Locke about violence. Its never the answer. I'm not justifying it in the least. my bad. That's not what i meant. But no matter what a group of people represent, what they are protesting, even if you disagree 100% who they are and what they are protesting, they have the same rights as everyone else. And if they are being peaceful (which they were) there should be no problem. But there was a problem. Not from the protesters but from police and swat. Most people in the area disagreed with these people, so they didn't care if there constitutional rights were violated or not. The police new this so they thought they would just rough them up and severely hurt civilians. You know, will show them whose boss!

but the Anarchists did not in anyway help themselves

Every time there is a protest you can make that same argument. They did not help themselves by being there, they didn't help themselves by exercising their constitutional right to a peaceful protest. They could have helped themselves by not going! Meaning they were not allowed to exercise their rights. I guess the 100's of videos on youtube only show one side of this bizarre story.

This is similar to that Utah Rave party that was broken up 5 years or so ago when a hundred or so "police" officers dressed in camouflage, with automatic rifles in their hands,dogs,tear gas, helicopters. the whole shabang. When I first heard about it i was happy about it. Come on its a rave party, why should I care? I will tell you why you should care, because this party was on "Private Property" they had no search warrant, and the location was paid for in advance for a private location in the middle of the dessert. The cops had no business being there as much as i disagree with the rave culture. The police just showed up for no reason with no warrant and went to town on everyone they could get their hands on. Some were brutalized, according to many eyewitness accounts, among them were girls. Go ahead and believe the news and believe the police department. But you should learn both sides of the story. They painted on the news that there undercover cop at the party who witness illegal drugs going on but you will never hear the other side. Almost all the drugs that they confiscated were from the security guards who confiscated them from the people. All the security guards will have a hard time ever getting a job again. Just watch and tell me what those police officers look like. They don't look like police officers, they look like "soldiers" or "National Guardsmen" they look like they are ready for combat. This is a direct violation of their 1st Amendment rights. It was a peaceful party, private property, nobody was doing any harm to anybody. But it a rave party, So who cares. But if they can do it to them it's only a matter of time before they do it to anyone they want. They start with people society could care less about even if they are violating their Constitutional rights.



Utah Rave Bust: Interviews with party security; some offensive language by one security guard describing what was being said by the police officers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpOwLVWS ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Your last 2 post linj2fly, are really good! Thanks so much!! Same goes with all the post!

[linj2fly]

Secret Service Interrogates 7th Grader For Facebook Post

SS reading his fb posts....hmmm. Makes me wonder what his privacy settings are. In any event this is infuriating as well. His post sounded harmless to me, and I don't understand why the SS singled him out for questioning.

Semp said...
But if they can do it to them it's only a matter of time before they do it to anyone they want. They start with people society could care less about even if they are violating their Constitutional rights.

This is absolutely why we should care, even if we disagree. Besides, are we not our brothers' keeper?

[Like]

[Like]

Indiana Supreme Court rule Cops Don't need Warrant to enter your home

[dauser]

The authorities somehow, even routinely, claim somehow or from somewhere the power to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will... destroying any authority and credability.

Money forcibly taken from earners and gifted to those who did not earn it ... done by those very hirlings commissioned to protect life, liberty and property... destroys any credibility.

The authorities with our money are thieves, guards of the worst type. Crucifiers of righteousness. Protectors of evil in high places.

And they want to teach your five year old... for the next 13 years... because they care...These are the people who gave us the IRS!

[Tribunal]

As a cop there is a saying that screams out each time I hear and read about abuse from police. That is "Those who do not know their rights have no rights". If people knew what a Right is and knew their Rights and would actually get involved and make positive changes to government this type of abuse would not happen. Too often I hear people complain about the problem with government and police, but rarely do anything about it but complain.

People these days believe that a Right is whatever they want it to be at any expense. People even believe that their Right should trump another's Right. We have become an ignorant and prideful and very wicked people.

One thing to consider is as the populace becomes more sinful (because of pride and ignorance) government will become more authoritative to maintain power, control, and 'peace'. If government constantly teaches its agents (police officers) that more and more people are 'anti-social' and provide them with training and tools to react to the 'anti-social' behavior, you are going to have more abuses of people's rights.