What opinions do you anons have towards law enforcement officers? I've seen cops called ZOGbots here, but I've also seen anons express sympathy towards them. I'm sort of cynical towards them. They've repeatedly failed to defend people from bodily or property damage by criminals, from not preventing Stalinistic terrorists from comitting thuggery in Berkeley, Charlottesville, Portland, etc, to failing to prevent black riots from getting out of hand, to failing to intervene against mass shooters, like in Broward. They mostly only "protect and serve" a small oligarchic group of individuals and their interests, which makes sense because that's who pays them (although, if I want to be precise, it is really the tax cattle paying them.) It also seems pathetic how many boomercons LARP about being like the Founding Fathers and saying they'd fight the government if it tried to confiscate their firearms while worshipping the police and military. Of course, this isn't to endorse any sort of violent action against the police, many of whom have been misled and decieved like the normies who trust them.
Sometimes, shit happens, someone has to deal with it, and who are you going to call?
Sorry, I'm just trying to start a discussion.
They are just tools of politicians. Nothing more.
>>240413>and who are you going to call?
What about the militia?
Also it is necessary to understand how the system works.
Laws or rules are mandated by the elites, who tell their proxies (politicians) to write them in paper and to proclaim for everybody to obey.
The layer of separation, or interface, between the higher echelon (leadership) and lowly citizens are armed individuals with the main task to maintain the monopoly of violence while keeping the social status quo (order, or the rule of law). Everything is fine until here, we had this system for centuries and even millennia.
The problem arises when the leadership is not is synchrony with the nation interest and even against it, and it's even worst, the avenues to correct this by pacific democratic means are closed when not rigged.
Then the very nature of these armed formations and their loyalty get highlighted; look no further than France and now Honk Kong for a sample, or the long record of anti-white behavior of the British police.
>>240414>who are you going to call
Probably someone who actually gives a shit about me or my community, or at least about doing their job.>>240418
So it seems.
I feel like the opinion of anyone who isn't an American is going to have heavily skewed view on this discussion because of one simple law (Actually several laws
) we have and no one else does:>Innocent until proven guilty
If there is no evidence, there is "no crime". Doesn't matter how "guilty" anyone is. Unless you give the cops "probable cause" to do anything towards you, they cannot touch you. And, if they do
touch you, then they are screened every which way from to the moon and back (Especially with how they now have cameras on everything
: themselves, the cars, every person watching who has a cellphone, etc.). If the cops have EVER
taken the law into their own hands in the past decade, we would know. Yet, at least on my end, it seems like the "evil police force" is pretty much a meme that sprouted from European and Socialist countries with idiots refusing to let it die because "police brutality" makes for a good scare. In fact, just to show how much of a scare tactic this is, let's actually look at the statistics really quick. There were 750k police officers (In 2012) who were running around, carrying a gun, and making arrests: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/nsleed.pdf
Of those 750k officers across the nation, 1,170 were arrested for committing a crime themselves: http://archive.fo/gLOXbLESS THAN 00.16%
of the police officer population in the United States commit any crimes. So much for all that talk about "muh police brutality".
Also, despite popular belief, the police are NOT
there to protect the people. They are there to enforce the law and nothing else. It's just that, sometimes, enforcing the law and protecting the people align in certain situations. If you want "absolute" protection, you arm yourself. The most the cops can do (Unless there's one in the immediate vecinity) is clean up after the crime has already been committed.
The problem is that people don't join the force to "serve and protect" they join because they think it'll look good on a resume, so when the army of these idiots get the call to go in on an active shooter or riot or the like they bitch out.
>>240439>So much for all that talk about "muh police brutality".
I think nobody here talks about police brutality, but the function they have as sort of a private army for to enforce the oligarchs and politicians wishes. Then their legitimacy comes into question and they start to look more like a lethal threat than a asset.
In my experience, most law enforcement officers are good people. Although you probably want to avoid dealing with the ones from liberal strongholds, or traffic cops in areas where traffic citations are a significant portion of their fundraising (FUCK YOU ILLINOIS)
Certain individuals who should really know better have been telling us for 50+ years “the cops are our friends,” “the cops are really on our side,” “all cops are conservative like us,” “cops respect the Constitution,” “the cops would never kick down our doors to take our guns,” and, then, when it does happen, “this was an isolated incident.” As this happens more and more–or, rather, as video from police body cameras show us more and more examples of what’s already been happening, what’s always been happening, those guys are getting quieter and quieter. Which is all to the good.
I will also make the observation that police departments have always attracted damaged and unstable personalities ever since five minutes after someone had the idea to hand out badges, weapons, and uniforms to people and have them act as a private army on behalf of the Mayor's cronies. A certain sort of person is very gleeful to get the chance to get even with everyone who made fun of him in high school. Now and then someone like Sir Robert Peel will notice what’s going on and even, for a little while, the society in which he lives might even take his advice–for a generation or two. Then it’s back to beating confessions out of random citizens by skillful application of the rubber hose, letting rioters run wild on the Mayor's orders then vigorously applying the ol' "hickory shampoo" to anyone who notices and gives them lip about it, and 3am no-knock SWAT raids for an unpaid parking ticket, half the time owed by someone who last lived at that address twenty years ago-if they even wrote the address down correctly, which half the time they don't.
Look. I’m not saying that being a cop isn’t a shitty, dangerous, low-paying job in which they basically look up society’s asshole for a living and see and deal with the absolute worst of human behavior day in and day out. The statistics on divorce and alcohol and drug abuse among the Lads in Blue bear this out–it’s a miserable job, done by deeply unhappy and sometimes deeply damaged people. It’s not the most dangerous job out there, not by a long shot, and it pays a lot better than the jobs that expose people to much greater risk of untimely death, like delivering pizza, or working hundred-hour weeks on one of those big Alaskan fishing boats, or working behind the counter at a ghetto convenience store, or driving a cab in a "diverse" neighborhood. Nonetheless one has to acknowledge the circumstances and expect cops to have very, very bad attitudes and be belligerent and obnoxious about it most of the time, and looking for an excuse, any excuse, to work out some of their frustration on any tax-peon who gives them the slightest pretext.
Corollary to this is that the cops don’t work for you. You think they do. They don’t. They're hired mercenaries who work for the politicians who sign their paychecks, and have no real authority, only guns and power. The Chief of Police signs their paychecks, the Mayor signs his, and his job is to keep his cronies and campaign contributors happy-NOT the voters. It may be that you have cop friends, or cops in your family, and you’re saying “Not all cops are like that,” or, in shorter form, NACALT. To which I say: horseshit. Anyone with the slightest trace of a conscience is very rapidly driven out by the endless speedtrap bullshit, the endless ticket quotas, the endless “municipal revenue enhancements” that are the real main reason for the uniform and the badge, the utter corruption of most every department large or small. And you might have a drink with Officer Friendly now and then, you might chat about guns with him at the range–but he’s not your friend. Officer Friendly couldn’t give less of a fuck about you. It might even bother him for half a second if he got orders to kick your door down–for an unpaid parking ticket, for “illegal firearms,” for the meth lab a “reliable confidential informant” said you have in the basement, "kiddie porn" that the police department's IT guys will be more than happy put on your computer after they take it as "evidence," whatever bullshit a judge rubber-stamps. But he doesn’t give a fuck about you. He will think about it for about half a second and say, “well, if I don’t do this, I put muh pension at risk.” "They'll fire me if I don't do what they say. I can't risk muh paycheck." “Little Susie needs braces.” In a paramilitary hierarchy it’s always easier to go with the flow, not to make waves, to follow orders. At every point it takes more courage, both moral and physical, to question orders than to put on the plate carrier and the helmet with the mirrored face shield and go out kicking in doors and shooting the occasional “non-compliant” taxpayer. NACALT? No. Sorry, dude. If they didn’t enjoy it they wouldn’t be wearing the badge.
This is one reason that one of the principles by which I live my life is that of minimizing contact with The Man. Your mileage may vary. And that’s okay. I live my life. You do you.
I have not spoken of what I think should or shouldn’t be done about the situation. Of such things I have nothing to say, except that in this life each of us is responsible to his own conscience.
>>240451>As this happens more and more–or, rather, as video from police body cameras show us more and more examples of what’s already been happening, what’s always been happening, those guys are getting quieter and quieter.
??? The body cameras mostly support the cops and pulverize the nigger "I dindu noffin" defense?
Except when some illiterate IQ-55 Somali fresh off the boat, to whom the mayor insisted they give a badge and gun to prove her wokeness, shoots a white woman in the face for existing in his presence. Go look up the name "Justine Ruszczyk."
Or when they order a taxpayer to strip down to his underwear and lie on the floor on his belly, then, when he obeys, shoot him anyway as he begs for his life. Go look up the name "Daniel Shaver."
It happens every day. Niggers commit 56%, or more depending on whose statistics you believe, of violent crime in the US, but are only 23% of those killed by cops. American cops are very triggerhappy and not at all afraid to stack some bodies when it's a white taxpayer in their sights. Niggers, they don't even want to arrest, not even when a "BLM" riot comes to town and they're blocking traffic and surrounding people's vehicles and pounding on the windows.
Which is why they're just another street gang, perhaps better armed and better organized than most.
>>240451>Then it’s back to beating confessions out of random citizens by skillful application of the rubber hose, letting rioters run wild on the Mayor's orders then vigorously applying the ol' "hickory shampoo" to anyone who notices and gives them lip about it, and 3am no-knock SWAT raids for an unpaid parking ticket, half the time owed by someone who last lived at that address twenty years ago-if they even wrote the address down correctly, which half the time they don't.
I know about the mayors in more Liberal cities forcing the cops to do nothing while Antifags are causing destruction, but do you have a fucking source to the rest?>>240454>Except when some illiterate IQ-55 Somali fresh off the boat, to whom the mayor insisted they give a badge and gun to prove her wokeness, shoots a white woman in the face for existing in his presence. Go look up the name "Justine Ruszczyk."
Looking it up, that Mayor is a hard-core Dem, but that's beside the point that the guy went to jail for what he did: http://archive.fo/FjmuX>Or when they order a taxpayer to strip down to his underwear and lie on the floor on his belly, then, when he obeys, shoot him anyway as he begs for his life. Go look up the name "Daniel Shaver."
And, that officer was charged with second degree murder, and it was the jury
(Not the police force, not the judge, not the politicians) that declared that the guy was innocent: http://archive.fo/XGS0S
What do law enforcement officers have to do with the mayor of Portland and the PDs Chiefs?
The mayor has been told to relinquish the exertion of control he has over Portland police multiple times. Including by ICE Agents.
The police could address all (you)r issues near perfectly and it still wouldn't ever be enough, they are in the unique position of being expected to do well but in doing so the results of their labour are made immaterial and abstracted, on the other hand the results of their failures continue to be material.
For all (you(guys)) know (let's be honest, you don't know much about the current depression of crimes due to policing [in the US]) -they could be doing exceptionally well in an absolute sense and only failing with vanishingly small recurrence. Or vice versa.
The perception would remain the same.
This is why we deal with 'facts' and 'studies' not various lead ingested anecdotes. ["Failing."]
Again, the Portland Mayor
taking control of the police has nothing to do with officers themselves unless you believe sincerely the issue of Portland is systematic and the regular rather than a remarkable and bizarre exception to police functionality(rather methodology). --In which case we would only be establishing that the officers are participating implicitly in a broken system. I contend that is not true in any remarkable way and the system of law enforcement in the US (-specifically the US-) is functioning optimally (generally).
To reiterate, it seems this is irrelevant to an opinion on officers generically. A context has been created in which even given blame assigned to the police at Portland, there would be no reason to hold an opinion generically on some kind of what endemic ground. Qualitatively it seems like police are failing more than is acceptable and more often than previously, but, due to the highly politicized nature of these events in recent years the situations are themselves exigent compared to a general consistency. These are very profound events. I would not trust police any more than any other stranger, I certainly, perhaps more tellingly, trust strangers more than any nigger though -- It should be fair to say that police seem to, or tend to be more Machiavellian types. It is at least a rational assumption.
>"What opinions do you anons have towards law enforcement officers?>They've repeatedly failed to defend people
My 'opinion' of law enforcement/officers in the US is the same of the 'system' of law enforcement in the US generally. [In the positive.]
Well, the police are people, theres good and bad people.
That particular group might or might not attract more bad people, but then you should question the organization itself and how it deals with bad cops and not individual cases, no?
The police are supposed to work for the good of the people, if the police Is bad, the problem comes from those in charge of the organization.
You still need to maintain a warped view of the world to hold police to such a standard, rather than the act of regarding them itself.
Footage from the Justine incident of other responding officers showed good communication and confusion. Both good indicators if we assume one measures the ability of law enforcement and the other the extent of cases such as these - given the surprise of the officers in this circumstance that would be supporting evidence that this is rare perhaps? Hard to say given no comparison, but, you do mock the idea of stating such events are isolated incidents? More troubling was the one officers seeming rush to prevent the negroid from incriminating himself, a kind of failure to investigate and said officers rush to cease the gathering of incriminating evidence via bodycamera. That doesn't make these situations any less rare (vanishingly small) nor any less isolated as a non systematic-err.
I would agree with an "anti-mayor rhetoric" given that mayors interfering with police work is most often detrimental, but these kinds of hire in a non rhetorical more serious toned look are somewhat inevitable given that it is government sector jobs that can't discriminate based on race. The private sector can do things that aren't, but in effect are, meritocratic control as blacks compared to whites are over-credentialed and the market corrects itself for this over-credentialization as one example of possible private public differences.
The National Safety Council puts the lifetime risk of being killed in the United States by any assault with a firearm at 1 in 358.
The lifetime risk of dying in a mass shooting is around 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.
Terrorism is also vanishingly small as well, just like these great, often conceptual, police injustices.
People like to make alot appear out of nothing, and to be entirely fair it is politically and rhetorically effective. Very effective.
The real big brain move though is to be smart enough to acknowledge the jingle-key fear monger politics and be even smarter and realize that it's entirely necessary, perhaps rationalized; and natural.
Unlike leveraging 'think of the children' (from mass shootings to child abuse by grooming gangs) - which mainly targets female voters for you in non-politicized elections (I know it seems like a misnomer for political elections but it's a monster vote thing) -you don't really seek to gain very much.
Your entire spiel about sociological tendencies and patterns of pathology is strange and errant in the sense you talk about sociological issues without mentioning any of the actual extant literature on the subject, bizarre. "Let me guess, you got bullied at school, had a pet goldfish didn't you pig? It died at the age of 6, you had to flush it down the toilet, saddest day of your life." I also saw a similar scene in a movie as well. Liam Neeson?
You mention no-knock warrants but don't even mention the tendency to move towards acquittal in what should be made clear cases of criminal liability? That would seem like a sound systematic error on part of the police and judges to me, I would find it rather convincing infact of some kind of great systematic wrongdoing, although not itself indicative of the extent. That is if most of those weren't acquittals caused by grand juries which tend to make fine decisions.
"half the time they don't." Is rhetorically… something. Rhetorically persuasive but I even doubt its use as that. I'm going to assume you got this idea from the controversial no-knock cases which tend to involve lots of acquittals anyway and also incorrect addresses, the implication though is that this is no-knock warrants generally, perhaps assemble some evidence for that? It's probably fair to say of controversial no-knock cases (including those involving Jury acquittals). Again doesn't make it more significant or any less isolated.
"American cops are very trigger happy and not at all afraid to stack some bodies when it's a white taxpayer in their sights." This is blatantly… true. Yes. I feel these are much better arguments but that's only because I know of the research given I cite it in arguments in which I contend the direction of this "racism" by police thing. To not just refute but carry in the other direction is a stronger position.
Again there's plenty of other better arguments, instead you waste half your words writing a 'big if true' paragraph of rhetoric that's entirely in admissible as anything important. Big if true.
Like you say yourself, hierarchical paramil. So change the orders not the people. but i contend the orders are fine.>>240455
Cocksucker? It's a question don't worry.>>240473>that declared that the guy was innocent:
Yes, and I'm starting to think most of these // wouldn't start arguments if they got training in objective reasonableness or had access to even half of the evidence a Grand Jury gets. I actually have some "belief" in Juries as bad as that is, but, it's hard to assess the actual effectiveness of this "Jury" thing unlike this "academic expertise" thing.>>240445
I've had this conversation a dozen times.>police suck>which police>all western police forces tbh>the us and uk police aren't the same, you need proper objects, groups that don't exist in the real world that you imagined aren't proper objects of conversations and aren't real, etc.
I also don't talk about all police forces together for the same reason I clarify studies of blacks as studies of blacks in the US.
I recognize this from the imagined "universal pan-European man" (which defers away from any real tactical hereditarian thinking, although I have no problem with the idea strategically, pragmatically and practically).
Project supervisors did no meaningful labour themselves, also nobody whipped their slaves except one sadist (whipping is implied in a scene).
The snuck premise of slaves working hard "working even harder" is wrong, they worked less hard (produced less and also Project Supervisors in a group did no meaningful labour) than in a natural experiment conducted on a family farm - and before you ask value is not a "fairer" measure for that, they only had another maybe 3%+/- taken off the top of the value they produced compared to "freed peoples." You seem like a cocksucking civcuck or martin luther kang type -- TBQH FAMPIE!
My migraine has been killing me this entire past thirty minutes writing all that I feel like my vein is going to gore and I'm a little high okay
Most people get the police wrong, they don't exist to prevent crime and never did, though there is a push for them to start preventing 'crime'. Their primary function has always been to enforce the law, and the law can only be enforced after a crime has taken place. That realisation gets worse when you realise who's writing all the laws.
I am fully in favor of privatizing the police. This is the only way to reliably eliminate most of the problems inherent in the system. Corruption is allowed to be maintained continually due to a lack of competition. No one would hire police who let culprits escape justice, or who look out for their own safety rather than the people they are charged to protect. Additionally, with competing systems it would be impossible for any one faction to assume complete control.
So yes, I am skeptical of any claim that the police are a net benefit. If the social situation goes south we would be opposing them, because police by default protect the system, even its most bizarre and controversial elements. If you barge into a “Drag Queen Story Time” indoctrination class and warn the kids “They’re actually men!” you’ll be arrested. You could get an officer to agree with you totally yet he wouldn’t desert his line on the riot squad, because to do so would require moral courage as in Fahrenheit 451
. I’m sure a lot of police would love
to beat back Antifa, arrest Epstein’s brothers in crime and send the illegals back but they must do what they’re told and only that. There is no way they can say no to the commissioner and keep their position. “The Gauntlet” is an exaggerated dramatization of what can happen.
We are all anarchists, practically speaking, and must acknowledge this in our way of thinking. By this, I don’t mean anything violent or those retards who walked into a police station with balaclavas and AR-15s to “practice their rights,” but simply to know how the law can be used against you and acknowledging that you’re an enemy of the State. Cooperate with the law where it benefits you and be cordial at all times, but know your rights.>>240478
Yes, you’re very much unlikely to get shot by police or SWATted illegally as a citizen of the United States. As someone with radical views at odds with the government, this risk increases greatly. There are myriad ways for an assault team to be called on you or sent to the “wrong address,” and if that happens it doesn’t matter how much you love the police. With Red Flag laws this will get much more dangerous.
I agree that police are, for the most part, generally good people. I would also say the same about the average soldier in the Red Army. However, the system will punish them for breaking ranks and rewards them for defending this, and someone who’s always defended the system will not turn against it. The French police are utterly depressed and fatigued for fighting the Yellow Vests, yet they have not switched sides and ousted Macron. A major disadvantage of large nations (for us) is that, if it looks like police and soldiers won’t fire on their own family members in the crowd, the government will move in units from distant parts of the country; this was done by the Chinese government at the Tiananmen Square Protests.
From a practical standpoint, it is wise to show solidarity with the police and military so as to gain sympathies; you may even be able to recruit insiders to help you out. However, you should never
count on them to bite the hand that feeds them, and for this reason it’s preferable to establish competing policing/militia networks to reduce dependence on them. A latent suspicion would not hurt. We don’t want a lawless land, but we don’t want to be living in a police state, either.
>>240484>However, the system will punish them for breaking ranks and rewards them for defending this, and someone who’s always defended the system will not turn against it.
Yeah, that doesn't apply to the U.S. The government has already run countless scenarios and each one shows that if some serious shit went down, majority of law enforcement (From the local cops to the highest ranks of the military) would drop out right there and then or
stay enrolled obly as an informant.
>>240413>In actual dangerous areas
I have a limited amount of respect for the Chicago guys that have to do two-man patrols in killer coontown. We had a fellow on /pol/ with us once, shitposting from the squadcar and hanging out before the watch changed, shooting the shit with us about the department, chicago in general, niggers and stuff. Seemed like 3 or 4 anons planned on attempting to get in, but he warned them that the CPD is trying to do diversity hires since the vast majority of competent applicants are white guys.>Female LEOs
Insufferable. They're bad at the beginning and then policing just teaches them how to act even more like a male. I've heard some of them on the scanner too, fucking ridiculous they are. One called for backup since a suspect, previous sex offender, was "making her uncomfortable". They're a worthless liability, plenty of guys would take that spot if they weren't passed up for a woman.>Suburb cops
Pic related, cops hesitate longest when faced by a nigger and shoot spics the quickest. Why? I'm not sure.
>>240495>cops hesitate longest when faced by a nigger and shoot spics the quickest. Why? I'm not sure.
Probably because any time a nigger has any interaction with cops at all, the easily riled mobs all instantly jump to "racism!" and start demanding blood. Even when the body cam footage so very often proves that the nigger had it coming. (Granted, I don't know of any stats that could confirm this one way or the other.)
As for who would naturally
get the most hesitation between spics and niggers, I couldn't guess. Niggers are more violent generally, but given the amount of illegals here, and thus the probable amount of connections to the particularly vicious south of the border gangs (in addition to spics being less incompetent than niggers), I could easily see spics being a bigger actual threat if shit hits the fan.
People's opinions of cops seems to be directly associated with what they expect the cops job to be and if the cop is doing it. Everyone who isn't a nigger lovers when cops patrol the nogs. No one should cry when a violent crack addict or PCP fueled faggot of any color gets ventilated.
Of course that's like 1% of what cops all around do. Most of the time there enforcing bullshit like traffic laws and dude weeds. When the govt decides it's gonna step on you, who do you think is the boot? Senator Red Flag ain't coming to shoot your dog himself.
And yet for some (self included) that's where cops become an issue. There's a fine line between serve and protect, and policy enforcement (police, being an abbreviation of that). In certain states (CA in particular) cops will nail you for whatever the fuck they can, cuz revenue, and if you call them on it you can spend the night thinking about how you made the poor cop do extra paperwork in jail.
In other states, cops will pull you over because they see a policy violation, use the violation to make sure there isnt something worse going on, and let you go with a warning.
That was a great thread. I miss 8/k/.
Guess it all depends if you have to deal with dirty city cops or based country sheriffs.
law was invented by hammurabi the semite to control and pacify conquered aryan tribes. obeying the law is un-american and anti-white.
probably not but it is the deepest one I have found yet.
>>241385>"Aryan originally referred to peoples who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India"
Even the page shows an image referring to Buddhism, which immediately tripped my equivocation alarm. If you don't know what I'm referring to, listen to the descriptions of the Aryans in these writings and artistic pieces of the time:https://www.bitchute.com/video/FBcNhNVybPS8/
From every piece of literature or art of the time, Aryan is a word time and time again used to describe fair-skinned, blonde or red haired peoples. Their symbolism such as the swastika is used all throughout the world, finding their roots in each of these nations and cultures far, FAR before we have any sign of Pajeets and sandniggers creating these things.
Cops get a bad reputation because their day-to-day operations don't make headlines, ever, unless a big damn mistake has been made, or the media wants you to think a big damn mistake has been made. It applies to everything, but let's make an example of riots, they usually aren't that interesting because the troublemakers don't keep fighting after the first one gets a concussion. Rodney King riots happened in most of the major Cali cities, but in most of them, the unsympathetic mayor let the unsympathetic cops go straight to cracking nigger skulls and that was that.
With shooters and other terrorists, it's mostly a statistical thing, since the cop has, in all likelihood, been nowhere near a gunfight in his entire life, but the chance he'll be able to keep fighting under the pressure makes it a lot riskier that your shooting will do anything. Of course, this assumes it won't actually be tested, which is a safe assumption up until it isn't, and then you're a laughingstock because Mr Browardly Lion did literally the exact opposite of his job.
Ultimately, the cops are a problem when they aren't properly accountable (ie. their department doing the grab won't result in dead family members). Cops aren't paid enough to put their lives or their families at risk. That's why they're cops, and not some sort of fed. That's also why they tend to be really jumpy and itchy, even when they aren't malevolent, they aren't equipped or trained enough to trust that they can beat the enemy one-on-one if the enemy wants a fight. In small towns, where it is reasonable for the locals to quickly find where a misbehaving officer lives (and, if needed, a behaving officer's assailant), they tend to be a lot less obnoxious.
Something that a lot of people forget is that cops are people too. Cop work is too boring and shitty for the average sadist to put up with. Most of them just want to go home and spend their paycheck. Most of the cases of "police brutality" or "excessive force" tend to be bullshit cooked up by niggers so that the cops aren't allowed to bother them anymore, because the police don't want to just go around braining people or "people" for no reason. However, if something happens to someone and they weren't on the government's shit-list, it's probably their own fault. If it's you or their job, they choose the latter, but if it comes to their life or their job, things change. If around 10% of the police force is injured/killed enforcing an unpopular law, they simply won't do it, which is why I have always been pro-armed resistance. It doesn't take a lot of casualties before putting boot to face loses it's appeal, one of the advantages of the enemy using functional mercenaries.
As an American, I think that the police are overbuilt and underaccounted, which tells you my thoughts on their European counterparts since they are even worse in most European nations. Our government forces simply cannot be as blatantly anti-people as the European ones can and get away with it. The case of Police Body Camera v. Flying Dindu was hilarious, and a good start, but more can be done on the popular side of things.
The funny thing is that, in the past, no-knock raids which reach the wrong house and suffer return fire as a result have happened, and the ensuing investigation always found in favor of the homeowner. After all, if he knew what was going on beyond the fact that his house was being attacked, it wouldn't be a no-knock raid. All the other ones are right, though.
>>242038>Rodney King riots happened in most of the major Cali cities, but in most of them, the unsympathetic mayor let the unsympathetic cops go straight to cracking nigger skulls and that was that.Anon, that isn't even close to what happened.
First of all, the riots had NOTHING
to do with Rodney King (Beyond happening around the same time). What happened there was that the police pulled the guy over, cuffed the two passengers in the car, went to arrest King, and the guy came out swing, high off of God knows what (Because they had to toss the blood test out due to his layer not being there), and attacked the officers. Afterwards, the two passengers were let go, because they had nothing to do with it beyond just being in the car, and stated that the police were justified in how they acted.
As for the riots, that is one of the most exaggerated incidents that the media ever covered. What started it was that a bunch of niggers stopped a truck driver at an intersection, dragged him out of the cab, and killed him with a brick, which then started several scuffles around that particular block. What then cause the entire incident to “balloon”
was the literal nigger in charge of directing the police told ALL
the cops to pull out
. Naturally, you know what happened. No cops, nothing to stop anyone from doing anything. HOWEVER
, the “riots” never left the minority areas, meaning that the niggers were literally chimping out in their own neighborhoods (And, it was confined to their own neighborhoods because they didn't mess with any of the places that recently hired a bunch of local security and body guards). And, on top of that, while they were chimping out, and setting everything they could on fire, they did the one thing that NO ONE
had ever heard of up to that point: they started attacking the firefighters trying to contain the areas that were ablaze
. Now, of course the question becomes, where was the mayor and the police during all this? Well, like I said, all the police were called back because of that previously mentioned nigger (Who's excuse afterwards was, “I thought it was going to fizzle out
”), and the commissioner was throwing a re-election party for the mayor. However, afterwards, once the mayor and commissioner learned what happened, the mayor immediately[/i] threw the police commissioner under the bus claimed that “The commissioner couldn't be found.” Meanwhile, the commissioner went to work trying to clean up the situation that finally resulted in a mini-race war, and resigned immediately after (Because with friends like that, who needs enemies?), [b]BUT
not before firing the nigger that allowed the situation to happen in the first place.
Long story short, don't believe everything that you see on TV.
Cops had, have, and will have a bad rap sheet because don't serve the people, but the ruling class. This is an intolerable situation with only one solution: disarm and disband to give room to a sovereign citizen's militia.
>Most of the cases of "police brutality" or "excessive force" tend to be bullshit cooked up by niggers
Wrong, cops are far more brutal and deadly with poor Whites because nobody will vouch for them because of the color of their skin.
Any scandal about "brutality" or "execution" is always caused by the judenpresse defending its colored pets, which reaches the (((politicians)))' ears who begin calling the police's chief, who starts screaming and threatening all the cops below him.
Anyone ever regret taking the red pill?
Maybe there was no other way and no matter which road I would have took I would always ended in the same place but damn. Sometimes I feel so damn tired.
>>242296>Anyone ever regret taking the red pill?
The view of reality turns pretty ugly indeed, but the awareness given by the redpill is an advantage that is welcomed.
>>242322>but the awareness given by the redpill is an advantage that is welcomed>awareness
To come to terms with the fact that coppers are not friends but a sinister gang is unnerving. And the ironic part is that they larp like the rightful ones demanding to be loved. Go figures.
>Federal Court Rules Cops Can Steal Your Stuff and it Does NOT Violate the Constitution >The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling which declared police can constitutionally steal your possessions. Called “civil asset forfeiture,” the police are under no obligation to give the property back to you. Instead, police departments will steal your stuff, hold it in storage (accruing fees in most cases), and then sell your stuff to the highest bidder.>Police have no qualms about stealing your property, especially after you’ve been arrested for a crime. Even though every citizen is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, police will routinely confiscate, cash, guns, and real property from those who’ve been charged with a crime, even property from other members of a family living under the same roof. After all, it is difficult to prove ownership without a receipt. More sinister, however, is the fact that you need not even be accused of a crime for police to steal your stuff.https://www.activistpost.com/2019/09/federal-court-rules-cops-can-steal-your-stuff-and-it-does-not-violate-the-constitution.html
cucked to the brim, but in my country they beat up communists and nigs so they're alright.
I say that the blame for their actions should be cast onto the cities who employ them, as they are ultimately responsible for the officers' actions. Some people seem to apparently be saying we should abolish law enforcement officers in their entirety, but we have already seen and are seeing what that is like.
>>245539>I say that the blame for their actions should be cast onto the cities who employ them, as they are ultimately responsible for the officers' actions>blame>responsible
The issue is not single out some bad individuals that by luck were caught, but to get a solution by disbanding and containing the whole gang. And containment is a fundamental factor because most of them are predators not able to function like the regular Joe in society.>Some people seem to apparently be saying we should abolish law enforcement officers in their entirety, but we have already seen and are seeing what that is like.
A lot more peaceful and safer, at least you are able to apply deadly force when Tyronne wants to rob you or kidnap you. And when not, neighborhoods will form self-defence groups.
>>245542>A lot more peaceful and safer, at least you are able to apply deadly force when Tyronne wants to rob you or kidnap you. And when not, neighborhoods will form self-defence groups
No. It would mean that justice and order are only available to the highest bidder. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/amp/Businesses-hiring-real-SF-cops-on-OT-to-keep-14365181.php
>Amber Guyger Gets Just 10 Years for MURDER as Man Sentenced to 99 Years for Kicking a Cop >On Tuesday, the family of Botham Jean thought they were finally going to see some justice after the police officer who killed their beloved son was found guilty of murder. While the guilty verdict was certainly a welcomed rarity, on Wednesday, this killer’s blue privilege finally shined through. For murdering an innocent man in his own apartment, Amber Guyger was sentenced to just ten years in prison.>Showing just how much blue privilege was given to Guyger, the judge actually gave her a hug before she was taken off to jail. Seriously. As Guyger was being taken back to jail, District Judge Tammy Kemp apparently gave her a Bible and then hugged her, saying, “you can have mine. I have three or four more at home.”>How many other convicted murderers receive hugs and parting gifts from the judge who resides over their case? We are willing to bet the answer is zero.>To highlight this insidious disparity inside America’s justice system consider the following story. In Denison, Texas, just a few miles north of where Guyger murdered Botham Jean, a man was sentenced to 99 years in prison. His crime? He swung his bare foot in the direction of a cop’s head while he was being held down during a forced blood draw.>Last week, Donnie Mills, 59, was sentenced to 99 years in prison because he kicked in the direction of a cop while officers were forcibly drawing his blood during a DUI stop.https://www.activistpost.com/2019/10/amber-guyger-gets-just-10-years-for-murder-as-man-sentenced-to-99-years-for-kicking-a-cop.html
Sorry, I can't archive.
>French Police Stage Massive 'Anger March' Over Working Conditions, Low Morale And Suicide Crisis>About 48 weeks of yellow vest violence has finally sent the French police force to their breaking point. Deteriorating working conditions, low morale, and a suicide crisis have taken a significant toll on officers. Conditions are so disturbing that tens of thousands of people, including many police officers, staged a protest this week in the streets of Paris over their frustrations>Police have said they're under-equipped and understaffed for the next wave of violence. >under-equipped and understaffedhttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/french-police-stage-massive-anger-march-over-working-conditions-low-morale-and-suicide
From the mouth of the horse: they're asking for more powerful toys and reinforcements to beat harder the French people.
A follow up.
Neighbor And Witness That Testified At Dallas Cop's Murder Trial Shot And Killed.
I wonder who might be behind this execution.
Look at the police in the UK who let pakis rape their community's children to know if they can be trusted. Other places just hide it better, look at America where the (((CIA))) created a fucking pedo cult to 'own the ruskies' almost 50 years ago and only now do we have evidence.
What poems do you think children in 2040 will be taught to recite in school to help them remember the raped white girls in Rotherham and the sins of Islam?
I was under the impression that Aryans were centred in Central Asia, but perhaps that was more to do with the path of their migration into Europe as they replaced the Celts that had conquered the region before them. Also note the etymological descent of "Iranian" from "Aryan". In any case, I think it's verry clear that the modern day northern Indians are quite disctinct from the ancient Aryans since the Aryans were nomads, and it's probable that the modern population of that region are not indigenous to it but are rather settlers from further south in the Indian subcontinent.
I generally feel for police, most of them are good people who just get it from both ends. Increasingly the communities they patrol hate their guts and accuse them of police brutality at the slightest provocation. Meanwhile the higher ups are all career bureaucrats who will throw officers to the wolves over anything that makes the department look bad in front of the lefty press or the lefty city council. If some nigger gets hopped up on coke, robs a store and a cop chases him, and he resists arrest so the cop shoots him, the cop is basically justified, and even if he isn't it's not like some dead drug dealer is that huge a loss. However, anymore, this means an instant accusation of racism which can easily be a career ender. The result is you have more and more cops who just punch the clock and do as little as possible, especially in deep blue cities.
To examine the issue more deeply though, the fact that we even need police in the first place is reflective of the kind of low-trust society we have. In small communities where everyone knows each other and comes from the same background, speaks the same language, has the same basic ideas about morals and decency, etc., you don't really need much more than a town sheriff or something, if even that. A citizens' militia is probably a better way of doing it, imo, because then everyone
is involved in protecting their community, and there's no division between "the people" and "the law".
In an urbanized, cosmopolitan world where everyone comes from all over and nobody stays in any one place long enough to put down roots, "community" becomes kind of a meaningless term. Nobody really gives a shit about the place they live and the people around them are just strangers. It's the kind of environment that naturally breeds crime, vandalism, property destruction, littering etc. because it's easy to just take a dump wherever you please and move on. It's also easier for deviants and people with mental health problems to go unnoticed, which usually adds to crime. And racial diversity just makes it 20x worse, because it lowers social trust even further and
The only way to have any sort of order at all in a large city is to have a police department, there's just no way around it. Police brutality, corruption, and so forth goes part and parcel with it because the officers themselves are just human individuals and therefore tend to be as atomized and rootless as everyone else in a city. At the end of the day they're just guys who need a paycheck like anyone else, and this is the career they chose. Other than subjecting officers to psych exams and trying to screen out the lunatics, there's not much you can do, and yes occasionally the odd crook or psychopath does manage to get through and get a badge.
If you want a world without police, the only way to do it is to reverse urbanization and go back to small, homogenous, high-trust communities where people don't generally migrate from place to place. This would basically require reversing industrialization, kicking out huge numbers of immigrants and freeloaders, and returning to a society where most people are farmers, and the rest are artisans or small business owners.
Everything you wrote is noted.
However is they are "good guys" why never ever they stop the bad apples and look the other way instead? The paycheck perhaps?
If the environment is so hostile, why they won't quit? Money again?
And as people realizes that police are meant to enforce the rules imposed by the ruling class on the plebs by force, their legitimacy begins to fade and resistance spikes.
And to recap the moral dilemma these mercenaries are trapped, not better to remind the Jesus was killed by "law enforcement".
Local PD I'm usually amicable towards, just because I don't live in dogshit areas and the cops around me aren't totally batshit. The local PD/Sheriff throughout Virginia right now are good example. I generally distrust state officials, and anyone at the fed level is literally a shyster ZOGbot
>>256147>However is they are "good guys" why never ever they stop the bad apples and look the other way instead? The paycheck perhaps?>If the environment is so hostile, why they won't quit? Money again?
Pretty much. Once you're committed to a line of work and have dedicated a certain portion of your life to moving up the ranks, receiving training, investing in the pension, etc., you're basically on a track that it makes increasingly less sense to leave. I'm not sure about the specifics of how it works, but my understanding is that if you quit or get fired from the police force you basically lose everything and have to start your life over from scratch. Many cops are also ex-military who don't really have any education or marketable skills, so the police force is basically their best career option.
A cop who's been on the force for 5-10 years or more and is invested in it as a career has a pretty strong incentive to play ball with whatever the higher ups want. The higher ups, meanwhile, have an incentive to play ball with the city government because they hold the purse strings. If the city government is made up of liberal morons who want police to stop enforcing the law, or as they put it "oppressing communities of color", then the street cop at the end of the chain of command has a strong incentive to do what they want, and virtually no incentive to do his actual job. Shit rolls downhill. The voters are mostly clueless retards who just rubber stamp all this and applaud.
Even if the cop is a more or less decent person who joined the force out of a genuine desire to do good, which I honestly think most of them are, he's still going to eventually realize that he has no support from the system and the system will throw him to the wolves if he steps out of line. So when he sees some drug-addled coon beating the shit out of some poor white guy in an alley, he pretends he doesn't and keeps driving, because he knows how the situation will probably end and he doesn't want to become the next Darren Wilson.
>And as people realizes that police are meant to enforce the rules imposed by the ruling class on the plebs by force, their legitimacy begins to fade and resistance spikes.
This is basically the catch 22 I mentioned earlier. In a large, cosmopolitan, urban environment social trust is virtually impossible, so you need a police force just to stave off total anarchy. If the police force becomes corrupt, then you have a situation where the average citizen is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one side you have rule by the corrupt authorities, on the other side you have rule by the ravening mob.
The irony is that presently in modern cities, most of the "resistance" you're talking about comes from the same idiot plebiscite that voted for all of this in the first place. Normies like to believe they live in a nice world where everyone is fundamentally good, and when a news story pops up about a black kid who was shot by police while resisting arrest, it destroys this illusion. Since most of them are idiots, they conclude that the problem is not blacks committing crimes and then escalating the situation by resisting arrest, it's racist police persecuting blacks. So, they get upset and demand the police adopt policies that are less "racist". They elect "woke" city council members who put people with similar views into the administrative positions of the police department. Subsequently, policies like "broken window" policing that generally help to keep crime down are no longer being enforced, and crime skyrockets. The city is now an extremely shitty place to live. Again, the plebiscite blames the police, and you get protests and riots. The police, ironically, are not even able to intervene in these riots because if they do they will just get called racist and oppressive again. This is the absurd paradox of life in a modern city.
>And to recap the moral dilemma these mercenaries are trapped, not better to remind the Jesus was killed by "law enforcement".
As a random aside, that's always been one of the glaring contradictions in Christian thought that I've never quite understood. The betrayal and killing of Jesus is always discussed as if it were some kind of ultimate, unforgivable sin that the people involved were damned for. But at the same time, if you understand Christian doctrine, getting killed was pretty much the whole point of Jesus. That was literally the whole reason he was born; if Jesus hadn't been killed then the sacrifice for the redemption of man wouldn't have taken place, and Jesus would have just been some hippie who went around doing magic tricks until he died of old age. So doesn't that mean that the people who killed him were just playing their part in a preordained cosmic drama, and are therefore blameless?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-HtYfhKvI>>256148>freemasons
lmao. How's the 18th century treating you?
Cops around here are pretty okay, and the virgina ones are undoubtedly based.
All I can really say on the matter, thank you for listening
>>256166>freemasons>lmao. How's the 18th century treating you?>18th century
Do you really think they're gone?
Wake up fren, freemasons are in charge today and everywhere.
And you need a lesson about these diabolical snakes.>FBI Freemasonryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86GrvQRThSk
Citations of what exactly? What the hell are you even on about?>>256209
I don't think they're gone technically, I just don't see any reason to believe that they have any significant power at this point, or that their power was even all that great in the first place. As far as I'm aware, Freemasonry was an Enlightenment-era thing, an organization of the rising mercantile class that advocated for anti-monarchial and anti-nationalist views. They had some powerful members at one time, but I'm not sure how much credit they really deserve for pulling strings behind world events even back then.
Generally I don't put much stock in most of these tinfoil hat theories about some all-powerful entity or group being at the helm of the world. I don't get the impression anyone is running the world. To me, it looks like the "new world order" was just a post-WWII marriage of convenience between nations that was orchestrated by the US to fight the Soviets, and it's basically collapsing at this point anyway, because the US no longer needs it and the member nations can't really get along. Nobody seems to be at the helm of anything anymore; if the Freemasons or the Jews or whatever really are trying to force some kind of world state, they're doing a pretty lousy job of it.
Sorry, I don't quite have the patience to sit through a 2 hour long youtube video, but if you've got something shorter that just goes over the broad strokes I'd probably take a curious look.
Did C-ville just like…never happen to you guys or something
They're those boys who're refusing to take guns, aren't they?
>>256211>Generally I don't put much stock in most of these tinfoil hat theories about some all-powerful entity or group being at the helm of the world>tinfoil
Have it your way.
The redpill can't be forced.
Okay, sure, but intentionally funneling paleocons and libertarians into antifa? Striking down a lawful gathering, twice, even when taken to court?
Come on. It's like voting for Ted Cruz because he put out his twitter video about the impeachment being used as a smokescreen to pass unpopular legislation. That's one good thing, in a sea of bullshit and deceit.
"I was just following orders" and other Nuremberg Trial references are such a boomer-ass meme.
Not at the time to do reparations to those who were wronged. There is plenty of property to confiscate.