What state? There's an elks lodge in Oregon, as well as a couple other freemason groups that I've stumbled on as their secret society leaves fucking signs out announcing their presence.
There's an easier way without drawing attention to the fact you're doing it.
Many churches are funded through larger organizations that span multiple states, if not the entire nation. Likewise these churches tend to be very open about who funds them, and have either a poster, flyer, or some kind of note on their paperwork about them.
All you have to do is visit a church, take a look around for such information, and make a note about it to look into it later.
Along with learning which churches have cucked to the jews, you will also discover the jews' means of controlling the churches.
Edit: If anyone asks why you are looking for this information, simply say you're looking for a new church and want to make sure your donations are going to a good place.
You are a suicide squad soldier that fights insects for oil, and automatons so they don't rescue the enslaved cyborgs, for a country planet that is functionally an even gayer version of the US minus the actual faggotry.
Yep. The kikes will regret not making their propaganda quieter.
The entire reason Zoomers have been half as bad as they've been is due to the hidden propaganda everywhere. Without it being hidden, all the propaganda will achieve is waking people up.
>3 US Marshals killed, 5 officers injured serving warrant
How did we go from 8 officers injured or killed to 12?
Well, I guess they could be double dipping as technically 8 were shot and injured, even though it would be more truthful to say 4 were killed and 4 were injured.
The warrant was for his illegal possession of a firearm as well.
If someone is too dangerous to have a firearm, they are too dangerous to have around in society.
If someone is not too dangerous to be in society, then they should have never gotten a felony, and should not have gotten their Second Amendment rights taken away.
Three zogbots died and five were injured thanks to the very system they enforce.
It truly is poetry.
Close but incorrect with that muzzle brake.
It started out as a Magnum Research BFR chambered most likely in 500 magnum, there's a few viable conversion calibers it could be.
It was converted over to 500 Bushwacker by TII (T2) Armory.
500 Bushwacker is functionally an elephant hunting round, and has an upper energy limit of 5,000 foot pounds.
For reference 500 magnum has an upper energy limit of 3,000 ft⋅lbf, and 45-70 has an upper limit of 3,450 ft⋅lbf if memory serves.
I could be wrong, but that would mean someone stuck a TII Armory muzzle brake meant for 500 Bushwacker on a lesser cartridge for no reason whatsoever.
https://www.youtube.com/@LackLusterMedia/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@thecivilrightslawyer
There's a good few on here, and one recent one on the second channel where a cop got fired for using excessive force.
> or determined the arrest was unlawful, because the cop didn't tell the defendant why he was under arrest.
The arrest doesn't get determined to be unlawful due to the cop refusing to state the reason for the arrest to the arrestee. However the resisting arrest charges get dropped as there is no way a person can know an arrest is lawful without being told the reason for it.
Some states have a law that says it is unlawful to resist even an unlawful arrest. However they also tend to have statutes allowing reasonable application of force in self defense against an arrest made with excessive force. Given unlawful arrests always necessitate excessive force, as no force can be used to make an arrest that is unlawful, charges are almost always dropped for resisting arrest. Furthermore, even if they aren't dropped, any jury is going to let the person walk.
I'm growing tired of arguing with you. As honestly between your stupidity, and twisting my words while blaming me for doing the same thing you're doing, you would give a cop a run for their money.
So, I'll keep this brief, and then not bother responding to you after, with the exception of sources if you want them.
>And again, I never suggested that a cop will kill you for doing this or that or refusing to do this or that. Learn to read. I said that it's fuckin' stupid to argue with low IQ thugs with guns on the side of the road.
You never differentiated between the two. Fuck off.
>Cops are taught and trained that any attempt to argue "the law" with them is "sovereign citizen" behavior. They are trained that this behavior is threatening and that the person doing it is potentially unhinged and capable of trying to kill them.
Which would require them to be equally unhinged to blindly believe it. We stray back into the territory of always wearing body armor to be the only viable solution if you actually believe this.
>Roughly 1200 people a year are killed by cops, and 99+% of them were killed resisting arrest.
Most of them resisting using lethal force.
>Now, if cops doing bad things are as rare as you suggest
I never suggested this. I said the cops that will kill you over minor things are rare.
>"only roll the window down far enough to give them your ID" position?
The same reason you don't open your fucking house door to them. Do not give them an inch of invitation, as they will take a mile.
>Cite one single case where the courts have even remotely suggested any such thing.
I can give you several jewtube channels with plenty of cases where charges were dropped, and the cops were fired for the exact behavior I just described.
As for the "court cases" itself, it varies from state to state and is defined under statutes pertaining to resisting unlawful arrests.
In all of them that I have seen, the officer has to lack probably cause. The only way to know the officer lacks probably cause is to ask and be refused an answer.
Well, you're definitely a cop, or were one.
>No. The person being arrested is not the person that gets to decide if the RAS is reasonable.
Correct, but you still have to be given it. If you ask "why have I been detained" and the officer refuses to answer, from that moment on the detainment has to be treated as unlawful by the courts when operating from your perspective. Which means all resisting arrest charges and obstruction charges have to be dropped. You can't unlawfully resist an unlawful arrest or detainment.
That's why I brought up the rubber gun scenario. Just as you had no way of knowing that your life was not in danger, you also have no way of knowing that the detainment or arrest is lawful. As such you have to assume otherwise.
>I didn't say the officers would shoot you for not rolling down the window. Don't strawman me! If you refuse to cooperate after being pulled over by not rolling your windows down, they will break your windows.
I never said don't roll your widows down, I said only roll them down far enough to given them your ID and to be able to talk to them.
Don't accuse someone of strawmanning while doing so yourself. The reason I brought that up is to show reasonability. No normal reasonable cop will try to kill you for having a window rolled partly down, or not identifying until being given a reason for detainment, or even resisting an unlawful arrest through non-lethal means. If at any of these points a cop tries to kill you, capitulating is pointless as they are not doing it "for their safety" they are doing it because they are freak that wants you dead.
Such officers are thankfully rare. Most of the fuckups won't go past battery.
>I never said most officers will shoot you for resisting arrest. Stop it with these stupid strawman barfing.
>They will shoot you for actively resisting an arrest.
Literally your last comment. Fuck off. Before you say, "I was only talking about some officers" No you never clarified that. Fuck off.
>When they turn on their emergency lights, you are under arrest, and there is no obligation to tell you why you're under arrest prior to making sure that you're properly detained. Hell, they don't have to tell you what you're being charged with until you're standing in front of a judge on your initial appearance.
Yes and no, the above is due to political corruption, and not of the result of the Constitution, or any law that is constitutional.
For an arrest to be lawful, the officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. In order for the arrestee to know that the arrest is lawful, and to obstruct the investigation and or resist the arrest, they have to be told why they have been arrested or detained. Otherwise any obstruction and or resisting arrest charges will be dropped, and the arresting officer is likely to be fired, especially if the incident makes it to the public consciousness via recordings of the incident being spread online.
It's functionally the same issue as using lethal force to defend yourself against an assailant with a rubber gun. You had no way of knowing they weren't actually a threat, as such any attempt to charge the defender with murder/manslaughter etc. will ultimately fail, if it's even attempted at all.
This is why almost all officers will just tell you the reason for detainment after exchanging a few pleasantries. Most of the time, you won't even need to ask.
Most officers aren't going to shoot you for only rolling your window part of the way. Most officers aren't going to shoot you for requesting the reason for the stop before turning over your ID. Most officers won't even shoot your for resisting arrest, they will beat the shit out of you however.
The only officers you have to worry about killing you over minor things are the freak shows, and they were going to find a reason to shoot you regardless. So you're only option for them is body armor and a weapon for when they inevitably try to kill you.
If they're going to shoot you for a window not rolled all the way down, or refusing to identify until they articulate the reason for the stop, then they were going to shoot you regardless of what you did.
The above is less of an argument to do what they say without question, as that will get you killed in such a scenario, and more of an argument to always wear body armor while driving.
For the record, I'm not a "sovereign citizen", I am just legally literate.
Cracking the window only enough to give them your license and registration isn't against the law, and is advisable. Likewise not following unlawful orders is advisable if it can be done safely.
Their badge doesn't make them any less of stranger, and you would have to be a fool to blindly trust them.
Step 1) Make public votes not viewable by the public under the premise of public safety.
Step 2) Decide who won and ignore the vote count as no one can double check the actual
vote count.
Wake me up when you faggots figure out what teenage me figured out a decade ago.
TLDR if I remember it correctly. Men become space marines through the implantation of the gene seed organ, as well as a bunch of other implants, both organs and biomechanical in nature. The gene seed descends from the primarchs, and as such makes space marines more like their respective primarchs.
So what happens when you take male DNA and try to convert a women with it? Well they die, horribly. There can't be female space marines as it would require a completely female space marine chapter, with a female primarch.
This carries its own set of issues as the primarchs while genetically engineered, are also "sons" of the Emperor meaning they share a good chunk of their DNA with the Emperor. This is part of the reason why there's no female primarchs.
Another reason is it would create a race of superhumans that would be self sustaining and would replace humanity. Which defeats the entire point of creating the space marines to defend humanity.
So far it really isn't working. I mean they've been dividing the population along these lines for over half a century and only gotten some minor flare ups.
A draft would cause a civil war, just probably not the civil war they want.
I mean he was partially right, just not in the way he intended. Turns out getting his head blown off gave us a few more good decades of semi non dictator rule.
s23erdctfvyg 1 point 3 days ago
What state? There's an elks lodge in Oregon, as well as a couple other freemason groups that I've stumbled on as their secret society leaves fucking signs out announcing their presence.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=663d4bb0bb6ba
s23erdctfvyg 1 point 4 days ago
There's an easier way without drawing attention to the fact you're doing it.
Many churches are funded through larger organizations that span multiple states, if not the entire nation. Likewise these churches tend to be very open about who funds them, and have either a poster, flyer, or some kind of note on their paperwork about them.
All you have to do is visit a church, take a look around for such information, and make a note about it to look into it later.
Along with learning which churches have cucked to the jews, you will also discover the jews' means of controlling the churches.
Edit: If anyone asks why you are looking for this information, simply say you're looking for a new church and want to make sure your donations are going to a good place.
/v/TellUpgoat viewpost?postid=663ba5eb721a3
s23erdctfvyg 3 points 1 week ago
You are a suicide squad soldier that fights insects for oil, and automatons so they don't rescue the enslaved cyborgs, for a country planet that is functionally an even gayer version of the US minus the actual faggotry.
/v/AnonTalk viewpost?postid=66381d994b8c6
s23erdctfvyg 4 points 1 week ago
That's the trick, they always were.
/v/Schizophrenia viewpost?postid=66342eddbb488
s23erdctfvyg 1 point 1 week ago
...I thought this was common knowledge?
The easiest way to beat your opposition is to lead it.
/v/Jews viewpost?postid=6633f1a4c00d6
s23erdctfvyg 4 points 1 week ago
Yep. The kikes will regret not making their propaganda quieter.
The entire reason Zoomers have been half as bad as they've been is due to the hidden propaganda everywhere. Without it being hidden, all the propaganda will achieve is waking people up.
The other half is the mainline internet.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6632add711e54
s23erdctfvyg 6 points 1 week ago
How old, because the stuff I grew up on was filled with propaganda.
Libby was a nigger mutt, and the Dinklebergs were kikes.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6632add711e54
s23erdctfvyg 2 points 1 week ago
>3 US Marshals killed, 5 officers injured serving warrant
How did we go from 8 officers injured or killed to 12?
Well, I guess they could be double dipping as technically 8 were shot and injured, even though it would be more truthful to say 4 were killed and 4 were injured.
/v/OccidentalEnclave viewpost?postid=663105b21fa61
s23erdctfvyg 3 points 1 week ago
The warrant was for his illegal possession of a firearm as well.
If someone is too dangerous to have a firearm, they are too dangerous to have around in society.
If someone is not too dangerous to be in society, then they should have never gotten a felony, and should not have gotten their Second Amendment rights taken away.
Three zogbots died and five were injured thanks to the very system they enforce.
It truly is poetry.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=66302da714989
s23erdctfvyg 1 point 1 week ago*
Close but incorrect with that muzzle brake.
It started out as a Magnum Research BFR chambered most likely in 500 magnum, there's a few viable conversion calibers it could be.
It was converted over to 500 Bushwacker by TII (T2) Armory.
500 Bushwacker is functionally an elephant hunting round, and has an upper energy limit of 5,000 foot pounds.
For reference 500 magnum has an upper energy limit of 3,000 ft⋅lbf, and 45-70 has an upper limit of 3,450 ft⋅lbf if memory serves.
I could be wrong, but that would mean someone stuck a TII Armory muzzle brake meant for 500 Bushwacker on a lesser cartridge for no reason whatsoever.
/v/Guns viewpost?postid=662fb5d3018ec
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/@LackLusterMedia/videos
https://www.youtube.com/@thecivilrightslawyer
There's a good few on here, and one recent one on the second channel where a cop got fired for using excessive force.
> or determined the arrest was unlawful, because the cop didn't tell the defendant why he was under arrest.
The arrest doesn't get determined to be unlawful due to the cop refusing to state the reason for the arrest to the arrestee. However the resisting arrest charges get dropped as there is no way a person can know an arrest is lawful without being told the reason for it.
Some states have a law that says it is unlawful to resist even an unlawful arrest. However they also tend to have statutes allowing reasonable application of force in self defense against an arrest made with excessive force. Given unlawful arrests always necessitate excessive force, as no force can be used to make an arrest that is unlawful, charges are almost always dropped for resisting arrest. Furthermore, even if they aren't dropped, any jury is going to let the person walk.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=662ab8531da21
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
I'm growing tired of arguing with you. As honestly between your stupidity, and twisting my words while blaming me for doing the same thing you're doing, you would give a cop a run for their money.
So, I'll keep this brief, and then not bother responding to you after, with the exception of sources if you want them.
>And again, I never suggested that a cop will kill you for doing this or that or refusing to do this or that. Learn to read. I said that it's fuckin' stupid to argue with low IQ thugs with guns on the side of the road.
You never differentiated between the two. Fuck off.
>Cops are taught and trained that any attempt to argue "the law" with them is "sovereign citizen" behavior. They are trained that this behavior is threatening and that the person doing it is potentially unhinged and capable of trying to kill them.
Which would require them to be equally unhinged to blindly believe it. We stray back into the territory of always wearing body armor to be the only viable solution if you actually believe this.
>Roughly 1200 people a year are killed by cops, and 99+% of them were killed resisting arrest.
Most of them resisting using lethal force.
>Now, if cops doing bad things are as rare as you suggest
I never suggested this. I said the cops that will kill you over minor things are rare.
>"only roll the window down far enough to give them your ID" position?
The same reason you don't open your fucking house door to them. Do not give them an inch of invitation, as they will take a mile.
>Cite one single case where the courts have even remotely suggested any such thing.
I can give you several jewtube channels with plenty of cases where charges were dropped, and the cops were fired for the exact behavior I just described.
As for the "court cases" itself, it varies from state to state and is defined under statutes pertaining to resisting unlawful arrests.
In all of them that I have seen, the officer has to lack probably cause. The only way to know the officer lacks probably cause is to ask and be refused an answer.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=662ab8531da21
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
Prove it.
/v/MeanwhileOnReddit viewpost?postid=662bfad453350
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
Well, you're definitely a cop, or were one.
>No. The person being arrested is not the person that gets to decide if the RAS is reasonable.
Correct, but you still have to be given it. If you ask "why have I been detained" and the officer refuses to answer, from that moment on the detainment has to be treated as unlawful by the courts when operating from your perspective. Which means all resisting arrest charges and obstruction charges have to be dropped. You can't unlawfully resist an unlawful arrest or detainment.
That's why I brought up the rubber gun scenario. Just as you had no way of knowing that your life was not in danger, you also have no way of knowing that the detainment or arrest is lawful. As such you have to assume otherwise.
>I didn't say the officers would shoot you for not rolling down the window. Don't strawman me! If you refuse to cooperate after being pulled over by not rolling your windows down, they will break your windows.
I never said don't roll your widows down, I said only roll them down far enough to given them your ID and to be able to talk to them.
Don't accuse someone of strawmanning while doing so yourself. The reason I brought that up is to show reasonability. No normal reasonable cop will try to kill you for having a window rolled partly down, or not identifying until being given a reason for detainment, or even resisting an unlawful arrest through non-lethal means. If at any of these points a cop tries to kill you, capitulating is pointless as they are not doing it "for their safety" they are doing it because they are freak that wants you dead.
Such officers are thankfully rare. Most of the fuckups won't go past battery.
>I never said most officers will shoot you for resisting arrest. Stop it with these stupid strawman barfing.
>They will shoot you for actively resisting an arrest.
Literally your last comment. Fuck off. Before you say, "I was only talking about some officers" No you never clarified that. Fuck off.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=662ab8531da21
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
>When they turn on their emergency lights, you are under arrest, and there is no obligation to tell you why you're under arrest prior to making sure that you're properly detained. Hell, they don't have to tell you what you're being charged with until you're standing in front of a judge on your initial appearance.
Yes and no, the above is due to political corruption, and not of the result of the Constitution, or any law that is constitutional.
For an arrest to be lawful, the officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. In order for the arrestee to know that the arrest is lawful, and to obstruct the investigation and or resist the arrest, they have to be told why they have been arrested or detained. Otherwise any obstruction and or resisting arrest charges will be dropped, and the arresting officer is likely to be fired, especially if the incident makes it to the public consciousness via recordings of the incident being spread online.
It's functionally the same issue as using lethal force to defend yourself against an assailant with a rubber gun. You had no way of knowing they weren't actually a threat, as such any attempt to charge the defender with murder/manslaughter etc. will ultimately fail, if it's even attempted at all.
This is why almost all officers will just tell you the reason for detainment after exchanging a few pleasantries. Most of the time, you won't even need to ask.
Most officers aren't going to shoot you for only rolling your window part of the way. Most officers aren't going to shoot you for requesting the reason for the stop before turning over your ID. Most officers won't even shoot your for resisting arrest, they will beat the shit out of you however.
The only officers you have to worry about killing you over minor things are the freak shows, and they were going to find a reason to shoot you regardless. So you're only option for them is body armor and a weapon for when they inevitably try to kill you.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=662ab8531da21
s23erdctfvyg 1 point 2 weeks ago
If they're going to shoot you for a window not rolled all the way down, or refusing to identify until they articulate the reason for the stop, then they were going to shoot you regardless of what you did.
The above is less of an argument to do what they say without question, as that will get you killed in such a scenario, and more of an argument to always wear body armor while driving.
For the record, I'm not a "sovereign citizen", I am just legally literate.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=662ab8531da21
s23erdctfvyg 3 points 2 weeks ago
Cracking the window only enough to give them your license and registration isn't against the law, and is advisable. Likewise not following unlawful orders is advisable if it can be done safely.
Their badge doesn't make them any less of stranger, and you would have to be a fool to blindly trust them.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=662ab8531da21
s23erdctfvyg 1 point 2 weeks ago
...It drives like a Pajeet...
My opinion on the intelligence of Pajeets has been lowered, and it was only slightly higher than niggers to begin with.
/v/ShitpostLitterBox viewpost?postid=662aa81f2d81c
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
Step 1) Make public votes not viewable by the public under the premise of public safety.
Step 2) Decide who won and ignore the vote count as no one can double check the actual
vote count.
Wake me up when you faggots figure out what teenage me figured out a decade ago.
/v/conspiracy viewpost?postid=662799e27456c
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
It was probably 2015 when they added niggers.
I didn't find anything too jewy about the author, beyond his book obviously, and he looks more like a soy cuck.
/v/gaming viewpost?postid=662698a615c77
s23erdctfvyg 1 point 2 weeks ago
TLDR if I remember it correctly. Men become space marines through the implantation of the gene seed organ, as well as a bunch of other implants, both organs and biomechanical in nature. The gene seed descends from the primarchs, and as such makes space marines more like their respective primarchs.
So what happens when you take male DNA and try to convert a women with it? Well they die, horribly. There can't be female space marines as it would require a completely female space marine chapter, with a female primarch.
This carries its own set of issues as the primarchs while genetically engineered, are also "sons" of the Emperor meaning they share a good chunk of their DNA with the Emperor. This is part of the reason why there's no female primarchs.
Another reason is it would create a race of superhumans that would be self sustaining and would replace humanity. Which defeats the entire point of creating the space marines to defend humanity.
/v/gaming viewpost?postid=662698a615c77
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 2 weeks ago
>niggers as space marines
...Should we tell him about the Salamanders?
/v/gaming viewpost?postid=662698a615c77
s23erdctfvyg 6 points 2 weeks ago
So far it really isn't working. I mean they've been dividing the population along these lines for over half a century and only gotten some minor flare ups.
A draft would cause a civil war, just probably not the civil war they want.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=66269fa572350
s23erdctfvyg 3 points 3 weeks ago
...Who let the youtube bot in?
/v/Rants viewpost?postid=66252f0b4e434
s23erdctfvyg 0 points 3 weeks ago
I mean he was partially right, just not in the way he intended. Turns out getting his head blown off gave us a few more good decades of semi non dictator rule.
/v/videos viewpost?postid=6624043c987dd