Used to be we didn't have police, just a Sheriff. Citizens were expected to be armed and to make arrests, but that all went away once municipalities began hiring armed security forces -- the police, which created an atmosphere where the citizenry no longer felt an obligation to go armed at all times. The same pattern emerges, historically, where the notion of the proper duty of gentlemen to be armed is eroded by the introduction of a standing army of state law enforcement agents. In fact, don't be surprised if exercising one's right to make the same citizen's arrest one would in the early days of our nation would land one in legal trouble, today.
Many lynchings were of criminals who had committed egregious crimes and were already convicted and sentenced in fair trial, the law merely outsourced the execution to those willing to do it for free.
Also, no mention is made of the fact that black americans also attended lynchings of black criminals, especially when their victims were also black.
In fact, don't be surprised if exercising one's right to make the same citizen's arrest one would in the early days of our nation would land one in legal trouble, today.
We have a perfect example of that with the jogger case. A retired police guy and son go to do a citizen's arrest, nigger gets uppity and grabs the guy's gun, and gets what he so richly deserves. They then get put into jail forever.
If I properly understand, there are two real powers in any part of the US. And by that, I mean the ultimate highest powers. Specifically the traditional Founding Representative Republic.
1. The Sheriff. The Sheriff is the enforcer of laws. Most importantly, a Sheriff is also obligated to decide when not to enforce an unjust law.
2. The Coroner. A holdover from British law, the only person which had (albeit nuanced) more authority was the Coroner. The reason they had superior power to the Sheriff, was that their job was to perform an autopsy of a deceased cadaver, and determine the cause of death. If, the Coroner concludes the cause of death to potentially be a crime, it is the obligation of the Sheriff to act upon that suspicion and investigate.
In my current view, these two positions have maintained the majority of their stature over time. Both also have had to "adapt to the times".
Coroners have become integrated into the financial machine. Sheriff's have been sucked in, similarly, based on the legal machine.
Both machines are fueled by jewery.
Root cause analysis.
Removing the parasite is unlikely to fix the problem. There is significant collateral damage, no matter what potential future. World we live in, is all about collateral damage, and our decisions to minimize or maximize.
A lot can be said of the concept of the enemy soldier, we've heard the entire now-familiar speech before, but the fact remains that this is war, he is a soldier on the enemy side, a human weapon directed against you by his commanders.
Not only is he a threat, he is the most immanent threat, and it is he who forms the source of the power that makes your enemy commanders a significant matter of concern, without their army composed of the enemy solider, the commanders are just ordinary solitary men who could very likely be ignored.
In times of war you kill or be killed, you don't think about the lives of the enemy soldier until after the war, you don't see him as a person until the fighting is finished, then you can tear yourself up about the man you've ended in the line of duty, a man who was also just doing his duty to his side of the conflict.
A civil war is no different, you will still see the enemy solider, albeit a bit more familiar to you, all the same rules apply.
Just as the enemy soldier knew when he joined up or was conscripted that merely by being the soldier of a country he was have the role of potentially killing and potentially dying for the country should it ever go to war against another nation. The enemy soldier in a civil war who fight for the state knows that by taking his position as a state enforcer it would be his duty to fight, kill, and die for his government should the citizenry rebel.
You might not have anything to hold against him, you might even respect him for his willingness to join up with his armed forces or state enforcer role, but whatever you think of him, when the war starts he's just an enemy combatant, a representative of force on behalf of the government that he fights for.
After the war is over he can become a human being again, but until it's over he will just be another enemy soldier, and it would be foolish and self-destructive to consider him as anything else until then.
Without the enemy soldier the enemy state would hold no power, in civil war this applies to your own state, they are also the least responsible for the actions taken by the state they represent and defend, they are just doing their duty and probably had a different idea of what their careers would have been like when they signed up, which is unfortunate.
They may even have no love for the state and it's actions, and no hate for you and whatever state or potential state that you represent, but none of that matters on the battlefield, war is monstrous, it makes monsters of us who fight, it is for that reason that we are so reluctant to fight in war to begin with, if there is another way, any other way, we will gladly take it since we know even half measures are preferable to war in most cases.
But there are times when peace is intolerable, when the conditions for avoiding war become so much worse than war would be, or when the conditions which are worse than war seem to approach if we do nothing, and the opportunity to have the option of escaping with war is leaving us, those are the times when one must take up their guns and do what needs to be done for the sake of the future.
War is not fair, it is not honorable, innocent men will die for no reason more than the careers they have and the times they live in, non-combatants will die in crossfire at the hands of both sides even when they each try their best to keep them out of the way, so much will be lost forever, lives, property, history, innocence, virtue, sanity.
This is the nature of war, and it is unavoidable once the war starts, all that can be done is to fight well in the hopes of as quick and clean a victory as you could manage. Those who make comments that humanize the enemy soldier shows that you fail to understand what the enemy soldier is, and what war is.
We don't blame the enemy soldier for the war, we don't hate him, we pity him, if there were peace when you met him you and the enemy soldier may have been the best of friends, but in war against his side of the conflict, it would be foolish not to kill, maim, or injure him to the fullest extent at the earliest opportunity.
I recall the the foolishness of the so-called "rules of war" established by the united nations, that armed conflicts could have rules to it was laughed at by the warforged united states and rightfully so, there is no such thing as "humane warfare", there would only be warfare waged inhumanely and covered up to appear human to united nations inspectors, and even then only in the rare cases where the overseers of the war had to be fooled since they could not be otherwise convinced to just draft a report okaying the way their side was conducting their campaigns against the enemy.
After the war is over he can become a human being again, but until it's over he will just be another enemy soldier, and it would be foolish and self-destructive to consider him as anything else until then.
Foolish and self destructive...sign the boomers up!!! "I don't see anything wrong with that." Is a boomer magic phrase like abra cadabra...it lets them get on with consuming greedily.
In the event of a civil war breaking out, police become soldiers for the state, often the very first to fight against the rebel forces (or "terrorists" if you view them from the other side).
No, that's not how it works at all. In the event of a civil war actual military would be "policing". That's what martial law is.
I would love to face cops playing soldier. They are bumbling nigger retards.
Cops are only dangerous because people in general agree that they have authority. They become absolutely useless in the face of any resistance, never mind armed resistance.
What you describe comes after civil war has already broken out. It breaking out means the events of the first instance of fighting, not the government response to those events. I'm talking a time when the first shot is fired from civilian forces upon state representation (the shot heard round the world), the first bomb (remember the fifth of november), the first stabbing (many much older revolutions). When violence breaks out, and there is no going back to having a peaceful civilian movement for change, it's all in and lines are drawn between the state and rebel forces. A lot of people imagine events like the American civil war as being between territories, after all it is natural for the like minded to group together especially in combat situations. And it largely was this way, but there were pro-union fighters living in the south, and pro-confederate fighters living in the north, it was a civil war, and so each sides fighters would be starting out scattered across the country that was at war with itself, grouping up later as territories were divided between the rebellion and loyalist forces.
[ + ] La_Chalupacabra
[ - ] La_Chalupacabra 6 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 17:49:07 ago (+6/-0)
Citizens were expected to be armed and to make arrests, but that all went away once municipalities began hiring armed security forces -- the police, which created an atmosphere where the citizenry no longer felt an obligation to go armed at all times.
The same pattern emerges, historically, where the notion of the proper duty of gentlemen to be armed is eroded by the introduction of a standing army of state law enforcement agents.
In fact, don't be surprised if exercising one's right to make the same citizen's arrest one would in the early days of our nation would land one in legal trouble, today.
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist 4 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 18:14:46 ago (+4/-0)
Also, no mention is made of the fact that black americans also attended lynchings of black criminals, especially when their victims were also black.
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer 3 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 19:54:37 ago (+3/-0)
We have a perfect example of that with the jogger case. A retired police guy and son go to do a citizen's arrest, nigger gets uppity and grabs the guy's gun, and gets what he so richly deserves. They then get put into jail forever.
[ + ] WhiteRonin
[ - ] WhiteRonin 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 22:03:53 ago (+2/-0)
1. The Sheriff. The Sheriff is the enforcer of laws. Most importantly, a Sheriff is also obligated to decide when not to enforce an unjust law.
2. The Coroner. A holdover from British law, the only person which had (albeit nuanced) more authority was the Coroner. The reason they had superior power to the Sheriff, was that their job was to perform an autopsy of a deceased cadaver, and determine the cause of death. If, the Coroner concludes the cause of death to potentially be a crime, it is the obligation of the Sheriff to act upon that suspicion and investigate.
In my current view, these two positions have maintained the majority of their stature over time. Both also have had to "adapt to the times".
Coroners have become integrated into the financial machine. Sheriff's have been sucked in, similarly, based on the legal machine.
Both machines are fueled by jewery.
Root cause analysis.
Removing the parasite is unlikely to fix the problem. There is significant collateral damage, no matter what potential future. World we live in, is all about collateral damage, and our decisions to minimize or maximize.
Humans. Man.
[ + ] AmalekTheZOG
[ - ] AmalekTheZOG 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 16:25:05 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing [op] 4 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 17:18:53 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist 3 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 18:12:53 ago (+3/-0)
Not only is he a threat, he is the most immanent threat, and it is he who forms the source of the power that makes your enemy commanders a significant matter of concern, without their army composed of the enemy solider, the commanders are just ordinary solitary men who could very likely be ignored.
In times of war you kill or be killed, you don't think about the lives of the enemy soldier until after the war, you don't see him as a person until the fighting is finished, then you can tear yourself up about the man you've ended in the line of duty, a man who was also just doing his duty to his side of the conflict.
A civil war is no different, you will still see the enemy solider, albeit a bit more familiar to you, all the same rules apply.
Just as the enemy soldier knew when he joined up or was conscripted that merely by being the soldier of a country he was have the role of potentially killing and potentially dying for the country should it ever go to war against another nation. The enemy soldier in a civil war who fight for the state knows that by taking his position as a state enforcer it would be his duty to fight, kill, and die for his government should the citizenry rebel.
You might not have anything to hold against him, you might even respect him for his willingness to join up with his armed forces or state enforcer role, but whatever you think of him, when the war starts he's just an enemy combatant, a representative of force on behalf of the government that he fights for.
After the war is over he can become a human being again, but until it's over he will just be another enemy soldier, and it would be foolish and self-destructive to consider him as anything else until then.
Without the enemy soldier the enemy state would hold no power, in civil war this applies to your own state, they are also the least responsible for the actions taken by the state they represent and defend, they are just doing their duty and probably had a different idea of what their careers would have been like when they signed up, which is unfortunate.
They may even have no love for the state and it's actions, and no hate for you and whatever state or potential state that you represent, but none of that matters on the battlefield, war is monstrous, it makes monsters of us who fight, it is for that reason that we are so reluctant to fight in war to begin with, if there is another way, any other way, we will gladly take it since we know even half measures are preferable to war in most cases.
But there are times when peace is intolerable, when the conditions for avoiding war become so much worse than war would be, or when the conditions which are worse than war seem to approach if we do nothing, and the opportunity to have the option of escaping with war is leaving us, those are the times when one must take up their guns and do what needs to be done for the sake of the future.
War is not fair, it is not honorable, innocent men will die for no reason more than the careers they have and the times they live in, non-combatants will die in crossfire at the hands of both sides even when they each try their best to keep them out of the way, so much will be lost forever, lives, property, history, innocence, virtue, sanity.
This is the nature of war, and it is unavoidable once the war starts, all that can be done is to fight well in the hopes of as quick and clean a victory as you could manage. Those who make comments that humanize the enemy soldier shows that you fail to understand what the enemy soldier is, and what war is.
We don't blame the enemy soldier for the war, we don't hate him, we pity him, if there were peace when you met him you and the enemy soldier may have been the best of friends, but in war against his side of the conflict, it would be foolish not to kill, maim, or injure him to the fullest extent at the earliest opportunity.
I recall the the foolishness of the so-called "rules of war" established by the united nations, that armed conflicts could have rules to it was laughed at by the warforged united states and rightfully so, there is no such thing as "humane warfare", there would only be warfare waged inhumanely and covered up to appear human to united nations inspectors, and even then only in the rare cases where the overseers of the war had to be fooled since they could not be otherwise convinced to just draft a report okaying the way their side was conducting their campaigns against the enemy.
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 3 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:21:02 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] AmalekTheZOG
[ - ] AmalekTheZOG 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:40:31 ago (+0/-0)
Foolish and self destructive...sign the boomers up!!!
"I don't see anything wrong with that." Is a boomer magic phrase like abra cadabra...it lets them get on with consuming greedily.
[ + ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod
[ - ] BlueEyedAngloMasterRaceGod 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 19:23:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AmalekTheZOG
[ - ] AmalekTheZOG 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:26:54 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing [op] 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 16:02:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 19:38:52 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing [op] 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:18:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] uvulectomy
[ - ] uvulectomy 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:30:59 ago (+1/-0)
https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/Change-My-Mind
[ + ] Pasty
[ - ] Pasty 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 21:21:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Centaurus
[ - ] Centaurus 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:59:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] texasblood
[ - ] texasblood 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:13:35 ago (+0/-0)
Protect and Serve was removed from police cars.
WE SAID, GAME ON!!
[ + ] BushChuck
[ - ] BushChuck -1 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 17:57:30 ago (+1/-2)
Police are just armed thugs hired by the corporation that claims the land you live on.
[ + ] Monica
[ - ] Monica 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:25:58 ago (+1/-1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_army
"A standing army is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers who may be either career soldiers or conscripts."
The police are part of the military industrial complex though.
[ + ] BushChuck
[ - ] BushChuck 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:55:56 ago (+0/-0)
I don't care if you agree with me. Go make me a sandwich.
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:51:06 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BushChuck
[ - ] BushChuck 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 20:54:56 ago (+0/-0)
I would love to face cops playing soldier. They are bumbling nigger retards.
Cops are only dangerous because people in general agree that they have authority. They become absolutely useless in the face of any resistance, never mind armed resistance.
My point stands.
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 17, 2022 21:06:32 ago (+0/-0)
It breaking out means the events of the first instance of fighting, not the government response to those events.
I'm talking a time when the first shot is fired from civilian forces upon state representation (the shot heard round the world), the first bomb (remember the fifth of november), the first stabbing (many much older revolutions).
When violence breaks out, and there is no going back to having a peaceful civilian movement for change, it's all in and lines are drawn between the state and rebel forces.
A lot of people imagine events like the American civil war as being between territories, after all it is natural for the like minded to group together especially in combat situations.
And it largely was this way, but there were pro-union fighters living in the south, and pro-confederate fighters living in the north, it was a civil war, and so each sides fighters would be starting out scattered across the country that was at war with itself, grouping up later as territories were divided between the rebellion and loyalist forces.
[ + ] BushChuck
[ - ] BushChuck 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 18, 2022 02:12:39 ago (+0/-0)
They worry me not at all.