LIVE from Ferguson, MO...Police Firing on Protestors, Media...Please share!

[zorgon]

How small minded even the open-minded have become.

I hope this is not directed at me.

Has to be or it would be directed at me 

LOL Usually when comments like that appear it's time to move to a new thread, because it shows that the speaker has already dismissed anyone else's opinion as having no value

[petrus4]

"Before going any further, we'd like to address our idea of freedom. After exposing Klan members and seizing the Klan's websites and Twitter accounts, Anonymous members faced much criticism regarding freedom. Anonymous stands for freedom, so why would we strip someone of his or her freedom of speech? The Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist group. The blood of thousands of human beings are on the hands of Klansmen. In most of Anonymous' member's eyes, the KKK no longer has the right to express their racist, bigoted opinions,"

In other words, Anonymous endorses and defends freedom of speech, unless the people exercising said right, are people who Anonymous have decided that they do not like.  In response to this, I am reminded of Ben Franklin's statement that the entire purpose of the right of free speech, was to protect unpopular speech.  The entire concept of "hate speech," is a fascist subversion and violation of the right to free speech, which is why I will never acknowledge it as a legitimate concept.

The Klan are disgusting.  They are an absolute obscenity.  I have never disagreed with that, and I never will.  There are times when I have felt that I would be willing to literally tear off my white flesh, if changing my own skin colour were possible, rather than continue to share anything in common with those animals.  I know them better than most of you.  I have spent hours in furious arguments with people from Stormfront on 4chan.  When a friend of mine converted to the religion Asatru, which is the worship of the Norse Gods, I was likewise invited to do so, and white supremacy is part of the reason why I refused.

It is here, in fact, that we come to another part of the reason behind my avatar on this forum.  Avatar is a valid analogy for the developmental process which I went through in the years leading to that film's release; said process is a big part of the reason why I live in Nimbin today.  White supremacists can not call me a race traitor, however, because while I may be white, I have never been one of them.



Yet my point here, is that while they disgust me, I will still not condone the removal of their right to speak.  The reason why I will not, is because if their right to speak is taken, then it creates a scenario where it becomes acceptable for anyone else's right to speak to be taken as well; including mine.  If free speech does not exist for all of us, then it exists for none of us.

Our integrity is neither defined nor judged by how we treat angels, but how we treat demons.  If we do not recognise the rights of those we despise most, then said rights do not exist at all.

For the record, Thorfourwinds, it is also here that I formally shake the dust from my feet, regarding Anonymous.  You may consider them to still be worthy of your attention, but after this, I do not.  Anonymous are no longer the group that I once admired.  They have been hijacked by the Marxist useful idiots that I have described elsewhere.

[Sinny]

I hope this is not directed at me.

Nope.

[Sinny]

Has to be or it would be directed at me 

Both are wrong.

because it shows that the speaker has already dismissed anyone else's opinion as having no value

Assumptions..

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

 

[Amaterasu]

Is it all a Sandy Hook, a psyop?


























It surely has all the earmarks...

[Sinny]

Some very pertinent questions posed throughout those video's ...

[petrus4]

The stuff about Erica Artz is particularly amusing.  She's the usual evil, photogenic blonde with a perfectly symmetrical face and jawline.  Reminds me of Wellaware1's coverage of Seal Team Six. 



Go and watch this if you haven't already.  It outlines the entire strategy that these clowns keep using; they've been doing it over and over again.  These sociopathic jokers are always extremely physically attractive, with very strong facial symmetry, and often with features reminiscent of either Prince Charles or his father.  Makes me wonder whether there is some truth in Ben Stewart's or David Icke's talk about the "bloodline," after all.

I made another thread here a while ago about the trend of sociopathic models being used and regularly sighted during false flag/psyop events, as well.  If you look into it, you'll find that it is disturbingly common.

[ArMaP]

meanwhile... in other News...

Justin Bieber seen in Anonymous mask



The Anonymous Guy Fawkes mask is a symbol of resistance, the Hacktivist movement and online cyber-protest as well as sometimes even cyber-crime. But what does it become when "teenage pop sensation" Justin Bieber starts wearing it? Well evidently it doesn't become anything positive because Anonymous are already calling people to go after Justin Bieber for "making a mockery" of the Anonymous mask.

"Greetings citizens of the world we are Anonymous! It has come to our attention that Justin Bieber has made mockery of Anonymous. We now unite and make it known to Justin that Anonymous are not to be taken lightly"

In the event created by Anonymous they have pledged to "go after" Justin Bieber's Facebook page(s), his Twitter page(s), his PR companies and any personal email addresses they can find. "#OPButtHurtForBieber" as the campaign is called intends to show Justin Bieber that he should never be seen in public again wearing the Anonymous mask.

Do you think it is fair that Anonymous have targeted Justin Bieber?

http://www.eteknix.com/anonymous-hackers-target-bieber-for-wearing-their-mask-major-embarrasment/


Sigh.....

Idiots. 

[spacemaverick]

Zorgon posed this question to me earlier in this thread:

'Spacemaverick.... when was the order given that "We the people..." are now the enemy and no longer need the "Serve and Protect" moniker on the squad cars?'

You may think this stinks but some departments take a certain ruling by the US Supreme Court literally.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

Chief's Counsel

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions

By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado


Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.

Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.

This is not the whole article...the rest is at the link...suggested reading on the duty to serve and protect...there is not a constitutional duty to protect.  (can you believe it?0

CASE LAW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

more at the link above

I could go on and on.  I will say this...most of the police dept.'s in my area serve and protect...but the main duty of law enforcement officers according to the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) a Law enforement officer is constitutionally bound to enforce the law but not constitutionally bound to protect.  They are to serve the public at large.  This is not my opinion but comes from our Supreme Court.  Zorgon...I hope this answers your question adequately.

[ArMaP]

I could go on and on.  I will say this...most of the police dept.'s in my area serve and protect...but the main duty of law enforcement officers according to the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) a Law enforement officer is constitutionally bound to enforce the law but not constitutionally bound to protect.  They are to serve the public at large.  This is not my opinion but comes from our Supreme Court.  Zorgon...I hope this answers your question adequately.

To me that sounds like the result of the suing mentality in the US, so they made that decision to avoid the police being sued for not protecting everybody.

[Elvis Hendrix]

God I had to put my glasses on ,
Not really ,
I remember a time when Peggy could see things in a more all seeing light.
Why bicker about what was inevitable.
GUns and coppers and people who need more than they have.
It's never going to end up well.
If you create an underclass , your gonna have to try and regulate it.
It's always gonna bite ya.
And here is ferguson .
Here we are.

[spacemaverick]

To me that sounds like the result of the suing mentality in the US, so they made that decision to avoid the police being sued for not protecting everybody.

Just my opinion but I think you are quite correct.

[zorgon]

This is not the whole article...the rest is at the link...suggested reading on the duty to serve and protect...there is not a constitutional duty to protect.  (can you believe it?0

Yes I CAN believe it.  So basically it appears that each individual force has the option to choose whether to protect the citizens or harass them

But "We the people..." make a general assumption...

We have a MILITARY that is supposed to defend this country and its citizen's from attack by our 'enemies' whomever they may be. As far as I can tell that is how it is written in the Constitution

We have a MILITIA that is supposed to protect us citizen's in times when Gov Goon Squads get out of control (to wit  the Bundy Ranch case)

We have a POLICE force to uphold the laws that "we the people..." SUPPOSEDLY have put in place to protect us from those who would abuse us

THESE are the basic assumptions of "We the people..."  And I know MANY in the military and on the police force that do actually understand this... even if it's not clearly written down as a 'duty'

When you hire a security guard it is resonable to expect that the guard will do his best to protect you.

Do "We the people..." not elect our Sheriffs and pay the police to protect us? Maybe it's not a 'duty' but it certainly is in the job description

[zorgon]

In other words, Anonymous endorses and defends freedom of speech, unless the people exercising said right, are people who Anonymous have decided that they do not like.

Ran into the same thing back in the Hippy Era...  The hippies were preaching free love and do your own thing. Well at the time MY own thing was having a brush cut, wearing a trench coat and getting a PI license...

So because MY thing was not THERE thing... I was OBVIOUSLY a conformist

Today my hair is long since I MY thing became the Renaissance thing.... today I get accused of being an old Hippy who never grew up

THAT is the message I am seeing from anon...  Freedom of speech and expression so long as you "Do as we say, do as we do...

The Justin Bieber case above is just one prime example of this in action

If free speech does not exist for all of us, then it exists for none of us.

The BIGGEST issue with FREE SPEECH that people constantly ignore is that ANY freedom comes with a caveat...   You are free to do or say as you wish SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT impinge on another's freedom

Let's apply it to THIS case of the Mask vs the Hood...

Anon has 'outed' several people FALSELY as being Klan members.

Now under your thinking Anon was okay to say that? Even though it's a false accusation?  A public accusation like that can ruin lives

Take for example some kids stating "My teacher molested me..." The teacher did NOTHING... yet once that is repeated by the 'freedom of the press's right to publish' that teachers life is ruined

The point is there HAS to be limitations on the freedom of speech... you are not nor should you be able to, spout lies and threats against another.

A long time ago the Wiccan Rede stated "An 'ye' harm none, do what ye will"

THAT is true freedom... whether you like it or not