PERSONAL READINESS > Politics/Know the Facts

The unwinding of freedom: The coming war

(1/3) > >>

Flyin6:
The cancel culture are Mao type communists. They are American only in the fact we had the misfortune to have them born here

They are piss water, nothing more

Flyin6:
US House passes most ambitious police reform effort in decades
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would ban chokeholds and qualified immunity for law enforcement, but faces tough road in the Senate

Nine months after George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by Minneapolis police, lawmakers voted to approve the reform measure named after him.

The US House of Representatives passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the most ambitious police reform effort in decades, for the second time on Wednesday.

The sweeping legislation would ban chokeholds and “qualified immunity” for law enforcement and create national standards for policing in a bid to bolster accountability. Nine months after Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, was killed by Minneapolis police, lawmakers voted to approve the reform measure named after him 220-212, along party lines. However, the only Republican who voted in favor said he did so in error, and has changed the official record to reflect his opposition.

The House had passed a version of the bill last year, but the Republican-controlled Senate never took it up. This time around, Democrats have the support of the White House and a slight edge in the Senate.

Flyin6:
This new voter reform law will seek to consolidate the demoncrats position. That along with the open borders with tens of thousands of Guatemalan new US citizens paired with rigged voting will give us no choice.

Flyin6:
With people in authority actually thinking like this, we are indeed in trouble as idiots try to stop the spinning of America's moral compass. I actually had a personal experience with this mindset. As a member of the local school board, one month the president and superintendent started off the meeting wanting to discuss "A student's right to flee a bully." Think about that for a moment.
I immediately added, "Well, Bob, any fool knows he has a "RIGHT" to flee if he is about to get hurt, but I personally believe in a kids right to stand his ground and face his bully." I continued, adding that I had trained both of my boys how to dislocate an attackers' shoulder, break his nose and break the leg at the knee. Bob and almost everyone in attendance was visibly stunned by my comments which I still view as common sense and well within my rights.
So I took the opportunity to teach these "Teachers" a lesson. "You see the reason you break a person's nose is that it causes the eyes to water endlessly, and a person who can't see will not be able to prosecute a fight. It also affords my son the opportunity to take a step backward to either flee or to allow the situation to deescalate. Continuing further, if a person like that is still willing to fight, then a simple shoulder dislocation makes it easier for my son, since he will now be fighting a one armed person. Finally if that bully is still into fighting, he must be amped up on some drug so by breaking the knee, he will not be able to pursue and my boy will be able to safely walk away.
Sound crazy to any of you? To some folks, the idea of fighting back is Neanderthal. My counter to that is, "What if our soldiers on Omaha beach decided not to fight back, what then? You see if you the governing body will not take responsibility and lack the courage to call a criminal a criminal, then we the people have no recourse other than to defend ourselves.
But look at what is coming out of Texas. Please tell me this is not true. Sent to me by a senior Army officer.



In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state's "Castle Doctrine." This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.
 
Now listen to what she has to say...
 
"I'm not saying that stealing is okay," Meza explained. "All I'm saying is that it doesn't warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed."
 
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
 
Under her new law, “… the homeowner's obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible, he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner's responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.
 

"In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does," Meza reasoned. "The homeowner's insurance reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better.

EL TATE:
"I don't feel like I have to pay my rent because you have more money than me and you owe it to me to help me out" - unknown Seattle apartment resident, march 2020.

I'm dumbstruck at reading this. not only can Tex not hurt the guy, but he should help facilitate the non-violent redistribution of wealth to the needy robber...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page