"i'm from the government and here to help you"
oh, yeah. FUCK THE POLICE!
they're not pretending. they have badges, firearms, and police powers. the relationship is contentious and litigious everday and in every way. EVERYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.
the jesuit called moonbeam and his pet with their own military power. imagine that.
California
Published February 12, 2019 3:45pm EST
Newsom slams Trump's border policies, says California won't be party to 'political theater'
By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-slams-trumps-border-policies-says-california-wont-be-party-to-political-theater
got any sauce for that claim?
the police union must feel utterly betrayed…
the entire point of the u.s. government is to secure God given individual liberties. if any form of government doesn't provide that, they are the enemy of the people, individually and collectively.
the bone of contention is that the u.s. copper unions like to associate with the "international brotherhood" of law enforcement "labor".
"workers of the world unite"!
the interests of union labor are inconsistent with constitutional law of the u.s. they serve for the collective wellbeing of their membership, individuals be damned. ask those who desire not to contribute to the democrat party with their union dues.
collectivism is so ingrained in law enforcement, the supreme court has ruled in several cases that the police have no duty to protect the individual but has a duty to public safety and investigating crimes.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect …
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…
1d ago
www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a…
SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU
From: Don Kates [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:25 PM
To: KATES, Don
Subject: SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU
If you have read my previous posts and law review articles you know that police have no duty to protect individuals. The police exist to do two things only: (a) patrol to deter crime; (b) after crime occurs to investigate and apprehend the perpetrators.
In other words, if you want to protect yourself and your family you must do it yourself — which is to say you must get a gun. The police owe you no duty in that respect.
Here is a brand new SCOTUS case reaffirming that police may not be sued for failure to protect individuals. In addition I herewith supply some other caselaw and my old discussion of the issues (sans footnotes because I don’t know how to put them in an email.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-scotus/2005/jun/27/062708395.html>;
https://www.wagc.com/supreme-court-reaffirms-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-you/
jussayin.
united, not divided.
God Bless America!
>Semantically, the vast majority of LEOs might be cognizant of “pretending”