Further reports from the state pitched into a shooting war? | INFJ Forum

Further reports from the state pitched into a shooting war?

Lark

Rothchildian Agent
May 9, 2011
2,220
127
245
MBTI
ENTJ
Enneagram
9
Anyone got any further reports from the US state pitched into a shooting war over that kid being killed by police? Is it Missouri? Where is that near? My US geography is not good, anyone from here threatened by the violence?

Remember what it said in Lord of War, you can only prosper while you arent at war with yourself.
 
The state is cracking down on protestors violently and also on journalists

It's amazing that there are police who will beat on their own people.....the ignorance of that is mind blowing

Do the police not know the danger of suppressing the press?

[video=youtube;ckMIS93dA6w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMIS93dA6w#t=66[/video]
 
The state is cracking down on protestors violently and also on journalists

It's amazing that there are police who will beat on their own people.....the ignorance of that is mind blowing

Do the police not know the danger of suppressing the press?

[video=youtube;ckMIS93dA6w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMIS93dA6w#t=66[/video]

:D

Who exactly are "their own people"? Is this like a nationalistic or racialistic thing?

I'd presume the police's people are the lawabidding and they arent arresting or coming upside their heads with billy clubs.

When you going to break the news that it's all been engineered by some illuminati types Muir? I'm dying to hear how it was a nine foot owl worshipping lizard who pulled the trigger on that black kid, the little hoodlum had probably figured out their cloaking devices!
 
:D

Who exactly are "their own people"? Is this like a nationalistic or racialistic thing?

The people of the US police are the US public

I'd presume the police's people are the lawabidding and they arent arresting or coming upside their heads with billy clubs.

The laws are made by the rich to protect the interests of the rich

So 'law abiding' is not necessarily the best criteria to go by when evaluating someones moral standpoint. For example to be law abiding under the rule of Pol Pot is not the same as to be law abiding in iceland.....different laws, different pressures form above

When you going to break the news that it's all been engineered by some illuminati types Muir? I'm dying to hear how it was a nine foot owl worshipping lizard who pulled the trigger on that black kid, the little hoodlum had probably figured out their cloaking devices!

I have been saying on this forum for years that the police have been militarised

The 'illuminati' (or illuminated ones) is just a name people use for the east coast establishment which is to say the banking cartel behind the federal reserve bank

That cartel have a vision of a global government which they will control. The UN is the de facto world government, the land for the offices of which in New York were donated by the Rockefeller banking and oil family

In order to create their new world order they must first destroy the US constitution, disarm the US public and pacify them

The militarisation of the police is part of the preparations towards achieving that leap to world government. This will be enabled by a major crisis of some sort that will destroy the dollar and the US as a viable state. This crisis is likely to be an economic one which will lead to civil unrest at which point martial law is declared and the military and militarised police are used to quell the uprising from the public

Below is a letter from the first president of the US General Washington in which he talks about the infiltration of freemasonry by the illuminati which has lead to illuminated freemasonry...and that was back then, hundreds of years ago....it's gained a lot of ground since then:

http://skywriter2012.wordpress.com/...tters-warning-about-the-dangerous-illuminati/

The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.
Mount Vernon, September 25, 1798.
Sir: Many apologies are due to you, for my not acknowledging the receipt of your obliging favour of the 22d. Ulto, and for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book you had the goodness to send me
I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me.[SUP]9[/SUP] The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.
[Note 9: In a letter from Snyder (Aug. 22, 1798, which is in the Washington Papers), it is stated that this book "gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of 'Illuminati,' whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural."]
George Washington to George Washington Snyder
Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.
Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.
It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time.
 
If you don't know then it's because you don't want to know. This is easy enough to learn about if you actually cared.
 
Media being targeted by police

There is talk of government agent provocateurs in amongst the protesters throwing things to incite violence thereby permitting a police crack down; they want to undermine the peaceful nature of the protests

[video=youtube;oYncQo8cwv0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYncQo8cwv0#t=254[/video]
 
Media being targeted by police

There is talk of government agent provocateurs in amongst the protesters throwing things to incite violence thereby permitting a police crack down; they want to undermine the peaceful nature of the protests

[video=youtube;oYncQo8cwv0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYncQo8cwv0#t=254[/video]


There's been reports of paid rioters- which is scary.

At the same time, I think the whole situation is extremely complicated. Reports now show that the officer wasn't in the wrong, and people are coming forward to support the officer's story. I'm not ruling out the government pushing this narrative, but it does suggest that maybe it was just a shitty situation that went wrong. I also think that there are a few individuals making this situation bad. Hearing some first hand reports of what's going on there, it sounds like a scary situation.
 
There's been reports of paid rioters- which is scary.

At the same time, I think the whole situation is extremely complicated. Reports now show that the officer wasn't in the wrong, and people are coming forward to support the officer's story. I'm not ruling out the government pushing this narrative, but it does suggest that maybe it was just a shitty situation that went wrong. I also think that there are a few individuals making this situation bad. Hearing some first hand reports of what's going on there, it sounds like a scary situation.

I heard they shot an unarmed kid 6 times, twice in the head

That is an expression of a police policy of 'shoot to kill' instead of 'shoot to wound'

That policy is coming from up the chain of command and the footsoldiers carrying out those orders are being protected by their 'superiors'

Many of the soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanisatn traumatised are being recruited into the police which is itself being increasingly militarised.

The police are then being trained to view the american public through a paranoid lens as 'the enemy' which they must wage war upon
 
Last edited:
I heard they shot an unarmed kid 6 times, twice in the head

That is an expression of a police policy of 'shoot to kill' instead of 'shoot to wound'

That policy is coming from up the chain of command and the footsoldiers carrying out those orders are being protected by their 'superiors'

Many of the soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanisatn traumatised are being recruited into the polcie which is itself being increasingly militarised.

The polcie are then being trained to view the american public through a paranoid lens as 'the enemy'

There's a bunch of different stories going around, but there is suggestion that Michael Brown attacked the officer at first (and went for the officer's gun), and then it just went down hill. I don't think the shots to kill were necessary, or more than one shot- but I do wonder if the situation may have gotten out of hand and just spiralled into this mess because the officer wasn't calm- it might have just been a bad mistake, rather than a nefarious plan.

I think the resulting situations have been people taking advantage of this tragic accident for their own gains :(
 
There's a bunch of different stories going around, but there is suggestion that Michael Brown attacked the officer at first (and went for the officer's gun), and then it just went down hill. I don't think the shots to kill were necessary, or more than one shot- but I do wonder if the situation may have gotten out of hand and just spiralled into this mess because the officer wasn't calm- it might have just been a bad mistake, rather than a nefarious plan.

I think the resulting situations have been people taking advantage of this tragic accident for their own gains :(

I very much doubt that a kid went for an officers gun! That sounds like just the kind of BS story a policeman makes up when justifying shooting an unarmed person

''er yeah, i shot him to death because he was er going for my gun''

The policeman does not need to be cogniscent of the nefarious plan....they are being brainwashed with training and conditioning to perceive the public a certain way and to treat the public a certain way

The average cop on the beat is...well frankly...not the sharpest tool in the box. They are left brain thinkers who follow orders. When they are trained to see the public as the enemy who must be crushed using excessive force then that is what they do

Then there are some cops coming from the military who are probably still suffering mental health problems form their time on duty and then there are also just plain bullies who have been cherry-picked in the recruitment process for exhibiting certain personality traits in their psychometric testing

The government is recruiting thugs to dominate the public with thuggery

If a cop is too dumb to see whats going on here then they need to grow up fast or develop a heart because at the moment many of them are being used as the tools of the corporatocracy against the people

[video=youtube;sEGUlK81yMg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEGUlK81yMg[/video]
 
Last edited:
Are you guys actually criticising the shot to kill fact? If the kid is attacking you andhewon't stop after you shoot him even once, yeah shoot to kill. That is your life in danger. And I heard it was5 shots in the right arm, one in the right shoulder/chest, and one in the head.
Think about it. If some kid is coming at you to hurt you, and you don't know if he has a gun or a knife, andthis kid had a history of criminal activity, thenyeah, your going to defend yourself. If the kid is within20 ft, you have precious little time in which to react. Shoot to wound is extremely difficult and unreliable. The fact that the officeractually shot him in the arm at all instead of the chest either says the officer was hesitant, he was in the middle of fighting within arms reach, or he's a bad shot. If the kid had gotten that officers gun after a wound shot, it's very possible the kid would have killed theofficer.

All I know is if I'm ever rush at by someone on foot that I think isgoing to try to hurt me or my friends and family, and I have a gun, you best believe they won't see light of the next day.
 
Whenyour shooting a gun, it's not bang (3 seconds) bang (3 seconds) bang and so on. Someone who knows what they are doing Will maybe have a half second between shots. And if the person is coming for you, your not going to stop until he stops and eventhen the gun stays up. All of that is to protect the officer if he's attacked. You can't fault someone for wanting to stay alive
 
Are you guys actually criticising the shot to kill fact?

Not criticising, asking whether or not there was another option. Shooting to kill is not the only option, and is typically the last resort for officers. These questions need to be asked in order to understand what happened.

I don't think anyone can say what is right or wrong in this situation.
 
Not criticising, asking whether or not there was another option. Shooting to kill is not the only option, and is typically the last resort for officers. These questions need to be asked in order to understand what happened.

I don't think anyone can say what is right or wrong in this situation.
Oh, then sorry for my misinterpretation. However the only other options available to an officer is some kind of tazzer or maybe pepper spray. Pepper spray is to break up fights between two other people. Tazzer is if you have the time and others with you and the person has no weapons of any kind, and a gun is to protect yourself and other lives. As I understand the recent reports, the kid went to attack the officer. Who knows what wouldhave happened if that kid would have gotten that officers gun. I think the officer was in the acceptable to do what he did given the information that I have.
 
I very much doubt that a kid went for an officers gun! That sounds like just the kind of BS story a policeman makes up when justifying shooting an unarmed person

''er yeah, i shot him to death because he was er going for my gun''

The policeman does not need to be cogniscent of the nefarious plan....they are being brainwashed with training and conditioning to perceive the public a certain way and to treat the public a certain way

The average cop on the beat is...well frankly...not the sharpest tool in the box. They are left brain thinkers who follow orders. When they are trained to see the public as the enemy who must be crushed using excessive force then that is what they do

Then there are some cops coming from the military who are probably still suffering mental health problems form their time on duty and then there are also just plain bullies who have been cherry-picked in the recruitment process for exhibiting certain personality traits in their psychometric testing

The government is recruiting thugs to dominate the public with thuggery

If a cop is too dumb to see whats going on here then they need to grow up fast or develop a heart because at the moment many of them are being used as the tools of the corporatocracy against the people

[video=youtube;sEGUlK81yMg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEGUlK81yMg[/video]

I say this with the utmost respect, but I think this only focuses on the extremes in the forces - yes there are people there that are suffering from mental health problems and will not question authority, but there are also a lot of people who are standup individuals who think for themselves. Perhaps I'm biased, as I know people in the RCMP, navy and military - and they aren't like this.

Personally, I think a mistake happened between them, and someone didn't need to die. But, it's important to know the circumstances leading up to the event. Did the officer feel threatened? Was he being threatened? Was Michael Brown unarmed? Did he comply to the officer's wishes? Did he commit a crime earlier in the day? etc. In the heat of the moment, these are all factors that contribute to the outcome.

I think the case is overshadowing what the protests are really about, which is militarising police.
 
Oh, then sorry for my misinterpretation. However the only other options available to an officer is some kind of tazzer or maybe pepper spray. Pepper spray is to break up fights between two other people. Tazzer is if you have the time and others with you and the person has no weapons of any kind, and a gun is to protect yourself and other lives. As I understand the recent reports, the kid went to attack the officer. Who knows what wouldhave happened if that kid would have gotten that officers gun. I think the officer was in the acceptable to do what he did given the information that I have.

My issue is if there was an option to wound with the intention of incapacitating him, without killing him. Maybe there wasn't enough time, or maybe their miss shots - but did the officer have the option of firing to stop the individual, without killing him. Perhaps not! Like you, I think that given the circumstances, if what is true - he beat the officer, when for the gun, etc. - then he was in the right.

But again, will we ever know the truth? There's soooooooooooooooo many politics involved, and it's so messy, it's hard to know what the truth is.
 
2 Black men per week are killed by a cop in America

According to stats compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, an unarmed African American died at the hands of an armed White police officer at the rate of nearly two per week from 2005 to 2012. Over that 8-year-period, 400 police killings were reported per year. White officers killed a Black person, on average, 96 times per year.
Of those, 18 percent of the African Americans killed were under the age of 21, compared to 8.7 percent of Whites.
As bad as those figures are, they grossly understate the problem. The FBI statistics are based on the voluntary reporting of local law enforcement jurisdictions. Currently, approximately 750 of 17,000 law enforcement agencies regularly report their figures to the FBI. That means if the ratio holds true for all 17,000 agencies, the annual 96 Black deaths at the hands of White cops could be as high 2,170 a year or almost 42 (41.73) per week — nearly six per day (5.94).
http://northdallasgazette.com/2014/08/20/2-black-men-per-week-are-killed-by-a-cop-in-america/

as usual, the point is being missed as the infj news forum endlessly explores the world wide conspiracy to steal muirs underpants and tie them into knots
 
I say this with the utmost respect, but I think this only focuses on the extremes in the forces - yes there are people there that are suffering from mental health problems and will not question authority, but there are also a lot of people who are standup individuals who think for themselves. Perhaps I'm biased, as I know people in the RCMP, navy and military - and they aren't like this.

Personally, I think a mistake happened between them, and someone didn't need to die. But, it's important to know the circumstances leading up to the event. Did the officer feel threatened? Was he being threatened? Was Michael Brown unarmed? Did he comply to the officer's wishes? Did he commit a crime earlier in the day? etc. In the heat of the moment, these are all factors that contribute to the outcome.

I think the case is overshadowing what the protests are really about, which is militarising police.

There are good cops i have certainly met good cops but there are also people who join up to get a power trip out of wearing a badge and the public needs protection from those types

These protests are not about the shooting dead of a boy...they are about systemic police brutality

We had EXACTLY the same occur here in the UK already as if these things are all scripted!

We had the police shooting down an unarmed man and then the releasing of false information regarding the details around the case follwed by counter claims and so on; people rose up in large numbers in cities across England and rioted because they are sick and tired of being brutalised by the police

The shooting of the guy was simply the trigger to cause the spilling over of tensions that had been building up over a period of time

An inside police investigation called Operation Tiberius has revealed systemic corruption within the London police force showing it has links to organised crime and freemasonry

Police brutality and militarisation are what these protests are about regardless of how the mainstream corporate media wants to try and spin it
 
Last edited:
Whenyour shooting a gun, it's not bang (3 seconds) bang (3 seconds) bang and so on. Someone who knows what they are doing Will maybe have a half second between shots. And if the person is coming for you, your not going to stop until he stops and eventhen the gun stays up. All of that is to protect the officer if he's attacked. You can't fault someone for wanting to stay alive

He shot the guy 6 times, twice in the head

Try shooting a moving target who is within arms length (going for your gun) twice in the head and 4 times in the body in a scuffle

It's an execution