Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Although this is an obvious improvement, it is still unconstitutional. A license/permit is permission to engage in an activity that would otherwise be unlawful. Concealing a firearm is protected under the Second Amendment. Thus, any law infringing upon that right is facially invalid and can be disregarded as such....

WitsitGetsIt's profile picture

Witsit

24,091 subscribers

10,517 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🇵🇸🇮🇱A scene from Jerusalem today that needs no explanation—only honesty: A Palestinian bus driver beaten and cursed by a group of settler kids, standing there unable to defend himself… not out of fear—out of certainty. He knows that if he lifts a finger to protect himself, within two seconds he becomes: “a terrorist”… “an attacker”… “attempted stabbing”… “attempted ramming”… and the bullet is ready long before any “investigation.” In Jerusalem, the attacker is a protected settler child… and the victim is a Palestinian who must prove his innocence even when he is the one being beaten. This isn’t an incident. It’s a system: the aggressor is shielded, the assaulted is punished. This is how the city is run— and this is how the “law” looks when the law belongs to an occupier. Oppression doesn’t hide anymore… it hits in broad daylight, and everyone sees it.
0:18

🇵🇸🇮🇱A scene from Jerusalem today that needs no explanation—only honesty: A Palestinian bus driver beaten and cursed by a group of settler kids, standing there unable to defend himself… not out of fear—out of certainty. He knows that if he lifts a finger to protect himself, within two seconds he becomes: “a terrorist”… “an attacker”… “attempted stabbing”… “attempted ramming”… and the bullet is ready long before any “investigation.” In Jerusalem, the attacker is a protected settler child… and the victim is a Palestinian who must prove his innocence even when he is the one being beaten. This isn’t an incident. It’s a system: the aggressor is shielded, the assaulted is punished. This is how the city is run— and this is how the “law” looks when the law belongs to an occupier. Oppression doesn’t hide anymore… it hits in broad daylight, and everyone sees it.

SilencedSirs◼️

106,614 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

While at an event in North Carolina, Vice President JD Vance said it is fine to disagree with the administration’s immigration policies, but those who engage in rhetoric that promotes violence against law enforcement “can go straight to hell” and are unworthy of a place in America’s political discourse.
0:19

While at an event in North Carolina, Vice President JD Vance said it is fine to disagree with the administration’s immigration policies, but those who engage in rhetoric that promotes violence against law enforcement “can go straight to hell” and are unworthy of a place in America’s political discourse.

A Man Of Memes

41,965 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

American Muslim scholar, Hamza Yusuf co-founder of the Zaytuna College declares that “the whole concept of an ‘Islamic state’ is a fantasy in the minds of the modern Islamists” & confirms that the vast majority of Muslim states in history were “secular” (see above post for what he means by ‘secular’). As I recently argued in my Oxford Union debate - which we won - the reading into Islamic sources of the modern idea of a unitary legal ‘state’ (dawlah) over all of society, is an anachronism. It is the retrospective imposition of the European Westphalian nation-state concept onto traditional Islamic sources. The word ‘state’ (dawlah) is entirely absent from *all* Islamic sources of Shariah. As is the word ‘law’ (Qānūn) and as is the word ‘constitution’ (Distūr). It is thus impossible for the term ‘Islamic State’ to be anything other than a modernist reading. And Shariah is not a ‘law’ (the concept of unitary legal system did not exist) so there is no such thing as ‘Sharia law’. There is only Shariah (which means ‘the way’). Islam did not define any fixed notion of state, and hence the matter is left to the people to adopt within Islamic parameters. Here is my recent 10 minute Oxford Union debate speech which explains further:
0:17

American Muslim scholar, Hamza Yusuf co-founder of the Zaytuna College declares that “the whole concept of an ‘Islamic state’ is a fantasy in the minds of the modern Islamists” & confirms that the vast majority of Muslim states in history were “secular” (see above post for what he means by ‘secular’). As I recently argued in my Oxford Union debate - which we won - the reading into Islamic sources of the modern idea of a unitary legal ‘state’ (dawlah) over all of society, is an anachronism. It is the retrospective imposition of the European Westphalian nation-state concept onto traditional Islamic sources. The word ‘state’ (dawlah) is entirely absent from *all* Islamic sources of Shariah. As is the word ‘law’ (Qānūn) and as is the word ‘constitution’ (Distūr). It is thus impossible for the term ‘Islamic State’ to be anything other than a modernist reading. And Shariah is not a ‘law’ (the concept of unitary legal system did not exist) so there is no such thing as ‘Sharia law’. There is only Shariah (which means ‘the way’). Islam did not define any fixed notion of state, and hence the matter is left to the people to adopt within Islamic parameters. Here is my recent 10 minute Oxford Union debate speech which explains further:

أبو عمّار

13,298 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This is not Hiroshima. This is not Gaza. This is not Lebanon. This is not Iran. This is Ukraine now… bombed with FAB-3000, a 3-ton bomb. Events that should not be publicized, yet must be highlighted. I remember when I sat alongside President Zelensky's representative during a closed-door diplomatic meeting under the mediation of the Turkish president aimed at encouraging Ukraine to resume the “Istanbul peace talks” with Russia. When we reached a critical juncture, the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister asked a question while I was trying to persuade him to return to negotiations: "What if you were in my shoes—with your land occupied and your people killed every day, while Putin violates international law on a daily basis? Would you continue to fight and support the resistance, turn to negotiations, or surrender?” At that moment, I wanted to give him an answer based on a similar personal experience, not a diplomatic one; for I was thinking of Lebanon, where our people were being killed daily and our land was under occupation. I pointed out that Israel currently occupies and controls 10% of Lebanon (that was the figure at the time; it has since risen to 20%)—the same proportion that Russia occupies and controls of Ukraine. The World condemned Russia, but cannot condemn Israel! Ukraine itself sided with Israel, citing the right to self-defense! The issue was never occupation. It was the identity of the occupier. I mentioned that international law hasn’t failed in Ukraine or in Lebanon or in Gaza and beyond. This’s not the failure of the law. The law stands and its principles remain clear. The failure is our collective will to uphold it. And to put a punishment for those who violate the international law. International law is not optional that you invoke only when it suits you. Double standards in international law—and the weaponization of that law to serve national interests—have led to a situation where international law is no longer respected. War crimes beget war crimes—When the international community failed to bring one state to justice for violating the international law, they knew they can do it again, and another state will inevitably follow suit with impunity. I concluded by stating that I would shift the focus to human security rather than state security; however, negotiating human security requires a ceasefire first. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to surrender, allowing the other to impose its terms and forcing you to concede. International law must be the same for everyone everywhere, and no State above international law. If I criticize your side, you assume I'm on theirs. If I criticize their side, they assume I'm on yours. You are both wrong. My position is guided by principles and upholding the law rather than alignment. I am basically against anything that kills people or destroy the planet we live on. I belong neither to this side nor that; I belong to humanity and Earth.
0:17

This is not Hiroshima. This is not Gaza. This is not Lebanon. This is not Iran. This is Ukraine now… bombed with FAB-3000, a 3-ton bomb. Events that should not be publicized, yet must be highlighted. I remember when I sat alongside President Zelensky's representative during a closed-door diplomatic meeting under the mediation of the Turkish president aimed at encouraging Ukraine to resume the “Istanbul peace talks” with Russia. When we reached a critical juncture, the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister asked a question while I was trying to persuade him to return to negotiations: "What if you were in my shoes—with your land occupied and your people killed every day, while Putin violates international law on a daily basis? Would you continue to fight and support the resistance, turn to negotiations, or surrender?” At that moment, I wanted to give him an answer based on a similar personal experience, not a diplomatic one; for I was thinking of Lebanon, where our people were being killed daily and our land was under occupation. I pointed out that Israel currently occupies and controls 10% of Lebanon (that was the figure at the time; it has since risen to 20%)—the same proportion that Russia occupies and controls of Ukraine. The World condemned Russia, but cannot condemn Israel! Ukraine itself sided with Israel, citing the right to self-defense! The issue was never occupation. It was the identity of the occupier. I mentioned that international law hasn’t failed in Ukraine or in Lebanon or in Gaza and beyond. This’s not the failure of the law. The law stands and its principles remain clear. The failure is our collective will to uphold it. And to put a punishment for those who violate the international law. International law is not optional that you invoke only when it suits you. Double standards in international law—and the weaponization of that law to serve national interests—have led to a situation where international law is no longer respected. War crimes beget war crimes—When the international community failed to bring one state to justice for violating the international law, they knew they can do it again, and another state will inevitably follow suit with impunity. I concluded by stating that I would shift the focus to human security rather than state security; however, negotiating human security requires a ceasefire first. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to surrender, allowing the other to impose its terms and forcing you to concede. International law must be the same for everyone everywhere, and no State above international law. If I criticize your side, you assume I'm on theirs. If I criticize their side, they assume I'm on yours. You are both wrong. My position is guided by principles and upholding the law rather than alignment. I am basically against anything that kills people or destroy the planet we live on. I belong neither to this side nor that; I belong to humanity and Earth.

Mohamad Safa

59,877 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

As of this morning, every brand-new Car sold in Europe is mandated by law to watch its “driver”, and the reason to worry is the opposite of what everyone is screaming about. The camera is not filming your face. The law explicitly bans that. It rather tracks your eyes. The danger is not what it does today. It is what it is now physically positioned to do tomorrow. This became binding across all 27 countries today, the 7th of July 2026, and no member state can opt out, because road safety is an EU competence and EU law overrides national law. Every new car and van, roughly 18 million of them a year, must now carry an infrared camera, usually on the steering column, that follows the driver's gaze. Look away too long, six seconds under 50 kilometers an hour, three and a half above it, and the car warns you with a sound, a light, or a buzz in the seat. The stated reason is real. Distraction causes up to 30 percent of crashes, and the Commission projects the wider safety package will save 25,000 lives by 2038. The outrage dissolves on contact with the actual text. The law actually fully forbids facial recognition and any biometric identification of anyone in the car, and the footage is legally barred from leaving the vehicle. No recording, no transmission, no police feed. As written today, this is a safety beeper, not a spy. But look at what already sits beside it. Think about it.. come on!! Europe's cars already run always-on systems that do transmit, the automatic crash caller that dials emergency services, the black-box event recorder, and over-the-air software that rewrites the car remotely overnight. The sensor was just made universal. The wall keeping it private is a single legal paragraph, and the same law already schedules its own review for 2027 to read cognitive state and body movement, while suppliers openly sell using the identical mandated camera to watch the passengers too. So this is the quiet architecture of every threshold. The permanent thing is physical, a camera now bolted into 18 million dashboards a year. The thing protecting you is a mere sentence, and sentences are the easiest part of any system to revise. Europe hardwired the eye. It left what the eye may see as the one part that can still be changed later. Hmm 🤨
0:10

As of this morning, every brand-new Car sold in Europe is mandated by law to watch its “driver”, and the reason to worry is the opposite of what everyone is screaming about. The camera is not filming your face. The law explicitly bans that. It rather tracks your eyes. The danger is not what it does today. It is what it is now physically positioned to do tomorrow. This became binding across all 27 countries today, the 7th of July 2026, and no member state can opt out, because road safety is an EU competence and EU law overrides national law. Every new car and van, roughly 18 million of them a year, must now carry an infrared camera, usually on the steering column, that follows the driver's gaze. Look away too long, six seconds under 50 kilometers an hour, three and a half above it, and the car warns you with a sound, a light, or a buzz in the seat. The stated reason is real. Distraction causes up to 30 percent of crashes, and the Commission projects the wider safety package will save 25,000 lives by 2038. The outrage dissolves on contact with the actual text. The law actually fully forbids facial recognition and any biometric identification of anyone in the car, and the footage is legally barred from leaving the vehicle. No recording, no transmission, no police feed. As written today, this is a safety beeper, not a spy. But look at what already sits beside it. Think about it.. come on!! Europe's cars already run always-on systems that do transmit, the automatic crash caller that dials emergency services, the black-box event recorder, and over-the-air software that rewrites the car remotely overnight. The sensor was just made universal. The wall keeping it private is a single legal paragraph, and the same law already schedules its own review for 2027 to read cognitive state and body movement, while suppliers openly sell using the identical mandated camera to watch the passengers too. So this is the quiet architecture of every threshold. The permanent thing is physical, a camera now bolted into 18 million dashboards a year. The thing protecting you is a mere sentence, and sentences are the easiest part of any system to revise. Europe hardwired the eye. It left what the eye may see as the one part that can still be changed later. Hmm 🤨

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡

648,783 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

The man who studied law has now become a “witness to its total collapse.” Professor Ghanem Al-Attar holds a PhD in International Constitutional Law. In a just world, he would be in a lecture hall shaping the minds of future jurists. Today, however, in the “open-air prison” of Gaza, he moves through the rubble just to find a gallon of water. This is the ultimate irony of 2026: the very international law he specialized in has failed to secure his most basic human rights—water and safety. When a professor of law is forced to live under unlawful bombardment, it is not merely a personal tragedy; it is a global constitutional crisis. We are not only losing buildings, we are wasting the greatest minds of an entire generation. 🙌⚖️
0:10

The man who studied law has now become a “witness to its total collapse.” Professor Ghanem Al-Attar holds a PhD in International Constitutional Law. In a just world, he would be in a lecture hall shaping the minds of future jurists. Today, however, in the “open-air prison” of Gaza, he moves through the rubble just to find a gallon of water. This is the ultimate irony of 2026: the very international law he specialized in has failed to secure his most basic human rights—water and safety. When a professor of law is forced to live under unlawful bombardment, it is not merely a personal tragedy; it is a global constitutional crisis. We are not only losing buildings, we are wasting the greatest minds of an entire generation. 🙌⚖️

Mahmoud Massri | مَحْمُود 🇵🇸

118,025 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

When officiating the line of scrimmage, general philosophy is not to be overly technical and split hairs over very minor infractions (such as a receiver's hand slightly breaking the LOS). However, when an infraction is so egregious and obvious, a flag has to be thrown. Kadarius Toney is blatantly lined up offside and in the neutral zone. You rarely see an offsides penalty on the offense, but that is not because this play in #BUFvsKC isn't a foul. It is because a receiver rarely lines up offsides.
0:10

When officiating the line of scrimmage, general philosophy is not to be overly technical and split hairs over very minor infractions (such as a receiver's hand slightly breaking the LOS). However, when an infraction is so egregious and obvious, a flag has to be thrown. Kadarius Toney is blatantly lined up offside and in the neutral zone. You rarely see an offsides penalty on the offense, but that is not because this play in #BUFvsKC isn't a foul. It is because a receiver rarely lines up offsides.

Gene Steratore

7,244,482 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE: They are gaslighting us again. Under the Second Amendment and MN Stat. 624.714, permit holders may legally carry firearms in public, including during protests. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public carry is a constitutional right. Carrying a firearm does not legally constitute "inciting
0:19

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE: They are gaslighting us again. Under the Second Amendment and MN Stat. 624.714, permit holders may legally carry firearms in public, including during protests. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public carry is a constitutional right. Carrying a firearm does not legally constitute "inciting

Brian Krassenstein

70,487 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

In this encounter, the officer is wrong. confirms that if ICE or law enforcement stops you on a private road, even if they claim you had no permission to be there, that does not erase the First Amendment. You still have the constitutional right to record the encounter, as long as you do not interfere. Private property is not a constitutional black hole. Get PAXIS into the hands of every immigrant and citizen in the USA. FIGHT ICE. FIGHT FASCISM. FIGHT TRUMP:
0:11

In this encounter, the officer is wrong. confirms that if ICE or law enforcement stops you on a private road, even if they claim you had no permission to be there, that does not erase the First Amendment. You still have the constitutional right to record the encounter, as long as you do not interfere. Private property is not a constitutional black hole. Get PAXIS into the hands of every immigrant and citizen in the USA. FIGHT ICE. FIGHT FASCISM. FIGHT TRUMP:

Joe Walsh

15,975 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

When an infielder makes a play where he is out of control, bounce the throw. This ensures the ball can be caught…The worst that can happen is the runner is safe at 1b and DP is still in play…trying to make the long perfect throw could lead to an overthrow or an in between hop
0:17

When an infielder makes a play where he is out of control, bounce the throw. This ensures the ball can be caught…The worst that can happen is the runner is safe at 1b and DP is still in play…trying to make the long perfect throw could lead to an overthrow or an in between hop

Perry Hill

22,695 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨🚨 BREAKING – PAY ATTENTION 🚨🚨 If someone inside the FBI illegally leaked ICE operational data, they are facing criminal charges, loss of pension, and prison time. That part is obvious. But here’s the part people are pretending not to understand 👇 If you knew the information was stolen… If you knew it came from inside federal law enforcement… And you published it anyway to warn communities, disrupt operations, or obstruct enforcement… You are NOT protected. That crosses into aiding and abetting and potentially conspiracy. The First Amendment does NOT cover participation in an illegal scheme ⚖️ Stealing the data is a crime. Knowingly using stolen data to interfere with law enforcement is also a crime. This isn’t politics. This isn’t opinion. This is black-letter federal law. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove
0:18

🚨🚨 BREAKING – PAY ATTENTION 🚨🚨 If someone inside the FBI illegally leaked ICE operational data, they are facing criminal charges, loss of pension, and prison time. That part is obvious. But here’s the part people are pretending not to understand 👇 If you knew the information was stolen… If you knew it came from inside federal law enforcement… And you published it anyway to warn communities, disrupt operations, or obstruct enforcement… You are NOT protected. That crosses into aiding and abetting and potentially conspiracy. The First Amendment does NOT cover participation in an illegal scheme ⚖️ Stealing the data is a crime. Knowingly using stolen data to interfere with law enforcement is also a crime. This isn’t politics. This isn’t opinion. This is black-letter federal law. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

A Gene Robinson

171,657 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

🚨I DIDNT WANT to do it BUT I have too. You didn’t see this yet. The narrative that “he was just filming and the officers got angry” is false. The narrative that he was only trying to protect two women is also false. He, along with others, was actively interfering with a legitimate law-enforcement operation. That is why officers moved them off the street. That does not mean he deserved to die. When officers attempted to detain him, he resisted arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. He was armed and chose to insert himself into an active enforcement operation while resisting arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. An agent called out the presence of a firearm. During the attempt to secure it, the weapon discharged before the agent could declare the scene clear. Other officers, hearing a gun call and a gunshot while a suspect was resisting arrest, reacted according to their training. From their perspective, they were confronting an armed individual resisting arrest. That is why, immediately after the shooting, one officer urgently asked where the firearm was. He believed he had just engaged an armed suspect, because that is precisely the situation as it appeared in real time. He did not deserve to die. However, his actions, his decisions, and his criminal interference were contributing factors, alongside serious failures by the officers involved. I believe the shooting was unnecessary. I believe there were many alternative ways the situation could have been handled. I do not believe the officers were truly under lethal threat. Recklessness on all sides resulted in a man losing his life. Approximately 23 percent of ICE activity occurs in Texas, yet we do not see these outcomes there. Minnesota accounts for roughly 2 percent of ICE operations, yet has seen multiple shootings involving American citizens. The difference is organized resistance. Blue states have coordinated efforts designed to insert civilians into active ICE operations to interfere intentionally and directly. Interfering with law-enforcement operations is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Resisting arrest is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Within the Second Amendment community, there is a common saying: “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” It refers to choosing survival over moral victory. That same principle applies to interactions with law enforcement. Would you rather be right, or would you rather be alive? Make smart decisions when dealing with law enforcement. Survive the encounter. Then take the fight to court. Use every lawful platform available to expose misconduct. Name departments, supervisors, and officers. Demand accountability through evidence and process. But interfering with an active operation, resisting arrest, and doing so while armed creates a predictable and deadly outcome. Was it legal for him to be armed? Yes. Should citizens carry lawfully? Yes. Is it profoundly reckless to interfere with law enforcement and resist arrest while armed? Absolutely. When we carry firearms, we accept greater responsibility. That responsibility was neglected here. It is possible to support immigration enforcement while condemning reckless policing. It is possible to criticize law enforcement while also acknowledging the dangerous behavior of civilians. It is possible to recognize complexity, rapid escalation, human error, and shared responsibility in a fast-moving situation. He did not have to die. Liberty only survives when it operates within order. Nothing about this situation was orderly. When order collapses, lives are lost. He did not have to die.
0:10

🚨I DIDNT WANT to do it BUT I have too. You didn’t see this yet. The narrative that “he was just filming and the officers got angry” is false. The narrative that he was only trying to protect two women is also false. He, along with others, was actively interfering with a legitimate law-enforcement operation. That is why officers moved them off the street. That does not mean he deserved to die. When officers attempted to detain him, he resisted arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. He was armed and chose to insert himself into an active enforcement operation while resisting arrest. That does not mean he deserved to die. An agent called out the presence of a firearm. During the attempt to secure it, the weapon discharged before the agent could declare the scene clear. Other officers, hearing a gun call and a gunshot while a suspect was resisting arrest, reacted according to their training. From their perspective, they were confronting an armed individual resisting arrest. That is why, immediately after the shooting, one officer urgently asked where the firearm was. He believed he had just engaged an armed suspect, because that is precisely the situation as it appeared in real time. He did not deserve to die. However, his actions, his decisions, and his criminal interference were contributing factors, alongside serious failures by the officers involved. I believe the shooting was unnecessary. I believe there were many alternative ways the situation could have been handled. I do not believe the officers were truly under lethal threat. Recklessness on all sides resulted in a man losing his life. Approximately 23 percent of ICE activity occurs in Texas, yet we do not see these outcomes there. Minnesota accounts for roughly 2 percent of ICE operations, yet has seen multiple shootings involving American citizens. The difference is organized resistance. Blue states have coordinated efforts designed to insert civilians into active ICE operations to interfere intentionally and directly. Interfering with law-enforcement operations is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Resisting arrest is illegal, and it is dangerous. This is how people get killed. Within the Second Amendment community, there is a common saying: “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” It refers to choosing survival over moral victory. That same principle applies to interactions with law enforcement. Would you rather be right, or would you rather be alive? Make smart decisions when dealing with law enforcement. Survive the encounter. Then take the fight to court. Use every lawful platform available to expose misconduct. Name departments, supervisors, and officers. Demand accountability through evidence and process. But interfering with an active operation, resisting arrest, and doing so while armed creates a predictable and deadly outcome. Was it legal for him to be armed? Yes. Should citizens carry lawfully? Yes. Is it profoundly reckless to interfere with law enforcement and resist arrest while armed? Absolutely. When we carry firearms, we accept greater responsibility. That responsibility was neglected here. It is possible to support immigration enforcement while condemning reckless policing. It is possible to criticize law enforcement while also acknowledging the dangerous behavior of civilians. It is possible to recognize complexity, rapid escalation, human error, and shared responsibility in a fast-moving situation. He did not have to die. Liberty only survives when it operates within order. Nothing about this situation was orderly. When order collapses, lives are lost. He did not have to die.

A Gene Robinson

716,308 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Do you want to see something incredible? This is an excavation of a 1st century synagogue in the city of Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene. And it is extremely likely, that Jesus Christ visited and preached inside of this synagogue, And walked upon these floors.
0:18

Do you want to see something incredible? This is an excavation of a 1st century synagogue in the city of Magdala, the home of Mary Magdalene. And it is extremely likely, that Jesus Christ visited and preached inside of this synagogue, And walked upon these floors.

Dr Manhattva

753,295 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🚨BREAKING: Another ICE agent has been caught on video illegally pointing a firearm at a U.S. citizen, in Lemonwood, California. In the video, an unmarked ICE vehicle is stopped in the middle of the road… no vehicles are in front of it, and nothing is preventing them from driving forward. Instead of continuing to drive down the road, the ICE agent is blocking a pickup truck from turning, while pointing a gun, out their window, directly at the driver of that truck. The truck backs up, but the agent still keeps the firearm pointed at the driver. Only AFTER people begin honking their horns does the agent lower their weapon, and drive away. The law states that pointing a firearm at someone is considered a serious threat of deadly force. It is only justified when an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that they are facing an immediate threat of death, or serious bodily harm. It is not legally allowed to be used to control traffic, and it is not legally allowed to be used as intimidation. And that’s exactly why this video should be alarming to you. The agent is not boxed in… nothing is preventing them from driving down the street. Meanwhile, the agent is the one preventing the truck from continuing its turn. And they are doing so while pointing a gun at the driver. So, the question becomes… What immediate threat justified the ICE agent to stop their car, and point a firearm at a U.S. citizen? Because we are seeing a growing pattern, of publicly documented incidents, where ICE agents point firearms at legal observers, journalists, and bystanders during enforcement encounters… when they are not facing an immediate threat of death. That is not how public safety works. Pointing a firearm at someone is one of the most serious things an officer can do, because it instantly escalates an encounter into a potential deadly force situation. And that is exactly why the law is supposed to restrict it. Every unnecessary drawn gun increases the risk of a wrong judgment, and a fatal mistake. And when there is no accountability, for when that line gets crossed, drawing a gun because the normal for every situation. And when it becomes normal, more people’s lives are put in danger.
0:13

🚨BREAKING: Another ICE agent has been caught on video illegally pointing a firearm at a U.S. citizen, in Lemonwood, California. In the video, an unmarked ICE vehicle is stopped in the middle of the road… no vehicles are in front of it, and nothing is preventing them from driving forward. Instead of continuing to drive down the road, the ICE agent is blocking a pickup truck from turning, while pointing a gun, out their window, directly at the driver of that truck. The truck backs up, but the agent still keeps the firearm pointed at the driver. Only AFTER people begin honking their horns does the agent lower their weapon, and drive away. The law states that pointing a firearm at someone is considered a serious threat of deadly force. It is only justified when an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that they are facing an immediate threat of death, or serious bodily harm. It is not legally allowed to be used to control traffic, and it is not legally allowed to be used as intimidation. And that’s exactly why this video should be alarming to you. The agent is not boxed in… nothing is preventing them from driving down the street. Meanwhile, the agent is the one preventing the truck from continuing its turn. And they are doing so while pointing a gun at the driver. So, the question becomes… What immediate threat justified the ICE agent to stop their car, and point a firearm at a U.S. citizen? Because we are seeing a growing pattern, of publicly documented incidents, where ICE agents point firearms at legal observers, journalists, and bystanders during enforcement encounters… when they are not facing an immediate threat of death. That is not how public safety works. Pointing a firearm at someone is one of the most serious things an officer can do, because it instantly escalates an encounter into a potential deadly force situation. And that is exactly why the law is supposed to restrict it. Every unnecessary drawn gun increases the risk of a wrong judgment, and a fatal mistake. And when there is no accountability, for when that line gets crossed, drawing a gun because the normal for every situation. And when it becomes normal, more people’s lives are put in danger.

Jesus Freakin Congress

231,220 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

"When you know a law is being broken and you do nothing about it and have the power and authority to do so IN THE EYES OF THE LAW YOU ARE GUILTY"
0:11

"When you know a law is being broken and you do nothing about it and have the power and authority to do so IN THE EYES OF THE LAW YOU ARE GUILTY"

Stephanie 🇬🇧🇺🇸🦍

11,429 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Is it legal to call an ICE agent a “neo-Nazi piece of shit, un-American mother fucker”? Yes, explains that it’s your First Amendment right. The Supreme Court protects offensive profanity in political expression directed at officers of the law. FIGHT ICE LEGALLY:
0:14

Is it legal to call an ICE agent a “neo-Nazi piece of shit, un-American mother fucker”? Yes, explains that it’s your First Amendment right. The Supreme Court protects offensive profanity in political expression directed at officers of the law. FIGHT ICE LEGALLY:

Joe Walsh

29,760 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen

The Great Solar Flash is a catalyst like no other before, an energetic reboot for the Earth and humanity. It possesses the authority of cosmic law, which means that it aligns perfectly with the Divine Plan. 🔥✴️⚓️🌞
0:16

The Great Solar Flash is a catalyst like no other before, an energetic reboot for the Earth and humanity. It possesses the authority of cosmic law, which means that it aligns perfectly with the Divine Plan. 🔥✴️⚓️🌞

Sea

26,603 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Naughty sister-in-law teasing brother in-law calling him bhabhi. What started as a play now here it is.. Dominant Sister made sissy out of her husband and he is the super sissy of the house The best bhabi any sister-in-law can get Sissy life Happy Life
0:19

Sensitive content

Naughty sister-in-law teasing brother in-law calling him bhabhi. What started as a play now here it is.. Dominant Sister made sissy out of her husband and he is the super sissy of the house The best bhabi any sister-in-law can get Sissy life Happy Life

DOM Silkku

11,110 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

And every single thing is recorded in 2021——2025 National Defense Authorization Acts… BEFORE anything was on “News” which means PRE—PLANNED… Outside of the fact the Law more than clearly shows we are still in a Partial Continuity of Government… Which means Congress are under a Military Government and Occupation, all theatre… For those who just cannot grasp that — it still accomplishes the mission… Expose Hypocrisy. When you look at all those who call PDJT a Dictator, Nazi, King, and Threat… Majority of those voted Yea on ALL the terminology in the DEFENSE BUDGETS for the Military that allowed it… Which is why 99.9999999% of “influencers” look unintelligent but should be charged with sedition for ignorantly misleading Americans with surface level nonsense… When there is a CLEAR answer via Law that is designed BIPARTISAN for ALL AMERICANS. Anyone who keeps the partisan up is missing the | 45 ——— 47 | which is Strategic and Special Operations due to the vast ignorance. 🫡♠️🇺🇸
0:19

And every single thing is recorded in 2021——2025 National Defense Authorization Acts… BEFORE anything was on “News” which means PRE—PLANNED… Outside of the fact the Law more than clearly shows we are still in a Partial Continuity of Government… Which means Congress are under a Military Government and Occupation, all theatre… For those who just cannot grasp that — it still accomplishes the mission… Expose Hypocrisy. When you look at all those who call PDJT a Dictator, Nazi, King, and Threat… Majority of those voted Yea on ALL the terminology in the DEFENSE BUDGETS for the Military that allowed it… Which is why 99.9999999% of “influencers” look unintelligent but should be charged with sedition for ignorantly misleading Americans with surface level nonsense… When there is a CLEAR answer via Law that is designed BIPARTISAN for ALL AMERICANS. Anyone who keeps the partisan up is missing the | 45 ——— 47 | which is Strategic and Special Operations due to the vast ignorance. 🫡♠️🇺🇸

Derek Johnson

11,499 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

"A concerned Catholic church member has shared an image showing a priest with a firearm..........." Stop with the misinformation, the man in the screenshot below is a military chaplain with a rifle sling to his back during service, and it is common in the warfront, due to the fact that the service is being held in a combat zone and attack can happen at any time. It is not a recent video/screenshot as the video was recorded years ago.
0:15

"A concerned Catholic church member has shared an image showing a priest with a firearm..........." Stop with the misinformation, the man in the screenshot below is a military chaplain with a rifle sling to his back during service, and it is common in the warfront, due to the fact that the service is being held in a combat zone and attack can happen at any time. It is not a recent video/screenshot as the video was recorded years ago.

Daoptimist⚓🌊🔥✨

489,626 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten