Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

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.... show more

Witsit

24,109 subscribers

10,525 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

This is the play in question. The rule on a sacrifice fly is the ball must be "handled by an outfielder or an infielder running in the outfield in fair or foul territory". Here, Brandon Lowe is not moving running in the outfield ... he's barely beyond the cutout (which doesn't have anything to do with this really). That is why this isn't a sacrifice fly (although it would be in college). Note that this is still an RBI for Bregman, just not a sacrifice fly.

This is the play in question. The rule on a sacrifice fly is the ball must be "handled by an outfielder or an infielder running in the outfield in fair or foul territory". Here, Brandon Lowe is not moving running in the outfield ... he's barely beyond the cutout (which doesn't have anything to do with this really). That is why this isn't a sacrifice fly (although it would be in college). Note that this is still an RBI for Bregman, just not a sacrifice fly.

MLB Scoring Changes

187,118 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🚨 JUST IN: Trump DOJ just SUED to BLOCK Milwaukee, Wisconsin's unconstitutional ban on federal agents and ICE officers wearing facial coverings — which is only done to conceal their identity from violent lunatics SUPREMACY CLAUSE! DOJ: "Not only is the law an illegal attempt to regulate the federal government, but, as alleged in the complaint, the law threatens the safety of federal officers who have faced an unprecedent wave of harassment, doxing, and even violence." "Threatening officers with prosecution for simply protecting their identities and their families also chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations." 🇺🇸 I stand with ICE.

🚨 JUST IN: Trump DOJ just SUED to BLOCK Milwaukee, Wisconsin's unconstitutional ban on federal agents and ICE officers wearing facial coverings — which is only done to conceal their identity from violent lunatics SUPREMACY CLAUSE! DOJ: "Not only is the law an illegal attempt to regulate the federal government, but, as alleged in the complaint, the law threatens the safety of federal officers who have faced an unprecedent wave of harassment, doxing, and even violence." "Threatening officers with prosecution for simply protecting their identities and their families also chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations." 🇺🇸 I stand with ICE.

Eric Daugherty

53,313 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 BREAKING: One Biden Judge just found the federal law that makes it illegal for NONCITIZENS TO VOTE as UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPREME COURT, NOW! U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz in Florida ruled in favor of a JAMAICAN national because it was federal prosecutors who brought the case under a federal statute against noncitizen voting He says only the STATES can decide whether noncitizens can vote. THIS IS MADNESS. THE JUDICIAL COUP IS REAL. Only citizens can vote and that needs to be the law in all 50 states 🇺🇸

🚨 BREAKING: One Biden Judge just found the federal law that makes it illegal for NONCITIZENS TO VOTE as UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPREME COURT, NOW! U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz in Florida ruled in favor of a JAMAICAN national because it was federal prosecutors who brought the case under a federal statute against noncitizen voting He says only the STATES can decide whether noncitizens can vote. THIS IS MADNESS. THE JUDICIAL COUP IS REAL. Only citizens can vote and that needs to be the law in all 50 states 🇺🇸

Eric Daugherty

491,745 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis: The right to extend up to 12 miles is guaranteed by international law. This is not something that can be legally disputed, and Greece can exercise it whenever it judges that the circumstances are appropriate. I will not say anything more.

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis: The right to extend up to 12 miles is guaranteed by international law. This is not something that can be legally disputed, and Greece can exercise it whenever it judges that the circumstances are appropriate. I will not say anything more.

Clash Report

111,445 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

🚨 WOW! In a huge 2A victory, Donald Trump's Office of Legal Counsel has deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL a federal law that bans licensed dealers from selling handguns to Americans aged 18-20 LONG OVERDUE! 👏🏻 The opinion says that we allow 18-year-olds be DRAFTED to go fight in the military, be sentenced to capital punishment if convicted, serve as a juror and vote "Section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) of title 18, U.S. Code, is unconstitutional as applied to young adults between eighteen and twenty who seek to purchase handguns." "The provision prevents young adults, who are members of 'the people' to whom the Second Amendment applies, from owning 'arms' in common use for self-defense." "This places the burden on the government to show that the restrictions are consistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation, which it cannot do." 🔥 The 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTE.

🚨 WOW! In a huge 2A victory, Donald Trump's Office of Legal Counsel has deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL a federal law that bans licensed dealers from selling handguns to Americans aged 18-20 LONG OVERDUE! 👏🏻 The opinion says that we allow 18-year-olds be DRAFTED to go fight in the military, be sentenced to capital punishment if convicted, serve as a juror and vote "Section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) of title 18, U.S. Code, is unconstitutional as applied to young adults between eighteen and twenty who seek to purchase handguns." "The provision prevents young adults, who are members of 'the people' to whom the Second Amendment applies, from owning 'arms' in common use for self-defense." "This places the burden on the government to show that the restrictions are consistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation, which it cannot do." 🔥 The 2nd Amendment is ABSOLUTE.

Eric Daugherty

34,169 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

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.

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 9 Monaten

🇵🇸🇮🇱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.

🇵🇸🇮🇱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 10 Monaten

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.

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

70,595 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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. 🙌⚖️

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 🇵🇸

118,286 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

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 ⚡

650,764 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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

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

7,244,709 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

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 8 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:

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 2 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.

🚨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

717,389 Aufrufe • vor 8 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.

🚨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

232,190 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

22,725 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.

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

753,787 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Abhijeet Dipke has now openly come out in support of Ruchika Singh, who abused the Prime Minister during the CJP protest. Dipke says that using abusive language is not a crime and that there is no law under which an FIR can be filed simply for abusing someone. According to him, if someone uses abusive language, they should be politely counseled. It may be wrong or inappropriate, but it does not automatically amount to a criminal offence.

Abhijeet Dipke has now openly come out in support of Ruchika Singh, who abused the Prime Minister during the CJP protest. Dipke says that using abusive language is not a crime and that there is no law under which an FIR can be filed simply for abusing someone. According to him, if someone uses abusive language, they should be politely counseled. It may be wrong or inappropriate, but it does not automatically amount to a criminal offence.

Amit Kumar Sindhi

375,916 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten