Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Dalton Eatherly aka ChudtheBuilder was out on multiple bonds from different counties. And the judge clearly states that the bond is set as high as it is because of “how many people were out in the courtyard and at the courthouse and the seriousness of the crimes”. He’s a...

894,606 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨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

716,166 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

I’ve seen a lot of people accuse Saudi Arabia of fabricating the moon sighting. Below is proof that it wasn’t. The first video is the exact moment the moon was sighted. The second video is the official testifying before a judge about the set up and what he saw exactly. He says "At 6:11pm (precisely) we saw an opening in the sky, and we all saw the moon and around the opening was all clouds" There is also a picture but it is against the Sunnah to share proof when a testimony is given by a Muslim so I refuse to share it in case we set a precedent to always share a picture and that would be a big error. A testimony of a Muslim is enough as we see from the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbaas رضي الله عنه said: A Bedouin came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said, I have seen the new moon tonight. He said, "Do you bear witness that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?" He said, Yes. He said, "Get up, O Bilaal, and announce to the people that they should fast tomorrow." [at Tirmidhi: 691 Abu Dawood: [2340], an Nasaa'i: [2112] Ibn Maajah: [1652]. Shaykh al Albaani رحمه الله said: So we see from the Hadith that he, صلى الله عليه وسلم، instructed Bilaal to announce to the people that they would fast the next day. So the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم was content with the testimony of this man, whom he did not know, on the basis that he bore witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, i.e. he knew that he was a Muslim, but he did not check on him any further and he did not try to find out how intelligent and smart he was, as was the case in the first Hadith in which the witness was 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar ibn al Khattab رضي الله عنه. Yet despite that he accepted his testimony. This Hadith makes things easier for people, and what this means is that the judge should be content with the witness as he appears to be, without needing to find people who know this man and can testify that he is of good character, as was the habit of judges since time immemorial. Rather it is sufficient to know that he is a Muslim. This man was a Bedouin of whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had no prior knowledge and he was content that he uttered the Shahaadatayn before him. So he was a Muslim with the same rights and duties as any other, and based on his testimony and the fact that he was a Muslim he said: O Bilaal, announced to the people that they should fast tomorrow. [At Ta laaq 'ala Kitaab Bulugh al Maraam, (audio tape), Hadith 5, Kitaab al Siyaam] This Hadith is evidence for the principle that a Muslim is to be regarded as being of good character unless proven otherwise. Al San'aani رحمه الله said concerning what we learn from the hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas رضي الله عنه: It indicates that the basic principle with regard to the Muslims is that they are of good character, because the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not ask the Bedouin for anything except the Shahaadah. [Subul as Salaam by as San'aani: 2/153] And Allah knows best.

ابن البخاري

245,087 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr