WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

838

(post is archived)

[–] 7 pts

In 2015, for example, Colorado cops blew up a man’s home while trying to get to an armed shoplifting suspect. More than four years later, a federal appeals court decided the property owner wasn't entitled to compensation to cover the wreckage, since police were preserving public safety

Pretty fucked up. This lady is probably screwed as well.

So the state can literally destroy your home and you can't do anything about it.

[–] 9 pts

Not legally. But this is why Killdozers get built.

[–] 0 pt

I doubt any of you will encounter this problem but if you do, you contact your local DA Victim Witness program, they pay you out of the state fund to fix it, then the State sues the criminal who caused the expense. This lady does have legal remedies, she just has to go talk to the DA's office.

[–] -1 pt

Niemeier was an asshole, and accomplished exactly nothing.

[–] 0 pt

I wish I could see if you were the same user who posted comments on this thread about Marvin. https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/297315/

I bet you are part of the good old boys club.

[–] -1 pt

Confused commie degenerate faggot

[–] 5 pts

I'll take "How do you create a radical with nothing to lose?" for $500.

[–] 1 pt

So the state can literally destroy your home and you can't do anything about it.

In this case it's perfectly justified, although I think there should be some community provision for compensation if this happens. It's in everyone's interest for dangerous criminals to be neutralised and hostages to be protected, property be damned.

The shoplifter one is a bit sketchier.

[–] 4 pts

Yeah, I could agree to such tactics for a hostage situation or something similar, but even then, if the state destroys your property, no matter the reason, they should cover the cost.

[–] 1 pt

I'd say the criminal should cover the cost as part of their terms of release (assuming the cops don't use excessive force).

[–] 4 pts

In this case it's perfectly justified,

Only if you are a retard with explosives and heavy trucks. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." SWAT is the football team of the police force. They make other cops look like Rhodes scholars.

The reality is that a brighter group of people could have the finesse to do the same thing without wanton destruction. Even beyond the property damage, I'm sure that poor hostage will have permanent hearing loss from the beach. There are numerous of stories of babies and small children being burned, blinded, deafened by SWAT raids. Those SWAT boys just don'e care how much damage to people and property that they do.

But, at the end of the day: it's easier to give a bunch of retards big toys and explosives than it is to train hostage negotiators and higher IQ people to have some finesse in situations like this.

[–] 1 pt

They make other cops look like Rhodes scholars.

They put the "Special" in "Special Weapons And Tactics."

[–] 0 pt

I can care less about the hostages, they'd be pretty much fucked from the start, but at least try to minimize property damage.

[–] 0 pt

Blinding and deafening a dog is not ok. Shoot the nigger instead.

[–] 0 pt

Sure you can. You find get the names and addresses of every officer involved and burn their houses down while they're inside with their families. As long as you get the pets out first.

Break a window in a federal building and it is 20yrs to life.

[–] 1 pt

Not if you identify as a faggot antifa member.

[–] 2 pts

Team America wuz there

[–] 6 pts (edited )

It's all so simple.

The plebs no longer hang the judges who don't uphold the law.

Because the jewdiciary no longer has any fear of the plebs, the jewdiciary abuses the plebs without consequence.

You cannot have Justice without consequence. What we have today is now a "just-us" system, where consequence and punishment are both arbitrary and without recourse - and only in one direction, by and large.

The most obvious solution to this situation; resume hanging the judges until the problem is resolves itself naturally.

That's right. I've been thinking about how to phrase a rule-of-thumb I've been exploring as we enter an era of new levels of tyranny. That is "Don't submit to any authority you can't reach before dawn."

[–] 1 pt

Don't submit to any authority you cannot personally hold responsible.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

Even cops hate SWAT. Adrenalin junkies with more toys than brains. Barely functional retards.

I've heard too many stories of SWAT doing "more" damage to a property after it was cleared, just to 'practice' (i.e. play with their toys.) In one case, after the house was cleared, they went back and locked every internal door. Then they door breached every door leaving zero functional doors / door frames on the property.

[–] 1 pt

Killdozers are not sufficient. In a just society, judges ought to be afraid to make this sort of pronouncement.

[–] 1 pt

Never forget: the badge niggers aren't on your side. The Supreme Court even says as much as a matter of policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[–] 1 pt

Don't call a cop. They're oath to serve and protect is over.

[–] 0 pt

Fucked if you do fucked if you don't. Either way you lose because self defense is so often treated as murder.

[–] 0 pt

All cops are useless fuckin violent pigs, getting revenge for being bullied as kids

[–] 0 pt

if they wont give it back you take it back

[–] 0 pt

Police are neutral, mostly. They're the state enforcement arm, the "teeth" on civilians that the military cannot perform. They're neutral because they're not always on your side, and they're also not always against you - it depends how the state holds you as.

[–] 0 pt

Man, if I were 76 and that happened to me I'd build myself a Killdozer.

[–] 0 pt

Cops are only around to protect corporations and the state.

From Lakeside, Montana, Baker saw a video that showed tear gas canisters flying into the window of her Texas home.

Wonder if she was hanging out with Ben Garrison.

Load more (2 replies)