I guess the cops that read here will call this “more anti cop bullshit” but I still call them like I see them, and this is unconstitutional as hell:
Saying someone will be arrested for calling a tranny “sir” is a violation of the First Amendment. End. Full stop.
EDITED TO ADD: This isnt one Ft Worth cop. Its apparently department policy.
The posts from the last week on how you are being tracked are about to get a boost. The FCC is about to pass a rule making anonymous cell phone ownership illegal. Registration is always misused.
They want to track your every movement, word, and thought.
On Saturday, we talked about how you are being followed on the internet, even if you think you aren’t. Yes, I know there are plenty of people out there who claim they can’t be tracked because of their elite computer skills. All evidence says they are wrong, but I won’t be able to convince them otherwise, so I won’t try. A great example is how I replaced my electronic locks on my safe with mechanical locks. That step makes it more difficult to get in, but not impossible. Sure, there are things I can do to make it harder to get in, but I can never make it impossible.
It gets worse than that- you are being followed in meat space, as well, whether you realize it or not, and it isn’t just license plate readers. As you travel, the things that travel with you are constantly emitting electronic signals unique to you, and those are being used to monitor your every move.
Your Bluetooth earbuds, your cell phone, even the tire pressure monitors in your car (which have been required in every car made in the past 25 years), are constantly sending out electronic signals that can and are being used to track your movements. They are even using the chips embedded in your pets to keep track of your location. It’s pervasive, and there is no hiding from it. Defense contractor Leonardo is promoting a new technology called SignalTrace that will package plate cameras with sensors that can scrape unique identifiers tied to your smart devices and make that data available to law enforcement:
SignalTrace works by linking devices that regularly travel together, correlating them to license plates, then using them to track where you are. We’ve all been aware for years how cameras could track a car’s whereabouts at any given time. Throw in personal identifiers, and the job of tying an individual or multiple people to that vehicle becomes trivial, and not something anyone can simply opt out of. Now they know where you are, and how you got there. Like Flock is already doing, if the company’s tracking systems decide you are acting suspiciously, they report their findings to the government.
The company claims to “capture device frequencies emitted into the air” and “does not decrypt or capture the contents of the devices or their communications.” Which is how these firms are able to evade culpability for the surveillance they enable. Whether they’re cracking encryption or not, the results are the same: they know where you go, who you associate with, and combined with your internet habits, what you are doing there.
The companies are using the camera network not just to investigate based on suspicion, but to generate suspicion itself- it’s a way for police to make an end run around Constitutional protections. The company isn’t subject to protections against search and seizure, so they scoop up all of this information, then present it to the police, and there isn’t a damned thing you can do about it.
How difficult is it to track someone’s entire life? I can match your car, your earbuds, your cell phone, and every other piece of electronics you own. This allows me to match your online life with your physical one. This is why the people who were conspiring with Trump left all electronics at home and communicated only through 2 meter HAM radios. Once the powers that be know who you are, they can read all of your traffic. The Feds have been tapping the phones of the Portland Antifa crowd. Well, not exactly tapping. They cloned the SIM cards of protesters that they came in contact with, and then were able to intercept calls made to that device. The fact that none of them have been arrested makes one wonder, but that’s off topic for this post.
Predictably, the police are already misusing this technology. In Orlando, a woman was jailed for 13 days when vehicle tracking said she was the one who caused a deadly accident before fleeing the scene. All the cops did was scan the database for every car matching the description of the one fleeing the scene, and Lindsay Isaacs’ black Dodge Durango had recently driven through the area, so police found and arrested her. It turns out that her car had driven through 2 minutes before the accident, and she had no idea that a deadly crash had even occurred. When FHP caught up with her, there was no damage to her car, but that didn’t matter, the cops merely lied and claimed there was. It took her a month to clear her name. It turns out, the vehicle actually involved in the crash was a maroon Durango. She is suing the FHP.
“I feel there’s really no way of fixing what they did to me. It will always hurt me. My reputation was ruined. I’m still receiving death threats and hate. It’s very hard,” Isaacs said.
Alisa Lee Montalvo, 47, of Deltona, was arrested and charged with 9 crimes for that crash, including three counts of vehicular homicide, three counts of leaving the scene of a crash with death, leaving the scene of a crash involving serious bodily injury, reckless driving, and tampering with evidence. (As an aside, in my opinion, there is a good chance she will walk. If I were her attorney, I would introduce to the jury evidence that the police lied to arrest someone else for this crash, then I would attempt to convince the jury that, if they lied in this case once and manufactured evidence, what’s to say they aren’t doing so now? Reasonable doubt all day.)
There are even those who say it’s no big deal, because their shopping habits are benign, the equivalent of “If you have nothing to hide, you should let the police search your home,” but the troubling part isn’t the technology itself or whether or not you value privacy—it’s the complete absence of meaningful limits on how it is being deployed. Every year brings new ways to collect, store, and analyze information about ordinary people, while the legal protections meant to restrain government surveillance continue to erode.
They can paint a pretty accurate picture of your entire life by knowing what you read, your shopping habits, your political opinions, and your whereabouts at any time of the day, and given the time and access, the powers that be can find a law you’ve broken. That’s a certainty.
Each and every one of us is responsible for reading, understanding and following over one million pages of laws, regulations, and court decisions- with complete understanding. If one were to begin studying these laws at age 12 by reading 50 pages per day, by age 67 you would have read all of them. The only problem is that, at the current rate, the government would have added another 500,000 pages of laws and 28 years of reading to your quest while you were busy reading. s of the year 2000 (the last time it was counted) there were nearly 1.7 million regulatory crimes that a person could commit in this country.
If you are spraying insect killer on some ants using a bug spray that says spray from 6 inches away, but you spray from 8 inches, you are a Federal criminal, because failure to follow label instructions is a Federal crime. If you are buying a gun and you live in Florida, you had better use the abbreviation of FL as your address, because using the old abbreviation of FLA is a felony and can land you in prison.
Why is this happening? Ayn Rand gives us an insight into this:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Truer words were never spoken. More laws equals more crimes, which equals more criminals, which equals more power for those enforcing the laws.
The result is a system where everyone is monitored, everyone is cataloged, and anyone can become a suspect based on flawed data, bad assumptions, or outright misconduct. History has repeatedly shown that powers granted in the name of public safety rarely remain confined to their original purpose. Once a surveillance system is built, the pressure is always to expand it, not dismantle it. The question is no longer whether the government can track your movements and associations in near real time; it is whether there will be any meaningful safeguards left when that power is inevitably abused.
The answer to that is, of course, there aren’t, nor will there be.
There is only one destination for the path we are on: tyranny, enslavement, and the complete control of everything. That will eventually lead to revolution. Whether or not that will happen in my productive lifetime is anyone’s guess.
Thanks to Tulsi Gabbard releasing formerly classified documents, we now know all of the conspiracy theories surrounding COVID were in fact true. We now know why so many people had to receive pardons from President Autopen on the way out. They massacred millions of people:
Back in 2022, researchers discovered that the COVID 19 virus was a bioengineered virus. It had a genetic sequence that only had a one in three trillion chance of happening naturally. COVID is the only coronavirus to carry 12 unique letters that allow its spike protein to be activated by a common enzyme called furin, which allows it to spread between human lung cells with ease. In fact, the virus appears to have been engineered using genetic material that was patented by Moderna, which would explain how a vaccine was ready for market within months.
Of course, the FBI had known that since at least 2021, and the papers released by Gabbard show that Fauci was working with the Chinese since at least 2016 to develop bioweapons. It’s likely the same thing was happening in Ukraine. This was a concerted, worldwide effort by the US government to circumvent US laws prohibiting research into biological warfare. You’ll remember that the US government had already tested biological warfare agents by deliberately releasing them in Florida during the 1960s (project 112), with releases in:
The press isn’t saying shit about this. All I know, is that had I been one of those who lost a loved on to COVID, I would be looking for some vengeance. It’s the only way that Fauci will EVER face anything like justice after murdering millions of people worldwide through biological warfare. This is the largest holocaust since WW2, and the US government was behind it.
I have come to the conclusion that our government is truly evil.
This is why I am opposed to the death penalty. A prosecutor caught fabricating evidence using AI:
Brianna Longoria was driving in Phoenix when she was pulled over for running a red light on December 29, 2024. The officer who conducted the stop, a woman by the name of Annette Hannah, pulled her over claimed that she had red, bloodshot, glassy eyes, a sign of marijuana intoxication. Accompanied by her partner, Annette Hannah, they put her through sobriety tests, a breathalyzer, and then arrested her for DUI, saying there were signs of impairment. Brianna had just gotten married the day before, and had to cancel her honeymoon in order to use the money for her legal defense. The arrest also caused her issues with her employment as a nurse, and she lost her driver’s license for 6 months.
She blew a 0.00 breathalyzer. Later, blood tests would show no drugs or alcohol in her system. None. You can beat the charges, but you can’t beat the ride.
Later, her attorney requested body camera footage, which would show that the light was green, so there was no probable cause or RAS for the traffic stop. The officer performing the stop was assigned to the city’s DUI unit, and her body camera caught this:
Her partner, officer Mary Methany: “Triple zeros. Just like I thought.”
Hannah: “They’re going to kick me off squad if I don’t get a DUI. But I seriously pulled like so [unintelligible] …”
Metheny: “No. No. There’s nights where I don’t get any. You’re fine.”
Hannah: “But I’m like, I can’t just conjure one up. I have tried.”
Metheny: “You can. You can.”
Hannah: “I hung out on Seventh Ave., by those bars.”
While Longoria was being arrested, her husband was talking to another police officer who said even if Longoria’s blood alcohol level was 0.0, “the city can do whatever they want to do with those results.”
The police department investigated themselves and found no signs of wrongdoing, and released this statement:
The Phoenix Police Department does not have DUI quotas. DUI enforcement assignments are based on operational needs, and officers assigned to impaired‑driving enforcement are expected to take action when their observations and training lead them to believe a driver may be impaired. Officers are required to base enforcement decisions on observed driving behavior, indicators of impairment, and the totality of the circumstances.
I’ve written about this before- police departments claim not to have quotas, but a few have admitted it. Whether the department has an official, written quota or not, every cop knows that if you don’t write enough tickets, your career is in danger. She certainly wants to protect a career that is paying her $36.90 an hour, and all she has to do to keep it is lie and destroy people’s lives.
Qualified immunity needs to go. Officers need to carry malpractice insurance so the taxpayer doesn’t have to fund this sort of open corruption. Any department found to have quotas, whether they be written or defacto, should result in the lead officer of the department losing their jobs and any law enforcement licenses.
First, a bit of background:
Police have two ways they can talk to someone in the public: consensual or seizure. A police consensual encounter is a voluntary, non-detention interaction where an officer approaches a person to ask questions or for identification. The person is free to leave, refuse to answer questions, or decline requests at any time- to include refusal to provide ID. It does not involve commands, force, or blocked movement.
A seizure is where a person isn’t free to leave. Police can use force to keep you there, they can search you, demand your ID. Noncompliance with this is considered obstruction or resisting and is illegal. The person being questioned still has the ability to refuse to answer questions, or refuse to answer them without a lawyer present. This is why asking police if you are free to leave is so important. This tells you if you are in a consensual encounter or have been seized.
If the police want to talk to you, they can ask or they can seize. In order to seize, they have to have probable cause that you are or have committed a crime, or they have to have a warrant. If you are in your home, a warrant is generally required, if they don’t have exigent circumstances. Those include the belief you are destroying evidence (e.g., flushing drugs down the toilet), or there is something going on that is an emergency (say you are murdering someone in the home). Police cannot make a warrantless, non-consensual seizure inside someone’s home just because they have probable cause. They generally need an arrest warrant (unless exigent circumstances apply). This is important.
Two years ago, three men were involved in a fight in a bar in Saint Cloud, Florida. One of the men was reportedly armed with a handgun and had left the scene. The other two individuals who were in the fight contacted police: one of them refused to give a statement, and the other (visibly intoxicated) man did give a written statement claiming the third man displayed a handgun. Both of the men who spoke to the police at the bar were rather vague on details about the fight or what started it.
The next step you would expect an investigator to do would be to, well…investigate. You would think that the cops would contact the man, ask him to come in and answer a few questions, or perhaps even send a cop or two over there to ask. After all, he isn’t under arrest, they don’t have a warrant, and the contact at this point is consensual. Or supposed to be.
The cops immediately assembled a tactical team and had a meeting where they discussed the methods and tactics they would use to take him into custody. They surrounded the house by posting two cops at the rear of the home to prevent his escape, the cops out front had a K9, bullet shields, and NFA long guns with suppressors. They called him on the phone and asked him to step outside to answer some questions.
What happened next was captured on body camera video, you can see the video below. They held him at gunpoint and ordered him to the ground. Even though his hands were raised, they kicked him to the ground, used the K9 to bite him because he wasn’t going down fast enough, and used quite a bit of force for a consensual encounter.
Any reasonable person would agree that they are not free to leave at this point. This is a seizure. They avoided the requirement for a warrant by luring him outside using a friendly tone and a request to just “Answer a couple of questions.” Since police tricked him to come outside specifically to avoid the warrant requirement, courts tend to scrutinize that. This trick is called constructive entry. This was never intended to be a consensual encounter, as evidenced by their own meeting and plans to take him into custody.
There was no reason to rush over there and arrest him. The incident was over, and there was plenty of time to secure a warrant. There were no exigent circumstances, and therefore no exception to the requirement to get a warrant. This doesn’t look like a casual “knock-and-talk” but more like a planned arrest operation without a warrant, which courts scrutinize closely. Payton v. New York ruled that police cannot do indirectly what they’re forbidden to do directly—i.e., they can’t avoid the warrant requirement by tricking or forcing someone out of their home.
In my mind, there is little doubt that this man’s constitutional rights were violated, both in the arrest without warrant, and in the manner the arrest was carried out. There was no reason to use force on a man who had come out voluntarily and was offering no resistance. Not one of those cops mentioned “hey, maybe there is a better, more constitutional way to do this.” This, in my opinion, destroys the “few bad apples” trope.
To make it even worse, it turned out that this man was the victim and the two intoxicated men had attacked him. The prosecutor in the case dismissed all charges, saying that the case was “unsuitable for prosecution.” He has since filed a lawsuit against the city and its police department for violating his civil rights. The cops will almost certainly hide behind qualified immunity claims.
There is a lesson to be learned here.
I’ve said this before- don’t talk to the police. Ever. There is no such thing as a friendly chat with cop. I will refer you to an old post of mine on the subject that contains a video titled “Don’t talk to the police.” Don’t talk to the cops, no matter what. They aren’t your friends. They aren’t there to help you. They are there to make a case to arrest someone, and they will get the arrest that requires them to do the least amount of work they can. At best, they are there to find reasons to take you to jail, at worst they are there to use their cool toys on you- whether that be a machine gun, a K9, or just a good old fashioned beating.
Most cops are pussies and cowards. We see that time and again- they will use overwhelming force on those who pose no threat, even going so far as to toss grenades into a baby crib, but will cower outside with their machine guns and body armor while children are being killed by an armed murderer.
A cop calls you on the phone and wants you to come out and answer questions, ask them if they have a warrant. If the answer is no, you tell them you don’t want to answer any questions or speak with them until you have an attorney. Offer to come down to the station with your attorney to answer questions, and tell them your attorney will schedule the meeting. Whatever you do, don’t open the door. You have a doorbell camera for a reason.
Open that door, and this just might happen to you. Ever since my incident in Orange County, Florida in 2001 where a Deputy Sergeant threatened to kill me when I presented him with my concealed weapons permit during a traffic stop, I don’t inform cops of shit.
The cops may not have enough to arrest someone, but you talking will give them what they need. If they DO have enough to arrest you, there is nothing you can say that will talk them out of it. Refuse to talk to them, don’t open the door, and go about the rest of your life.
The Washington state legislature just passed a law making it a felony to possess digital files that can be used to make any part on a CNC or a 3d machine that could potentially be used as a part of a firearm.
Not only impossible to make work in any practical or Constitutional sense, it opens a huge can of worms.
Imagine that you are in a car wash. A coworker comes up and you exchange greetings, then both of you continue washing your vehicles. An off duty cop claims that he saw the two of you make an exchange of a “significant” amount of a white substance in a baggie, whether pills or some powder, he doesn’t know, but he saw it. The cop claims that is probable cause (meaning that what he saw is probably a violation of the law) and demands to see your identification, but you refuse. Then they declare that what the off duty cop saw, combined with the your refusal to cooperate justifies the police detaining, searching, and arresting you. That’s what happened to Jake (or Jason) Kidder in Michigan.
The coworker is there, he identified himself and confirmed that the man was his coworker, and that they had exchanged greetings. The coworker was never searched, nor was he ever asked about a baggie of white things. Mr. Kidder’s vehicle was searched for over an hour. In the course of events, no drugs were found. No baggie was found. Nothing was found to corroborate the story of the off duty cop. They arrested Kidder at gunpoint anyway, then he received a body cavity search at the jail. During the search of Mr Kidder’s vehicle, which lasted over an hour and during which they even dismantled his dashboard, nothing was found. The police insisted that this must mean he hid the drugs up his ass, so when he was arrested, the did a body cavity search. Still no drugs or baggie were found. The DA went ahead and filed charges, even though no drugs were ever found.
That didn’t matter to the court system: According to local court records, Kidder faces multiple felony charges: resisting, assaulting, obstructing a police officer, and alleged possession of meth and ecstasy. Kidder denies these drug charges and insists no drugs were found in his truck. Kidder has filed a lawsuit against the officers and the department for wrongful arrest, search without cause, illegal seizure, and excessive force. He claims that officers had no legal basis to stop or search him and that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
It’s important to note the cops muted their body cameras during a significant portion of the encounter. As far as I am concerned, this should be considered tampering with evidence. There is no legitimate reason that I can think of to justify this during an encounter.
Probable cause means, considering the facts as known, it is more likely than not that a crime was committed. An off duty cop, claiming he saw a baggie of an unknown substance that was never found, is considered evidence that:
all despite the fact that he couldn’t even accurately describe the bag or its visible contents. You make the call- did the off duty cop’s claims rise to the point of being sufficient to indicate that it was more likely than not that a crime was committed, and thus deprive Mr. Kidder of his Constitutional rights?
The entire encounter is here, but it’s over an hour long. Note the “Back the Blue” sticker. I bet he doesn’t have that any more.
I know this happened a couple of months ago, but I just learned of it. A man in Stuart, Florida was attending the town’s Christmas parade when police noticed he was wearing what turned out to be Level IV body armor. He was detained and it turned out he was also carrying a dagger and a pistol.
Local residents freaked out, saying that he must have been up to no good, since he was carrying those items and was in the same general area as a sitting congressman.
The cops held him for hours before releasing him without charges. That doesn’t matter to the cops, they kept his vest, knife, and gun, and are going to use a risk protection order to strip him of his rights. Keep in mind, he wasn’t breaking any laws.
This is why I have been, and remain, opposed to so-called “red flag” laws.