Massacre of Jayland Walker Sounded Like Fireworks. On Video an Army of Lathered-Up, White Akron Cops Shot Unarmed Black Man 60X as He Fled on Foot. Cops Claim He Didn't Stop for Traffic Violation
/Gun Control in liberal Akron? TRAFFIC CAMERAS OR PRIVATE SECURITY WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT. Unarmed Black Man fleeing on foot Massacred by an army of lathered-up, barbaric white cops. Cops claim he failed to pull over for an unknown traffic violation, so they went on a manic chase. Cops Claim he fired a gun while driving - but have no tangible evidence that a gun was discharged. Nor did they say who they believed he shot at. He was unarmed and posed no threat as he fled from cops on foot. Cops never saw a gun because it was on his car seat, out of view at all times from the killers.
Akron is a city run by white liberals as Democrats control all branches of government.
According to FUNKTIONARY:
government paradox - Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis—pay and obey or get shot. "To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so, they cease to be a government. That's quite the conundrum." —Marc Stevens. (See: Statism, Nations, Slavery, Standing, Jurisdiction, State, Unalienable Rights, Freedom, Predictive Programming, Education & Citizens)
Don’t blame the gun, Blame authority. Jayland was murdered for failing to comply with an order to pull over and an order to remain in his vehicle or to stop. In other words, he was murdered for failing to comply with authority. All laws or commands by authorities are threats backed by the ability and willingness to use violence/force against those who disobey. The reality is simply obey authority or go to jail or be murdered. Fool yourself if you want to, but there is nothing consensual or voluntary in our legal system. The legal system is entirely based on and anchored in physical coercion, violence.
Authority is not real, it is simply a belief. Authority is the belief in the government’s implied right to rule over people in the first place. Authority is the belief that some people have the legal and moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have a legal and moral obligation to obey.’ Michael Huemer defines political authority as “the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else.”
In real life authority is a granfalloon, an unreality. FUNKTIONARY explains Authority “has no meaning in reality,” it “is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Authority is a “cartoon” or an “image of law” because among other things the social contract is a lie told to you by your masters. Consequently, there is no rational justification for anyone or entity to rule over other human beings. Authority is rule through coercion.” Coercion here means physical force. “Laws” are threats backed by the ability and willingness to use violence/force against those who disobey. Huemer explains ‘the legal system is anchored by a non-voluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices.’ The only actual choice authority presents to citizens is to obey commands and laws or go to jail. Locke states, “The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain the freedom of life by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.” The rebel Larken Rose explains,
Contrary to what nearly everyone has been taught to believe, “government” is not necessary for civilization. It is not conducive to civilization. It is, in fact, the antithesis of civilization. It is not cooperation, or working together, or voluntary interaction. It is not peaceful coexistence. It is coercion; it is force; it is violence. It is animalistic aggression, cloaked by pseudo-religious, cult-like rituals which are designed P make it appear legitimate and righteous. It is brute thuggery, disguised as consent and organization. It is the enslavement of mankind, the subjugation of free will, and the destruction of morality, masquerading as “civilization” and “society.” The problem is not just that “authority” can be used for evil; the problem is that, at its most basic essence, it is evil. In everything it does, it defeats the free will of human being controlling them through coercion and fear. It supersedes and destroys moral consciences, replacing them with unthinking blind obedience. It cannot be used for good, any more than a bomb can be used to heal a body.
Huemer offers the following:
Government is a coercive institution. Generally speaking, when the state makes a law, the law carries with it a punishment to be imposed upon violators. It is possible to have a law with no specified punishment for violation, but all actual governments attach punishments to nearly all laws.[7] Not everyone who breaks the law will in fact be punished, but the state will generally make a reasonable effort at punishing violators and will generally punish a fair number of them, typically with fines or imprisonment. These punishments are intended to harm lawbreakers, and they generally succeed in doing so.
Direct physical violence is rarely used as a punishment. Nevertheless, violence plays a crucial role in the system, because without the threat of violence, lawbreakers could simply choose not to suffer punishment. For example, the government commands that drivers stop before all red lights. If you violate this rule, you might be punished with a $200 fine. But this is simply another command. If you didn’t obey the command to stop before all red lights, why would you obey the command to pay $200 to the government? Perhaps the second command will be enforced by a third command: the government may threaten to revoke your driver’s license if you do not pay the fine. In other words, it may command you to stop driving. But if you violated the first two commands, why would you follow the third? Well, the command to stop driving may be enforced by a threat of imprisonment if you continue to drive without a license. As these examples illustrate, commands are often enforced with threats to issue further commands, yet that cannot be all there is to it. At the end of the chain must come a threat that the violator literally cannot defy. The system as a whole must be anchored by a nonvoluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices.
That anchor is provided by physical force. Even the threat of imprisonment requires enforcement: how can the state ensure that the criminal goes to the prison? The answer lies in coercion, involving actual or threatened bodily injury or, at a minimum, physical pushing or pulling of the individual’s body to the location of imprisonment. This is the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.
Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion. To justify a law, one must justify imposition of that law on the population through a threat of harm, including the coercive imposition of actual harm on those who are caught violating the law. In common sense morality, the threat or actual coercive imposition of harm is normally wrong. This is not to say that it cannot be justified; it is only to say that coercion requires a justification. This may be because of the way in which coercion disrespects persons, seeking to bypass their reason and manipulate them through fear, or the way in which it seems to deny the autonomy and equality of other persons.
