Premonition

As annoying as he might've been, Clippy never wanted your data.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@TurtleTime911 @BrianFCullen1 @LongTimeHistory We're circling. I've said it plenty that your property doesn't protect you from criminal activity, and whatever criminal activity she may or may not have engaged in is a temporal blindspot.

Have a good night.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@TurtleTime911 @BrianFCullen1 @LongTimeHistory She's detained from the moment the video is started. From the very first frame of the video they are interacting.

Now, unless you have a different video of reference, you should link it, but otherwise...

Why is that hard to comprehend?

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

Why? I'm the asshole for recognizing that this clip starts after the detainment is already in effect, that there exists a timeline before this clip that might explain why she was detained?

It's hilarious you think you're on the good side of things when you make judgements based on a clip that's missing plenty of context. Stay fearing the boogeyman friend.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

Not exactly. The Oath of Enlistment mentions "enemies foreign and domestic."

Her being on her property, of which I'm hearing parroted a lot, does not give her permission to break the law.

Now.. unless you know the exact events that led up to the video, we don't know if she did or didn't break the law. You're assuming a conclusion with insufficient evidence.

Now, I will repeat, they have every right to do what they did, provided conditions we cannot see exist. The conditions being her breaking a law, something that very well could have happened prior to the beginning of the video.

I'm not worshiping a uniform, I'm not even claiming she did anything wrong (aside from resist detention). It's you assuming the uniform automatically makes her in the right, as if you know the full context of the situation. You don't.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

Why shouldn't they? Because they'd be more effective at it?

Title 32 which is what the National Guard runs under in DC gives them permission to perform law enforcement duties. Don't want to be arrested? Don't break the law.

This woman's performance doesn't beg my sympathy. Those men in uniform are equally your fellow Americans, and under the assumption they are detaining her with good reason (we don't know why they are detaining her, context missing), all I see is her being verbally abusive for no reason.

Then, she breaks a law, resisting detainment. That's why they got physical. Learn it well, actions have consequences.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@TurtleTime911 @BrianFCullen1 @LongTimeHistory Are you saying you know what happened? Whose in the wrong?

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

I don't know why you keep assuming she was ever away from her home to begin with.

Whatever happened before. She could've been in the street throwing bricks, yelled to the person with camera "quick record" as she ran back and sat down to act out this whole charade for idiots like you. They go to the other room to get their phone, and by the time they come back, the NG is already their.

Or.. she could've thrown it from her property, the people upstairs heard it, and by the time they started recording, the NG was already their talking to her.

Or.. she could've been minding her own business, and 3 NG said "hey, lets go fuck with this person for shits and giggles" and then when the dialogue starts, the camera turns on.

We. Don't. Know. I take it on good faith that our NG is not running through the streets terrorizing random people because the incident count would be way up if that were the case, far more recordings (multiples a day), and any attempts to do as such could strip them of their rank and see them jailed. But somehow, half our population is thinking "uniform bad".

Or.. aren't thinking at all.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

Okay? The clip starts from where she's already detained. Whether she was on her property or not, if she committed a crime prior, there's nothing here beyond standard law enforcement actions being taken. There is no "safe zone" that allows you to get away with a crime.

Given her actions in the video, she already shows a psychological pattern to not adhere to authority or law. Resisting detainment itself is a crime that she breaks in the video.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

I didn't make an analogy. I made a point that crime is irrelevant of public or private property. Whatever the crime, it doesn't matter.

I don't have to have an insight into a temporal blindspot to recognize that what hides in that blindspot can very well explain why she's detained from the start of this video and whether it's lawful or not. People are deriving a conclusion where there's not enough information for that.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@TurtleTime911 @BrianFCullen1 @LongTimeHistory Is this seriously an argument? Do you think murder, assault, or selling drugs is okay when it's on private property?

Your property is not a barrier the government can't cross if they witness a crime committed. It's silly you'd imply otherwise.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

From what I hear, that's what they did. That's the "after" the clip section.

Which is the point I'm making the entire time. If she committed a crime, we don't know because it clearly happened before the start of the video. If she didn't, we still don't know because we don't see the lead-up. They detained her, as they very well can in DC, she resisted detainment so they cuffed her, and if what I heard is true they handed her over to the police.

Regardless of before and after, what's visible is "not enough information" to draw a conclusion on whether the detainment was lawful or if they maintained operating within what they can lawfully do after. What is in the video, is nothing that defines unlawful conduct by the NG.

I would argue the resisting of detention as a sign of likelihood that they had lawful grounds to detain her. A "psychological pattern" if you will.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@TurtleTime911 @KKeirsbilc9584 @LongTimeHistory I'd refer to my other reply to you, but to answer the question, it's not. I never said it is. The person is questioning my comment, and I defined the term to show that my description was accurate.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

She is detained, from the start of the video.

Detainment is not arrest, these are two different things. Cuffs were brought out because she resisted detainment, which is actually a crime, but even still she is only detained throughout the video. We literally have on the video a potential psychological clue to whether the detainment itself was legal. If she's willing to get belligerent and resist detainment, she's probably willing to do other crimes, and, given the situation, probably did.

The only question is if the detainment was legal and that can only be answered by seeing what led up to the situation. If she committed a crime, on or off her property, she can be detained by national guard. They call the local police, and then the local police decide if she gets arrested. From what I hear in the grapevine of X, that's what happened. They waited for local law enforcement, and supposedly local law enforcement let her go. That doesn't mean anything either, as police have enforcement discretion, and she clearly resisted detainment which is grounds for arrest. She likely simmered down when they came.

Point is, nothing in the video is authoritarian or shows a woman having her rights stomped on. All it does is beg a question of why that situation happened in the first place. If there's truly no why, then the pitchforks can come out.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@BrianFCullen1 @LongTimeHistory Some light reading for ya.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

She's already detained. Detainment doesn't require cuffs or any physical interaction. "You're detained" is enough.

Cuffs is the option they turned to when she resisted detainment by trying to walk away. Even then, the status of "detained" didn't change, though resisting detainment is a crime.

National Guardsmen can perform law enforcement actions in DC, but they have to hand them over to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement then has enforcement discretion on whether to actually arrest the person. This is why they were there with her "in a semi-circle doing nothing" and the internet is going wild at the horrors of that. They had fulfilled what they can do to the extent of the laws that bind them.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@KKeirsbilc9584 @LongTimeHistory Belligerent - Hostile, Aggressive, and eager to fight or argue. It describes someone who is confrontational.

In the video she's clearly hostile and eager to argue. The definition doesn't define a resulting assault, that's just a possible outcome.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

I see a woman detained, who escalated and got the response that escalation does. What I don't see is the "why" she was detained.

There's nothing in the video that shows her constitutional rights were violated. I understand if you want to retract the like on my other post, the point was that you have a label "maga" and since Trump is president these national guardsmen are obviously doing something evil.

She committed a crime during the video that went unenforced, and that's "resisting detainment." She didn't get violent, but she did a silly that could've had a worse outcome for her. From what I've heard, they called the local police, and the local police used enforcement discretion to let her off the hook.

Still, the detainment could've been unlawful. Need more information, particular the "before" of the video.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

There's a very real difference from the law and the spirit of the law my friend.

Yes, that's the law, and I even did specifically point that out in my post. It's the whole point of my first, short paragraph in that post.

Why can't the government silence you? Why is political speech the most protected of speech? It's the marketplace of ideas we protect. But, a marketplace of ideas is only so meaningful as the people who would at least see the product before they decide to buy or not. The problem of enforcing people to listen to you is then the infringement on their freedoms.

In the *spirit* of that you would hear someone out. Of course, that person could've easily just categorized me a Nazi and that justifies the mute. If it were true by definition, I could agree with it. The problem is that critical thinking is so drowned down on people that if you suggest enforcing immigration law you are a Nazi and if you suggest free healthcare you are a communist - when neither sit on truth but create the conditions to not listen to someone and hear the nuance of that discussion.

In the spirit of it, you would listen, see if they bring a different view to the table then what you're used to, debate where you see a difference or a problem. It's just as much about changing my mind as it is yours.

But yeah.. it's not an infringement to do the public performance of "reply>block", it just doesn't lie well in the spirit of why we cherish 1A.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

Welcome to social media, the public forum for discourse nowadays. I provide sources and a small description of the content of each video. His response is to block me.

This is exactly how propaganda and brainwashing works. Isolate what you want seen and blast it to the masses. This is why news organizations started taking Trump off live streams, to curate what their viewers see. Constant claims that he's authoritarian because he's enforcing laws we have on the books (those laws exist for a reason, mind you), yet it's literally the reason of the -ist and -phobe rhetoric, the blocks, cancel culture, and doxxing that the left does all the time. They are all ways to suppress dissent.

I'm not right wing. I'm all for fast tracking legal immigration, marijuana legalization, and hell I'm not even that much against "medicare for all" (there's a lot of nuance to that discussion). However I will always be against anybody who thinks my first amendment rights are negotiable, and any other forms of censorship that makes America feel less free. That's today's left.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@craftingflan @LongTimeHistory Not quite the full fit from this one post, but the Us vs. Them thinking is definitely their.

I care about your actions, not your political alignment.

[Premonition @SepticTank53]

@IgorForHire @LongTimeHistory and that reason could exist prior to the start of the video. There's a temporal timeline that exists outside of it, and we don't have the cognitive powers to see beyond that peripheral.

Despite my name.