The Quash - The right to seek justice on your own
Listen to The Quash - The right to seek justice on your own by The Quash Productions, LLC on Podcast Addict. In this episode I try and open peoples eyes to the absurdity and contradiction they've accepted from "the govt". NO sane person would ever give up ...
Legalman's articles were the best. Unfortunately he stopped writing and his website is no longer online so I have to point people to archives instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20200225103240/http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/how-it-is-done-to-you/ I wish he went back to writing because I find his spoken arguments are much weaker and longwinded.
In this podcast he pretty much explains my own view that ordinary people should be able to go after criminals just like police do. The problem is with exactly how this is implemented, which he barely addresses. Legalman seems to hold my view that a legal system should still try vigilantes to check they were in fact responding to a crime and their actions were proportionate. But he seems to think if you kill someone who wronged you then you should get a standard criminal trial where evidence beyond reasonable doubt is needed that not only did you do the killing but that it was unprovoked or disproportionate.
But it's really easy to create a shred of doubt about that by saying the person you killed did something bad that nobody else witnessed - they raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun, stole your wallet. The prosecution would then have to prove that something didn't happen, which could be much harder than proving something did happen. So this system would allow criminals (posing as vigilantes) to get away with so much by making up excuses that can't be disproved. It might still be better than the current system, but not great.
An alternative system would be to make the vigilante prove that the crime they were responding to happened - not beyond reasonable doubt, just according to the preponderance of evidence. But how do you prove someone raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun or stole your wallet? Most crimes would have a decent amount of evidence that could be used to attempt exoneration of the vigilante but sometimes there wouldn't be much evidence at all. So this system would result in good vigilantes being punished. Furthermore if only a preponderance of evidence is needed then vigilantism becomes a way to inflict serious punishments on people without evidence beyond reasonable doubt needed, albeit with risks to the vigilante.
I think a more nuanced approach would be needed. For example, the vigilante needs at least some small amount of evidence to corroborate their story unless their story is one which is unlikely to have left evidence, in which case the vigilante has to be beyond suspicion - there is no evidence the vigilante had a motive to harm that person and they are not thought to be of bad moral character by the community.
His prior series was on jury nullification, which is an interesting court procedure everyone here should at least learn about whether they agree with it or not.
He does a lot of lyndon Spooner stuff. Yes a great podcast. I wish he had archive of all his stuff but i probably just need to pay up for his patreon.
I would suggest the issue that needs to be questioned and investigated is what exactly "sane" means. More to the point, what needs to be clearly understood is how the human mind actually works. Sensible conclusions can be drawn from false premises only by accident.
Did you listen to the part LegalMan explains that he believes it is done to emasculate and demoralize White men? They are cheated out of justice by kike jew judges and DEI shitskins squatting in the justice system.
For crimes like getting your car smashed and broken into or your tool shed looted, the police and government don't even give a shit. Were you robbed or looted of anything less than $5,000? government and police don't give a shit.
Was your business vandalized and looted by BLM and Antifa while the local police were ordered by Soros funded DA offices to stand down? They don't give a shit. You can't sue the police department or city for refusing to protect and serve your business or private property.
Why did White people ever give the authority to a perverted, corrupt government to settle their own scores for them? White men in White towns used to arrest their own criminals. Groups of farmers grabbed their guns and went and apprehended nigger criminals themselves and lynched them and justice was served. We are lied to and told these White men were racists. But they were fair honest honorable men. They took great care to not lynch innocent people.
No one waited on the police department to take out a red coat. White farmers knew what to do.
Now we are lied to and they call it "Vigilantism" to demonize it.
https://episodes.captivate.fm/episode/af214900-dad3-45e4-8689-6fb90d9ddaa2.mp3
Seeking distorts seeing...seeing implies in response to origin (perceivable); seeking implies narrowing sight towards outcome (suggested).
Option aka op (to choose) tion (action). Action (balance) moves towards reaction (choice)...seeking tempts one to ignore that process.
"Seek an ye shall find" implies that no matter what; where; when; why one seeks...foundation was always there for one to seek within.
People (plural) implies an aggregation of person (singular)...person implies per sonos (by sound) aka each one within singularity of all sound.
One wasn't born a people, but a person. One chooses to identify as a people, hence joining others mentally (ideal) and physically (idol).
a) Trap implies a "contrivance for catching unawares"...consenting to any suggestion makes ones perception unaware of all perceivable.
Ones consent gets one caught within a consensus with others.
b) IN (life) SIDE (inception/death) implies being given SIGHT WITHIN...which one ignores when choosing to hold onto any side.
Aka ones consent to the suggestion of another, hence a credit/credence given to approve another to govern ones mind with the suggested.