https://nyti.ms/2R6idyq

W T F

So that essentially means that people should be armed and protect themselves...

https://k.im/

I'd say you have no duty to comply with officers who have no duty to protect you.

Yeah, essentially if you go further with that....

so I hope that it goes to the higher Courts and the SCOTUS has to deal with that at one time

Why the public needs to exercise the right to carry arms unfettered by ass-clowns in government, so that the criminal class fears the public

It will go higher. On the same day another court said the school based officer did have a duty. Given the clear conflict, it will go to an appeals court to clarify.

"Officers had no duty to protect Students"

well I say Government has no duty to pay their fucking asses then.

We're talking legal definitions here. There's a difference between thier "sworn duty" and a legal "duty of care"

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/alexander-hall/2018/12/21/patreon-staff-change-rules-justify-banning-free-speech

is this true? after double down on their reason for banning sargon they re-invented another reason to justify their actions?

It is their fucking job, if you don't want to put yourself in dangerous situations don't be a cop. They don't get paid to sit on their asses and stare at Jail bait all day.

They are Antifa's preferred plattform...

i agree

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/12/egypt-constitution-amendments-sisi-president-powers.html

an anyone clue me into the events of vidcon?

can*

Sargon went into Anita's panel

sat in the front row..

got called a "Garbage Human"

thats all?

Yarp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r0F33CZ3lM&t=845s @caykoh

so they're now saying they banned sargon because anita insulted him for sitting at a public event?

that looks worse then the previous reason

umm i dont know, are they?

@A Haunted Army

erad the article and watch teh video, looks that way

link me?

scroll up dude

Naomi CrayZeeHair
RAW: Anita Sarkeesian Verbal Abuse at Vidcon 2017 Part 2/4 | Crazy...

that one?

well thats what i was replying to yes

read the newbuster article as well

Ah sorry I caught the one even further up

Yeah that one

but wouldn't adminitrative action like strikes/banning etc. from something like patreon be predicated on the individuals history? I jsut figure because if you get lets say a "strike", if another offense eventually rises, dont they see if theres already any 'strikes'?

sure, but when tht incident happened patreon said sargon did nothing wrong