Solution To The Daniel Shaver Atrocity

The murder of Daniel Shaver by police may be the most egregious example of police behavior captured on video.

The Daniel Shaver atrocity was triggered when an alarmist busy-body called the police about a non-crime, which resulted in the murder of the unarmed Daniel Shaver, who was the person on whom the instigator was spying. An obvious solution would be to punish instigators, but that is at best a partial solution because instigators don’t cause the police to commit atrocities, they are just a convenient pretense used by police.

The mainstream narrative is that the cause of the the Daniel Shaver atrocity is that the people in the US have hand guns (unlike the people in other countries), and that the police therefore encounter armed citizens so frequently that it has caused them to overreact by abusing and murdering citizens. However, if Americans had hand guns before, and police did not behave this way before, then something else would have to be the cause.

Although the media claim that shootings of cops is skyrocketing, the reality is that shooting of cops is on a downward trend. It seems like the media also talk about cops being killed more than they talk about cops killing people, but the reality is that about 50 cops are shot each year, whereas, cops kill over 1100 people every year (and that’s just their behavior while on-duty). The new warrior cop mentality is thus not caused by the trend in police deaths, or by total police deaths.

Of course, police are only human and would thus, to some extent, be incited by how the media exaggerates the threat posed by the people. Another partial solution would thus be for the people to boycott those media outlets. My conclusion from reading and watching the media is that such media outlets include all of the mainstream media and a significant amount of controlled “alternative” media, and I do indeed boycott them now.

Also, if cops encountering handguns is really prevalent in the US, then that means cops in the US should have way more experience than cops in other countries at deescalating such scenarios, so prevalence of armed citizens should make American cops the most skilled at deescalation, rather than the least skilled. Does the cop in the Daniel Shaver video look like he has experience deescalating such scenarios? Does he look like he wants to deescalate the situation?

Could the training received by police be the cause? This video indicates that police have been trained and equipped as if they are in a war against the people, and the “No More Hesitation” program of Obama’s DHS is another example of how police are trained to commit atrocities. We thus see how police are trained and equipped to play the role of the warrior cop, but that does not explain why cops don’t seem to be afraid to get in trouble for such atrocities.

If the government were far more powerful than the people, and if its agents were extremely difficult to indict and convict for their actions, then that would explain why cops seem to feel godlike and above the law. Here is another example of a cop who obviously feels above the law.

We know that carrying a gun does not make the police (or the people) behave badly because concealed carry permit holders carry guns daily and are convicted of crimes about one seventh as often as cops, and if we make the reasonable assumption that cops are 7 times harder to indict and convict, then that would mean cops commit crimes 49 times more often than permit holders.

It is simple logic that if cops are above the law, then cops are outside the law, and if cops are outside the law, then cops are outlaws. If this is indeed a problem resulting from the government being far more powerful than the people, then the solution would be to make the government less powerful and/or make the people more powerful; whereas, the mainstream narrative of disarming the people would actually worsen the problem.

How is it the party that wants to empower the little guy—is the party that wants to disarm the little guy?

Why would police be trained to escalate conflict, and why would the media exacerbate that problem?

Consider that all conflict can be used as a pretext for disarming the people and expanding the police state, but why would those at the top want to do that, and why would the media help them? Surely that is too risky of a strategy if their only goal were to funnel more money to crony corporations (greed), but it is now self-evident that the leaders of the global media, the intelligence community, and the political parties are on the same side and engage in extreme criminal behavior to achieve their agenda, and it is self-evident that anyone who wants power would like to have more control over the people.

It looks like the only thing holding these players back is the illusion of legitimacy. Perhaps to make government less powerful and the people more powerful, we must first pierce the illusion of legitimacy.

Jim
 

>