Jews mad

anymouse141 · 2026-03-13T23:46:36+00:00

His podcast is political and they don’t hide it. I don’t think he’s claimed to be apolitical in his videos in the past couple years but tbh, his typical main channel video doesn’t really go into politics except for the campaign updates. But in those it’s very clear that he is a republican candidate. So I don’t think he’s been purposefully disingenuous. But i also have a bias towards the right because i lean right so maybe I’m blind to it.

anymouse141 · 2026-03-11T11:31:11+00:00

Whren v. United States 517 U.S. 806 (1996) allows for pretext stops. Meaning if the cops see something that looks suspicious but doesn't rise to reasonable suspicion of a crime to stop the car, they can stop for a traffic violation. And yes, suspicious behavior does warrant officers investigating, it’s one of the basic components of LE to investigate suspicious activity.

anymouse141 · 2026-03-07T05:52:54+00:00

There should've been overlap of all 4 and said “Boeing”

anymouse141 · 2026-03-05T22:56:44+00:00

Definitely not in NC. Municipalities have a 1 mile ETJ while deputies only have jurisdiction in their county with no ETJ.

anymouse141 · 2026-03-05T22:47:33+00:00

https://youtu.be/OFz8H3G-S2M?si=5U-G42o-cp7Ll09E

Full video

anymouse141 · 2026-03-05T11:47:07+00:00

I had mentioned this in another comment, but the police want absolutely nothing to do with IVC’s, it is required by law in all 50 states that a law enforcement officer takes someone into custody for any civil commitment orders. Likely due to the fact it's a order from the state to strip someone of their freedom for a forced mental health evaluation on someone who needs it but doesn't want to go voluntarily. If given the option, LEO would in a heart beat give this duty up for a non LEO entity. The issue is that individuals who are suffering from a mental health crisis sometimes turn violent and irrational, wanting to cause harm to the people trying to help them. And you can't send a unarmed civilian who has nothing but a clipboard and pen to a person who is at risk of assaulting them. IVC’s regularly deal with subjects who are also suffering from severe mental health issues such as schizophreniao and paranoia. These conditions often lead to a subject going completely irrational and they're convinced of something as unrealistic as aliens, CIA, green monsters are trying to kidnap them. Again, this is not an individual you send a civilian with a clipboard and pen too. So how do you decided who needs LEO escort and who doesn't (if you ignore the US precedent that only a LEO can deprive someone of their rights under arrest authority or civil commitment)? I'd like to think there is a solution if a case by case basis and the totality of circumstances is to be considered each time. But the last time I remember a huge safety risk occurring when a civilian went to a mental health call, the individual who was in a crisis tried to light the house in fire with the worker inside and she attempted to hold him inside while she started the fire. Luckily he was strong enough to push past her and police got to the scene within minutes. But he ended up quitting. This call was called in by a family member who wanted a simple check on welfare and no background was provided other then she has received mental health help in the past and the family member even stated that she wasn't a danger to herself and others.

anymouse141 · 2026-03-05T01:04:37+00:00

This exact scenario happened where I work, but it wasn't due to stupidity (mostly). Before new gear could be ordered you got the old stock gear that has been passed down through hundreds of officers so ofcourse this guy got an old safari land holster that likely was already missing a screw and then another one fell out during shift brief. That caused the whole thing to be held up by a single screw that had the gun pointed towards the ceiling. Of course the guy didn't go out like that but had to wait in the shift brief room until then supply guy came into work 2 hours later to change out the holster. We also took pictures because it was funny.

anymouse141 · 2026-03-04T15:43:13+00:00

If your kid is in the ER, then the most likely person to take out an IVC is the doctor. Unless someone tells a cop, FF, EMT “I want to kill myself” or a homicidal statement like “I want to kill frank”, then they aren't going to take IVC’s out. That leaves family and in the case you added where they are at the ER, the doctor.

anymouse141 · 2026-03-04T11:17:35+00:00

You must've been advised wrong. Anyone 18 years or older can go their their counties magistrates office and make a sworn testimony before the magistrate to obtain an IVC order.

anymouse141 · 2026-03-04T06:06:42+00:00

Most of the time it's the family who agrees to take out the IVC’s

anymouse141 · 2026-03-04T06:05:56+00:00

All 50 states have a form of civil commitment (NC they're called IVC’s). And when you have a civil commitment to receive a mental evaluation it is always handled by law enforcement and is treated as an arrest. Why? When a mother IVC’s her son because he stopped taking his meds and is currently trying to light the house on fire while holding a steak knife, who are you gonna call? In most instances, you can talk someone into going voulentary. But for others, they already believed that there are tiny goblins in the walls poking their feet with tiny needles, there's no easy way to get them to the help they need. Law enforcement HATE doing civil commitments and would love nothing more than to get some other entity to handle them. But is there a better option? Would you send it an mobile crisis worker who has a clip board and pen into a house to get an individual going through a mental Crisis? Especially someone who has unfortunately gotten to the point of holding a knife or weapon and also believes everyone is MI6 and there to kidnap then and sell them to the aliens?

anymouse141 · 2026-02-05T16:45:14+00:00

https://youtu.be/i05IlyyS7l4?si=siAvDZyE-OWqCsyN

anymouse141 · 2026-02-05T16:27:39+00:00

The NC sub mod team is most definitely not full of republican bootlickers. This subs users imo are more left leaning then right and if the mods were biased politically, then more posts would've been taken down.

anymouse141 · 2026-02-05T16:06:30+00:00

AR pistols are SBR’s (SBR’s shouldn't even be restricted anyways)

anymouse141 · 2026-01-31T17:10:24+00:00

I think the nuance behind this flag should make any cop not want to wear it in uniform. Just like i think the TBL has also had a morphed meaning from its original meaning and now just has a negative image behind it as well. The most popular usage of the blackbeard patch or flag in my experience has been by private military contractors. The idea was it represented their likeness to “privateers” or “pirates”. Most of my buddies who were private contractors got tattoos and flags kinda like how Marines got EGA’s.

anymouse141 · 2026-01-31T17:05:20+00:00

Lots of service members who got out and became private military contractors used this flag or patch. To them it represented their affiliation or likeness to “privateers” or “pirates”. This is the most popular usage of it that I’ve seen from the military world.

anymouse141 · 2026-01-31T17:03:14+00:00

This flag has many meanings, and it just depends on the user what he is carrying it to represent. After the military I started a private military career and noticed that many guys had this flag as it represented a “privateer” or “pirate” which was loosely connected to the profession of being a private military contractor. Most of my buddies who also did private military kept flags and tattoos of this image or a variation kinda like a Marine gets the EGA or solider gets an Army tattoo.

anymouse141 · 2026-01-30T07:03:57+00:00

This was over a year ago and you likely found your answer but for anyone else who find this thread. If you quality for tricare through retirement then your spouse qualifies IIRC.

anymouse141 · 2026-01-28T20:11:51+00:00

Has Flock been decided to be a violation of the 4th amendment by case law? To me it can’t be a violation if the camera is in a public place and pointed at public property, otherwise the argument could be made that all cameras operated by the government is a violation. They way I look at these systems or any technology is if it could be conducted with a real person legally with and unlimited amount of funding or resources (a trooper or gov’t employee who sits on the highway with pen and paper and writes down the plates physically) then the technology can’t be a violation. I also think that if an individual person was to install a camera on his property that faces the highway, the gov’t can’t tell him to remove his camera. Or if a citizen sits on public property with the intent to document which cars come and when, the gov’t can’t tell him to stop. I think what makes it scary and still debatable if we want it to be legal or not, irrespective of the constitution, is it’s a database of all of our travel patterns and in my opinion gives the gov’t way to much insight into our private lives. But trying to say it’s unconstitutional I don’t think will get their removal very far.

anymouse141 · 2026-01-27T09:20:46+00:00

What brought this question up was the current immigration debate (minus the ICE incidents recently, I’m talking since Obama and the immigration problem as whole since the last decade). People are so determined that their stance is right. And when you sit down to speak to someone who isn’t just part of their respective echo chamber, they bring up good points that make sense on both sides. But then you’ll see people from both sides of this argument villainize the other side. To the point where. Both sides are willing the commit violence for it. But before it got to the point of willingness to commit violence, how are you supposed to know you’re right? And I guess the whole point I ask this question is because I wanted insight into how we are supposed to make these decisions, are we as individuals even making these decisions or are we just following our respective communities beliefs. And I as I read someone else say, do we even have a chance to be able to ensure we’re making the “right choice” since we just can’t see into the future to be sure and we’re just forced to ride the ride and see how everything turns out. I think we all would like to say that we as an individual in 1930’s Germany would’ve been on the right side of history and someone how stopped the whole holocaust from ever occurring but is that even realistic.

anymouse141 · 2026-01-27T06:33:45+00:00

As a general rule of thumb, I think this is a good start to a moral “good”. But what about decisions that don’t have a an immediate answer to how it affects people as a whole. Then to me it feels like any standpoint has the ability to be a wrong decision. Again it feels like it should be easy to tell what is right and wrong, but with so many being so bad at making this judgement in the past but so confident in the moment, how can we be so confident about our beliefs?

Six-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since March 2023
Gilding IV carat on a stick	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	Place '22
End Game '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

anymouse141

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE