All the retards who talk about “back the blue” and “hold the line”, this is what they support.

We must never forget that the police are not our friends and are not here to protect and serve us.

The Mask Gestapo are only just getting started, but they’ve been trained and waiting for a time like this to unleash their inner turmoil on us. They’ve had all the practice they needed over the years, being road pirates and violating our personhoods and what not. Armed to the teeth with military weapons and tactical gear awaiting to be unleashed. You and I are their enemy. There is no foreign enemy!

Thugs who use violence on citizens; mindlessly following orders, have destroyed their own reputations.

The slogan, “Everybody hates the police” doesn’t just express an observation, but an effect which is vital. Contrary to the cowardly worries of governing authorities and editorialists, there is no “gulf that deepens year by year between the police and the population” which needs to be mended. The police, as we have seen around the world and we will see in the near future, are weapons of the state and state officials and nothing more.

When I was younger I honestly thought police had power over politicians and the government and I believed that they would fight for justice. Byt boy was I wrong!

Federal officers, according to courts around the country and the judicial system in general, operate in a “Constitution Free-zone”. This means that in the United States, there is no federal law that allows you to sue federal officials who violate your rights.

In the case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, six agents from the Federal Bureau of Narcotics forced their way into Bivens’ home without a warrant and searched the premises. The agents handcuffed Bivens in front of his family and arrested him on drug charges. The agents then interrogated him and subjected him to a visual strip search. Bivens later sued each agent for $15,000 in damages for humiliation and mental suffering. Both the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action, meaning there was no law allowing federal officials to be sued. The Supreme Court, however, recognized that we have an implied right to sue federal officials who violate our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. After all, what would be the purpose of having rights if federal officials could violate those rights without consequence?

In a kiss of death to civil liberties, the Supreme Court has since fatally limited the application of Bivens actions to only those cases with the same exact set of facts as Bivens. In other words, in order to hold federal officials accountable, a case must be identical to Bivens’ case, including such trivial things as the ranks of the officers involved, or else the case will get dismissed. What are the odds of finding a case exactly like Bivens? Maybe that’s the point. It’s almost as if the Supreme Court doesn’t want to hold its counterparts accountable.

If a case survives that hurdle, then it must also contend with qualified immunity, which shields government officials from accountability unless they violate a clearly established right. A right is clearly established if there is a case or law that is sufficiently similar and puts a government official on notice that his or her conduct is unconstitutional.

Even if a case overcomes qualified immunity, government officials are indemnified, which means that they are never truly held accountable for their actions because it is not the wrongdoer who foots the bill, it is the taxpayers.

I am not making the argument that indemnity should not exist at all, but rather that it shouldn’t apply in all circumstances, like in the case of a federal agent who abuses his authority to settle a personal beef or to three state troopers who caught themselves on a recording fabricating evidence against a protestor. The government outrageously protects its own corrupt behavior.

Both the Bivens doctrine and the qualified immunity doctrine are a fictions of the Court. That is, the Court made these doctrines up out of thin air without any statutory authority behind them. The difference is, one is sorely limited and the other is given carte blanche. In the case of a Bivens action, which holds government accountable for Fourth Amendment violations, the Supreme Court is ultra-conservative, preferring to let congress weigh in. If the facts of a case aren’t identical to Bivens, like the ranks of the officers involved, then the case will be dismissed. Conversely, because qualified immunity protects government, the Supreme Court applies it liberally, across the board, to every officer without regard to rank or whether congress should weigh in on it since it is their job to create law. The Supreme Court offers a seemingly innocent explanation for why Bivens actions should be so limited in the absence of congress weighing in: the Bivens case was decided in a time when the Court thought that it was their job to enforce the purpose of a law. Now, the Court said, they take a far more cautious role, looking at the intent of the law. The court also clarified that yielding to congress is of utmost importance.

This is tyranny! Welcome to hell, where mask police are protected and beyond reproof.

Don’t worry, though. They are here to protect us.