Posts by Anthony Jackson2

I honestly wonder if the big shots in charge actually have the guts to roll back the restrictions when the time comes. It was easy enough to pass them initially—everyone had a built-in excuse.

Now we’re hitting the stage where every single move carries a massive price tag for the federal treasury and puts thousands of jobs on the line.

My guess? They'll probably just lean on those same old excuses to extend everything—mostly because the top brass doesn't want to deal with the media backlash.

We're reaching a point where economists finally need a seat at the table—makes me wonder if they'll be just as submissive as the epidemiologists have been so far.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:People have been saying this for ages: there are hundreds of thousands, if not more, people worldwide who have already cruised through the virus and built up antibodies.

That’s exactly the group researchers will be hunting for in upcoming trials. In fact, plenty of people in China have already been used to help develop vaccines. I was reading this morning that they started human trials in China this week using two potential vaccines based on antibodies pulled from the blood of survivors.

That’s why everyone keeps stressing the importance of wearing masks. It’s how we protect ourselves and everyone else.

The WHO is claiming we won't see anything from vaccines for at least another 12 months... if that's true, then all these lockdowns have been a total waste of time.

To be fair, the WHO hasn't really maintained any credibility with their constant "expertise" since this epidemic started—hard to take them seriously on just about anything anymore.

don't do that—you're testing my patience🤦

Paul Martinez73 said:Another way to protect property is through self-defense. A person whose possession is being interfered with has the right to defend that property using force against whoever is taking it or disturbing them. It's a reaction meant to stop the interference, though one must be careful not to cross the line of what constitutes reasonable self-defense.

This right is tied to the following conditions that must be met:

– the interference with possession must be unlawful,

– permitted self-defense must be taken within 30 days, or specifically within one year,

– if it is necessary because legal assistance would arrive too late,

– the danger of interference must be immediate,

– and only if the force used isn't greater than what the circumstances justify.

☕

Nice attempt at cherry-picking the fine print, but the law is surprisingly straightforward here.

Permissible Self-Defense

Section 27.

(1) Anyone entitled to possessory protection may defend their property using force against anyone who unlawfully deprives them of possession or disturbs their possession, provided it is necessary because judicial assistance would arrive too late and the danger is imminent—but only if the force used is not greater than what is reasonable under the circumstances (permissible self-defense).

Since there was zero actual danger involved, this section doesn't apply—which means your little theory just falls apart.

Paul Martinez73 said:I honestly can't tell if you're refusing to understand or if you just can't. I'm starting to question your mental capacity at this point. It seems pretty obvious to me that you're just trolling, but whatever.

Let me break it down for you one more time—maybe then it'll sink in.

Actual documentation would mean filming IN FRONT OF the church! Calling the police, having a police report, and expecting the police to actually act on a tip!

What happened was illegal UNAUTHORIZED FILMING on PRIVATE PROPERTY! And under the law, if someone interferes with your property, you have the right to use reasonable force to defend it. Basically, you're allowed to push someone off your land.

I don't know if the ALL CAPS helped you grasp the concept.

If the police had received a formal report, they would have shown up just like they always do.

It turned out later that the police didn't actually follow protocol when they arrived—which basically means the reporter was right to warn everyone about the legal violations.

Recording someone on private property without permission is a violation of the law—period. And honestly, the law actually states that if someone is trespassing, you have the right to use reasonable force to protect your property. Basically, you're allowed to push someone off your land if you have to.

No, that’s just not what the law says—you can't do that.

The Police said they got a tip—and if that's the case, they would’ve shown up just like they always do, and will continue to do from here on out.

The lawbreaking was announced days in advance—the police had plenty of justification for stepping in preventatively. Like I said before, they didn't even move when the report came in; they waited until the Holy Mass was over. Any other gathering like this would have been shut down by force immediately. It just brings us back to the privileged ones—I’m not going to list who those people are in this circle, because we all know.

Paul Martinez73 said:So you're basically advocating for breaking the law here?
Look, you can report things, take photos, or film people coming in and out of a church, and if the police won't act, sure, write a killer exposé about it. You can even bug the priest after service or give him a call. But you cannot just barge onto private property, regardless of what you think your reasoning is. Even the cops aren't allowed to do that.

"Entering private property can result in a civil trespass lawsuit or in criminal charges. To trespass means you’ve entered the property without consent, or you’ve refused to leave when asked. In most states, it’s fine to approach a person’s home or business to ask the owner or occupant whether she will, for example, agree to be interviewed. But once she refuses or asks you to leave, remaining there is a trespass. You also can’t enter private property simply because you want to gather news there (e.g., to capture photos or video)."

I knew American laws used certain slang terms, but I didn't realize they were being written in English.

So, a great shot of 20 people crammed into four square feet

Just like the data suggests ☕—the only way to fix this mess would be to put half of these idiots in mandatory isolation

She was busy gathering evidence for a report to the 🤷

The cops showed up and just stood there waiting for the mouse to finish—so what are we actually talking about here? 🤣

If she hadn't called them in, nobody would ever know—privileged people in America can basically do whatever they want. Whether it's Mamica, Bandika, Horvatincica, or the Church... it’s all the same story.

I’m not dodging anything—my stance has been clear from the jump: people shouldn't be banned from going outside, they just need enough common sense not to put themselves or others at risk. I've walked through downtown a few times and people actually follow the rules—keeping their distance and avoiding crowds. That’s exactly what the CDC recommendations suggest. On the flip side, gathering indoors isn't responsible, nor does it align with the guidelines.

So, you try explaining how this little get-together fits into your whole fantasy of total isolation and travel bans.🍿

Paul Martinez73 said:Question for you: do you think the reporter actually handled this professionally and did her job right?

Considering the timing, which holiday it is, and the whole situation... honestly...

As if anyone cares which holiday it is—it's almost like all safety measures and warnings should just be suspended because it's Easter and everyone can do whatever they want.

Journalism doesn't care about "holy days" or whatever; there's no argument to be made about whether her conduct was appropriate. A journalist's job is the same every single day—if some people want to move the goalposts to suit their mood, that's their problem.

What are we even arguing about? A bunch of deadbeats claiming she provoked them just by stepping into a church 🤣

No insults, no gestures, nothing. A woman walks into a church and it offends unstable American Catholic liberals so much they resort to physical assault. Talk about living out "Catholic values" on the biggest holiday of the year 🙏

She supposedly went to the church looking for a fight 🤦🤣

The whole private property argument when it comes to filming in a Cathedral is old news—it's been done before. 🙏

Even if that logic holds up, is there actually a law that gives you the right to physically assault someone just because they're filming you? Or is that handled differently by the legal system?

Let's not play dumb here—they attacked her because she caught them breaking the rules. It’s just the standard reaction from any Criminal caught red-handed. 🤷

Laura Chavez93 said:well, 🤔 if you walk into a church during a service and start waving your phone around—especially without announcing yourself or asking for permission—you're asking for trouble... honestly, after seeing this, I feel like anyone who notices someone filming them should just grab the phone and smash it on the floor; there really isn't any other way...
edit:
In Russia, people looking for trouble tend to be dealt with via summary judgment: Pussy Riot:

look, you said exactly what I did—she didn't say anything to anyone or insult anyone; she just stayed quiet and filmed with her phone. I don't see any provocation here.🤷

they were provoked because they know they're doing something they aren't supposed to—they're just terrified of getting caught.

I assume they'd use the same logic to defend a thief caught on camera.

wiredrider9 said:Look, you're only seeing what actually made it onto camera 😉

no, I'll see what wasn't.🤣

restlesssurfer97 said:The bottom line is that this woman basically manufactured a whole drama out of thin air because the church was empty—which, honestly, I’m still wrapping my head around myself—so there was zero actual substance to work with. She walked inside, ran straight into a total jerk, and then got exactly what she wanted: a confrontation she could spin into some big headline. If that guy hadn't stepped up and shut her down, she would've almost certainly marched right up to the altar, filming everything closer and closer until someone else intervened, and when nobody stopped her, she probably would've started badgering those poor old ladies sitting in the pews just to fish for some ridiculous quote so she could make the whole country laugh at how clueless these religious types are.

So what? It just exposed how hypocritical these institutions really are. 🤷

Laura Chavez93 said:The woman intentionally provoked the situation—she got exactly what she wanted: a viral story and a spike in clicks—all while playing the innocent victim... but anyone who actually witnessed the reality of what happened will likely react much more aggressively next time someone tries to film them without asking.

What do you mean, provoked? Was she insulting them? Throwing punches? Walking into a church with a pentagram? I watched the video and didn't see any provocation at all—just someone filming a building, which happens all the time.🤷

Laura Chavez93 said:Can we actually expect any condemnation of this journalistic trash from some human rights organization?
And should we really expect decent people to just stand there if some random stranger starts filming them without warning
instead of snatching that phone right out of their hands and tossing it onto the floor...

She was just doing her job—just because people hate the outcome doesn't mean she did anything wrong.

I think any sane person should back investigative reporting on the elite—it's pretty much the only way things get better in this country. Full support for the reporter.👍

Elizabeth Mendoza said:All they really needed to do was snap some decent photos from the outside, let the local authorities know there was a mass going on, and then just put out a public notice about where and when it happened. Everything else is just pure clickbait.

Right—because the poor police department had no clue there was a Mass going on. It’s funny how everyone else seemed to know.

It’s the exact same story as that mediocre "crusader" group—you can only imagine if anyone else tried to get permission to have 100 people causing a scene in the middle of the street. But sure, the Church can do it because laws don't apply to them. Clearly not in this case, either.

She was just doing her job—filming a church, which is basically public property—when some uncultured brute decided to physically attack her. He didn't even bother with a warning, probably because he lacks the IQ to string together a simple sentence in under ten minutes. I don't see much point in debating this. 🤣

wiredrider9 said:👍

Every single day, hundreds or even thousands of people walk through stores—touching stuff, poking around—yet I don't see any of that bottom-tier journalistic scum filming people. Seriously, those reporters are the absolute lowest in this country; even politicians aren't quite that much of a gutter. It’s disgusting how hypocritical and double-standard everything is—and look, I'm not trying to excuse a priest who's basically sending people straight to hell 🤦—but when someone shoves a camera right in your face, you can't act shocked when you get knocked out. Yeah, well, maybe they should learn a little about manners and basic privacy.

Right. Those "devout" Catholics will definitely teach them all about manners and privacy. With a sledgehammer 😂

The fact that COVID managed to infiltrate nursing homes and care facilities—hitting the most vulnerable head-on—is proof enough that the task force completely missed the mark with their strategy and focus. On top of that, they burned through an absurd amount of time and resources on these pointless measures, all for absolutely nothing.

What I find most interesting is how some people ended up getting called out almost ☕