Prosecutors Move For Mistrial As Jury Has Been Tainted By Clear Video Evidence Of Kyle Rittenhouse
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
Not opening Russian traitor propoganda.
Sure, it was much better when the niggynigs knew their place, Jim Crow ruled and the minorities did not have military grade guns or nothing.
The good old days in North Carolina basically.
People forget that prior to the 1960s and for some decades after, the US was the most apartheid place in the developed world. The US inspired Hitler to exterminate the Jews, South Africa was a minor league player compared to the US then.
Bring it back says the crowd from NC quietly supporting the long southern strategy.
Last edited:
Ok. I learned something lol.
I always thought insurrections were riots.
============
Insurrection: A violent revolt against an oppressive authority, usually a government. “Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offense connected with mob violence by the fact that in insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.” (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Insurrectionist: A person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) freedom fighter, insurgent, rebel.
Based on the initial purpose of the protests that led to riots in some cases, they were not acts of insurrection, nor were the participants insurrectionists. These were not organized armed uprisings intent on overthrowing the government.
Overall, the activities of the protestors and rioters do not reach the level required to be considered an insurrection, nor does it appear the intent of the policy to exclude damage caused by insurrection applies to their actions. The exclusion does not apply.
Actually most of the large scale riots (civil unrest) prior to 1960 involved unions & strikers with the majority of participants being white. Certainly there were some exceptions to this involving race riots -- like Wilmington, NC in 1898 and Tulsa in 1921 with violence from whites towards blacks.
However most of the violence towards blacks in the era of segregation in the U.S. prior 1960 were not riots but individual small-scale incidents involving violence against blacks by groups of whites -- and rarely was justice ever served in these incidents.
The point was blacks did not protest because they would just be massacred.
It was enough of brutal world between whites of different grades until 1965 when immigration was widely opened to asians and many others. Net effect the whites stopped fighting amongst themselves as they now had a new common enemy.
It was the same in England though codified apartheid was not the law of the land. They needed to bring in workers, 'navvies' to dig the London underground etc. so granted work visas to Carribean colonies. Lot of new black and brown faces.
Net effect was the "no dogs, no Irish " signs went down as hell, at least they were white and most of the white on white tension dissolved. A perceived common enemy is the great unifier for conservative minds.
When fondly remembering better times, best to remember everything that went along with them
Last edited:
Ok. I learned something lol.
I always thought insurrections were riots.
============
Insurrection: A violent revolt against an oppressive authority, usually a government. “Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offense connected with mob violence by the fact that in insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.” (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Insurrectionist: A person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) freedom fighter, insurgent, rebel.
Based on the initial purpose of the protests that led to riots in some cases, they were not acts of insurrection, nor were the participants insurrectionists. These were not organized armed uprisings intent on overthrowing the government.
Overall, the activities of the protestors and rioters do not reach the level required to be considered an insurrection, nor does it appear the intent of the policy to exclude damage caused by insurrection applies to their actions. The exclusion does not apply.
I gave a hit and run reply earlier but I wanted to add a point to it. I do think that the whole issue of insurance coverage is a massive, massive concern- just that it arises a little different then just non-payment for claims.
What happens is that the insurance company gets a claim and after some go arounds they end out having to pay, but basically their obligation to cover it is fairly clear provided you had basic coverage for property and loss of income from damage etc.
So far so good. But then a few months later you find that you policy is not being renewed or that it is being renewed based on rates that reflect a heighten risk evaluation for your area. Or they do what lots of insurers do with hurricanes and floods, they just leave the state or do not write any new policies. Then you try to sell your business or house and just move the hell out of there and they see what you are paying for insurance and that is not a selling point, eh.
It's a mess a real curse upon a community.
So chances of a business person getting reimbursed if they have a reasonably robust policy are good but then they arrive back to your question which is: Now what?