The Anatomy of Violent Interaction & Jurisprudence.

The Anatomy of Violent Interaction & Jurisprudence

By: Ph. Basil. P. Coles

*This is an unfinished work and will be completed at a later date*

Remember to drag and click "play aloud" by your EDGE, CHROME or BRAVE browser

          

There has been a brief moment in time where the concept of justification has been pushed into question, not for its validity, or the premise... Though the ability for the "reasonable person" as courts implies has been varied into a subsection of conclusively uninhabitable grounds.

The moderation of a person is part of the inclusivity of governance. That if you want to take the dog out of man... You have to beat it out of him with a stick, but when you nurture the inability to cope with weakness, with cope... And bad cope at that... An irrational conception of normality becomes exclusivity that becomes elitism. A gatekeeping promise that to accept a capacity to retain objectivity is to be weak .. A promise to the public that to be weak is strength... Referencing an analysis of Carl Jung's "On social psychosis" from the collection of essays labelled "A Collection of Analytical Essays in Psychology"

As the faith in understanding and good are only rationalized through the fundamental understanding of corruption, and to refuse the labour to appreciate your circumstances are corrupt as the heart of those broken enough to defend their own plights, especially as you can never trust a weak man...

..

          I start this off with that narrative, as to allow the reader to make a call on some stryation from collective practice under natural law. The interpretations surrounding violence usually come from a follied and misguided perception of the reactivity in practices.

Institutionally, violence when under practiced does incur a higher risk of reciprocation, from parties whom were barely scathed or simply jarred by the experience, where as a fellow whom stares at the youth, beats his wife or acts in such a way that calls to question their entitlements to public spaces. The violence must broadly be extended to which degree the application of those public spaces is rendered unenjoyable by the marked party.

The historical applications of judicial torture is only affirmative as the sustained observations by the wish/washed analysts that have damaged biases or lack objectivity, structure or cleanliness. For this reason, implementation of the way violence is structured requires both judicial and moral understandings of situations as;

A drunk man wanders up to you, implies that you took his wallet. The proceeding argument leads to him trying to slap you .. Knowing that he is both lesser or unable to physically attack you personally, effectively... it is an understanding that he could learn from discipline, but you also do not want to break him into pieces. The logical step would be to use gravity. Pull on his arm and wheel him towards the ground... Then hold him down... Telling him the the chap who has his wallet is far away .. if you did not take it .. Then lead him like a dog in another direction. Both due to the risks of death from intoxication and concussion. Be sure to keep marks to a minimum if you do not intend on carrying him to Togo or a morgue.

Understandable, that a passerby may find this disrespectful, but truth be told .. There is no benefit from an artificially civilized society. And to handle small incursions with small repercussions is normative, as to such matters of performance scaled beyond the means of males or females...

This principle factor is elementary to the concept of a "reasonable person" that the parliamentary justice system requires to portray function as suitable, equitable and in their opinion .. Just. The fundamentals of practical adjudication towards the recidivism that liberal libations cry about follow the same systemic principles that inhabit the relation between a an apple falling off a tree... The gravity.

Only theirs are incurring the crushing weight of responsibility. While my own guide through the tribulations of operational management.

The proverbial; Trial by endeavour... In its current form of man has sought to elicit the minimal punishments, statistical data mismanagement, defilement and weighted denial of uniformity and bureaucratic constants. I inform each to acting, to step carefully....

..

Moderation of conflict is a mathematical ration that can be confined in any municipality. The ability each individual to complete the task of cleaning the legislative messes that are vicariously manufactured.

..

          The first step to being involved in violent conflict involves three things. 

- There must be a marked target. 

If their behaviour is effectively incapable of being left to fester until the consequences are forced to them in pre-emptive motion.

          Are you able to make citation of the incident being consistent. Men do not commit an offense only once. If you have other victims come forward. Take an interview into place and then account for the whos, whats, whens, Wheres, and the Why. Dates and names that relate to police reports allow for longevity. The securities must be found as a material from the persons involved with a bureaucracy in order to ensure first second and third forms of documentation are accessible.

Lacking the rebuttal in any case of operating in a responsible and lawful fashion requires the extinguishing if bystander mentality. When to have a male stand there without a phone and do nothing while a situation is sorted out. No filming or documenting no physical aide. That males face can be dragged along the public in posters to ensure that there are no incidents.

The point of operating in an environment with a habit of violent interaction is something more consistent. The capacity to beat a male to death or detain for indenturement for staring at 14 year old girls lays upon every hand... By the weight in silver or steel

While that which has the relevance to recall probably cause is completely fundamental to the ability for courts to carry their tasks out .. to incarcerate the guilty. Absenteeism of the interactions with commoners will relay a flawed and declining standard between courts and those who influence the "judges" most in their outside-of-life media or tartalawyers... Lacking moral efficacy and postponement of their studies in ethics...

The relative engagement of this interaction becoming violent; be it in a small squabble or a break and enter is a perception of reasonable force (key word, reasonable...)

As I have said... The concept reasonability is supposed to the premise of actionable markers of principle. (The capacity to be a designate of the first rule of economic projection; Operate under the assumption that people will act in their own best interest)

Absent of that engagement, the ability to identify a threat coincides in conversation .. Where to hold and upkeep some values are resulting in trigger words .. "Frenzy" As described in the elder scrolls, leaving and uponnes misshappening that cultures the genetic propensities that culturally incline weakness for the moral principle of sourcing "margins" and "coincidentally" disengaging their responsibility for social engagement. 

The many factors surrounding judicious violence are built upon 3 simple rules .. 

A) Does the subject pose a threat to the safety and integrity of others in the moment ..

B) Does the subject intent to infringe upon the safety (and/or) integrity of others in the near or distant future... and;

C) Does the subject have ability to understand the threat they pose to others safety (and/or) integrity .. 

C/a) If they understand the threat they pose to others... then punishment is dealt twice.

C/b) If they do not understand the threat they pose to others, the duration of the punishment is doubled.

         
          These variations of engagement are operated in such a fashion as a logistical pathway for a boat travelling through rivers. Where if not one direction of flow is considered the same mentality of getting off the boat and walking with your goods as equally considerable functions.

Principly, if the ability to identify and consistency meet checks is not performed the end result of the conversation will be undermining to the recorded evaluation. If performed the concept that you will have a palendromic capacity in the post tense of the discussion to be relayed is diversionary for many whom encounter the interaction. If the questions do not flow and end in honest cadence, there will be a capacity to identify that the conversation was had in pretense.

Denoting functionality and structure in the presentation of the arguments. The resulting reply, both operating as a counter argument while performative escalation occurs. The cooperation of the subject if performed effectively is not necessary. In the "modern" perspectives on litigation, this rebuttal to your questioning being violence may land the as charged with "aggravated assault" but the point being the execution of examination of their understanding to consolidate indenturement.

Idealizing a situation is a matter of interpretation. The qualitative measures of substance are the consistency by which reasonability are considered... "Did you act for money, is the monetary gain enough for you to melee with two blokes in a van?" - "Is the reason you did only the sheer morality?" (That plays like a retard with a firearm, their assumption in too many places is that you simply condone killing - absent of consideration for causality of the act, otherwise) 

          The higher importance in litigation is the gravity of their inability to appreciate the matter of why things happen. Thus, best generality is to leave the substance as to action, to capital.

So when weighing the matter .. Expect financial benefits. It is not unreal to expect money for experiencing the gravity of violence. The capacity for one being to kill your body or relieve you of the capacity to stand upright, centered, functionally capable of reinstating... So the monetary gains between investigation and the total sum of alleveiances (seizures) playing a role in the instigation of rebuttal...

(That is what it is... You encounter a reason to interact; I.e, you find a male in a bar at 25 feet who spiked a drink, bought a firearm whilst murmuring about "the bitch is gonna get it" or the chaps who get to masturbating at a teenager on the street... It is an instigation of a reaction, to which only I refer to this being a condolence for the many who simply disregard the consequences of their actions)

Police are a uniform... They are socially expected, but given the stats on misbehaviour.... The ability rationalize the intent behind them is configured to an act/benefit system. Where as a Condottiero is branded... They handle specified offenses, have specializations through a consistent workload and as self defenders are simply aware of the circumstances before them. To be able to retort to a courtroom in the liberal misconceptions of society... Their ability to identify an objective framework of reason is in itself also, liberal. They are not present as persons, while only serving their badly described allowance of education to provide them with perspective. So when handling the reality of optics, the actor must consider that to be observed as a capable reactionary stage... There must be a pursuit of financial gains, citation is not always enough for these actors...

          ; In the perspectives of liberal litigation.

The singularity between the act and the ability to consistently profit between the interactions and auctions of the seized goods is a matter of reliability .. When one act is covered by the costs of that act, the consistency of the work and the quality are only improved as the consistency of encountering opportunity when the reinvestment is 50% of the initial payment.

Several dash cams, body cams, recording devices, parabolic microphones and other documents such as dedicated devices for logging hours, interaction, names, faces and contacts. Without this, a lack of clear distinction between an act that aftermath between anything that does not fall into precidential principle.

When any use of force incident comes in front of a review panel or judge... The willingness to negate the opportunity for clear documentation is the first thing that is made apparent.

If the cost of doing business is entirely made to be a matter of subjectivism .. The consistency of the work and reliability of any Condottiero will be made more and more distinct during procedural transition. The ability for the public to maneuver is in as much a risk of fault when not exampled with the better precision that law enforcement operations consider as it stands. Leaving the Condettoire in the same manifested ugliness in presented optics only with the variation still leading to better formed statistics after the examination .. Equally at risk in an incident/incident measure. While beneficiary concepts overwhelm the capacity to be undermined in the advancing of systematic documentation with my guidance in procedure. 

Further stryation from lack of public consistency through monitoring only that incident which is both reported and after the fact .. Does confuse the management of the problems to the propensity to mitigate incident. Thus in both the preparation of the interactions and those actors involved.

Through the sale or distribution of dashcam footage for report and examination .. the Condottiero could just as easily make preparations for the engagements through case logs and profiling. The inherited risks from not profiling the subject before a crime is specifically identified opens the door for consistently higher and higher threats to public safety so the operation should both be displayed with this lens and the capacity to consciously deter or mitigate incidence is by even the most simplified discussion of the stature or case law relating to financial crimes as misallocation of government resources or dereliction. The only functional course in the proceedings are to effectively pay the tab for those incidents.

The spectacle of the reasonable person still requiring examination for the properties of being able to perform reason, and the equipped (education in the specified matter and the effective capacity to discuss that matter) leading to articled circulation of the discourse.

Apprehension of the observed through amassed centralization of audio, video and otherwise documentation is important but the higher matter of the investigation of unkindly behaviour is a social targeting of those behaviours through micro-expressions and sub-surface markers. Engaging the subject to activate internalization .. the actions mirrored to entice response from the subconscious and the leading the conversation, (most effective in the bounding rebuttal through otherwise seeming unrelated topics, both in a setting that is conceived as a "safe space" for the subject)

Without a false sense of security. The subject may engage in passive/passive aggressive response. They ability to let them walk into the basis on rapport on their own terms can be as simple as starting a conversation with a third party... To allow the subject to engage and once the structure is assembled. Work on their ability to aime for longevity and lay minor stressors out to cultivate a controlled break. This could take an hour... This could take half an hour... This could take 10 minutes.

Variation in the targeting of deviant behaviour is a matter of artistic freedom. The capacity for the interaction to go south if managed properly is possibly instant, matters of smoking a cigarette and witnessing a male acting aggressively with a female or youth is just as easily triggering by simply staring as the initiation or examination of conflict. If they would be violent in public, how are they in private with such individuals. With the freedom of performance in this theatre, the willingness to identify a target in the longer term could be a simple as walking past and taking a picture of a code 111 (suspicious "person") with the follow-up being weeks later after a contact can find out more information for a fee... The ability to certify a threat can take a little bit of time, but the incapacity to perform the basic task is entirely a matter of reflection on credibility. If you are marked, the ability for the identity of another, who is marked to be literated may very well be an inconsistency that leads to false positives.

          Step One - Targeting

          The initial steps in understanding where violence does naturally occur, look as to the reasons that justify it .. If you go through the downtown core, with $1000 in your pocket, you sat homeless girls down, bought them a coffee, and you have them fill out a questionnaire and survey discreetly listing addresses, names, phone numbers, hotspots for activity .. Equipment inferred and rewards, such as vehicles, electronics, house style - Small (list type) Medium (list type) Large (list type)

Do this once a month, sell the information or apply it .. The investment allows the girls to escape, the information is self explanatory...

Beyond this, to make the considerations for other forms of violence, domestic, workplace .. So-forth. Allows for a broader lense of interpretation on the acquisition of intelligence, and good information makes responding to threats easy, "Has a bad shoulder, Has a bad knee, Has bad knees, Has problems breathing" All to aide in the interactions .. If each do truly understand the risks of being involved in an engagement, the only weight to bear upon is the mitigation of collateral damage.

        

          Step 2 - Citation

          The ability to circumvent the inconsistencies of modern law enforcement procedure, is to have better documentation than they do. Because you do not need to requisition the equipment, you do not have to ladder a request. Thus, the actionability of information, is deterministically a matter of willingness, over the consistency for supporting units, due to the freelancing modality. Remember, that depending on which department you are dealing with, the matter lays to be equally noted as a double lay-up .. Collect all the documents, use them discreetly, but the same time as you make contact, have the evidence and interviews sent to news sources, as to show an unwillingness if the department proves uncooperative. Always, unless proven to be derelict, leave them a lead .. To see what they do with it... Never feed them a big fish, if you do not have to.

           I welcome the sustained activity of some faculties of the current method of law enforcement, but the sheer degree of unwillingness has proven to make me less than supposed as please with the capacitance of nearly all I have had the displeasure of contacting.

The premises being under the relativity to the consistency in documentation. If you do have the initial interviews performed, you have the reports written for cross referencing .. The property involved is able to be relayed and with that in mind, the confirmations on the subjects, risks and liabilities .. Material evidence, properly collected and medical orders referenced if need be. These are contingencies for the rebuttal by those that are .. waged... To do this, but may not be willing to pursue charges.