Saint Tarrant pleads NOT guilty!

Fuck off kike. (((Tarrant))) is not on our side.

...

This

You first kike.

The slide is real jesus christ

"Every single white shooter is Mossad false flag!" is a demotivation tactic used on cuckchan. They want you to believe that a white person taking action in the real world on their own is impossible without being under some Mossad mind control spell. They want you to doubt yourself. Even a post suggesting taking irl action is hit by "glownigger", "Mossad", etc.
They want you to stay inside and post memes and graphs only, because they know you will never change the world that way.

I very much agree and I'm aware. It's hilarious they are trying the same crap even itt.

No I believe that the ones that went after zog are real. I'm not retarded enough to believe a "Zig Forums shooter" spends 2 lines in his muti-paged manifesto on jews, and the rest inciting a goy v goy war.

If it doesn't mention mention ZOG as the main culprit, its controlled op. Just like Breivik was.

The guy is either a mossad agent or just really fucking stupid, if he browsed 8ch he would have known that mudslimes will still come into white European homelands as long as kikes are still in control, like what the fuck was the point of getting rid of 51 mudslimes when they were litterally replaced in 2 hours by other shitskins coming into the country???!!! So either he was a mossad agent or really fucking retarded but for me it's that his a kike dick sucker, since at how well trained he was at taking down those guys under such pressure which most actual shooter would fail badly, the way he drove in and out and shot his prey is really suspect, definitely trained by mossad

...

Straight from the manifesto.

Where any of these nignogs at the hearing?
bitchute.com/video/20mPk82EyuhP/

So you're more of a fan of Robert Bowers?

I think Brenton was misguided and lazy. I commend his bravery, but he should have gone for higher profile targets. Vehemently anti-white politicians are a good place to start. If the mosque he shot up had some high profile Muslim figure there then I'd correct myself.

...

Tbh sandslimes aren't people so you can't commit murder against them

nigger they all laid down and got shot, like one single dude rushed him

If he had done what you asked then there would be no way of you knowing about it.

Cheers

It’s not murder though. He was an armed uniformed partisan
He’ll walk and with possibly a medal and some pay for being wrongly imprisoned

If this is what pisslam is like when faced with actual opposition a race war wouldn't last a week.

Attached: giggling zim zam.gif (389x279, 1.42M)

Can you tell me how exactly would mossad benefited from this?
He explains his goals clearly in manifesto and he achieved total majority of them too. Read it.
This is just retarded opinion with no basis in reality. Post proofs.

He calls for total expulsion of all kikes from Europe and clearly says that ONLY Jew he is okay with is one, who:
If broken, then they are his enemies. You are either lying or didn't even bothered to read it.
That war is here for 1300 years. If your plan is to ignore and just solve one and not both issues (as both Jews are Muslims are guilty) then you are either shill or naive.

Logistics user, logistics. What St. Tarrant did can pretty much everyone do, provided he has enough balls and some basic training any civilian can get. I think that is also a reason why he took the GoPro - to show us what one angry bad goy with no special background or experience can do. And how you can see from the fact that more than month after, whole world is still sperging about it, it is TREMENDOUSLY effective. On the other hand, to attack some high-profile target like you mention, with all their security teams, armored cars and villas built like castles in gated communities - well that takes time, shitload of resources and intel (which on it's own need to be researched by expensive professionals, so you won't raise any red flags) and most importantly whole team of professional people with military/le/tactical background and great deal of experience. It is strange that so many anons disregard this. If you are able, then target is obvious and clear. If you are not, same.

Why bother giving a fuck when you know you are just a plane ride away from pissrael.

Attached: shitpost and take names.png (604x340, 275.72K)

the memes are real

Attached: 800px-Chadvsvirgin.jpg (800x325, 40.91K)

You speaking about yourself, Schlomo?

I wish the law worked like that.

Attached: 012919-70-History-Cicero-Rhetoric-Debate-Communication.png (423x174, 113.84K)

St. Tarrant did nothing wrong.

Who the fuck wants to get into a gun fight?

Fuck off kike. Tarrant is a funny guy.

Attached: check it m8.jpg (700x539, 95.55K)

Someone with a gun and good aim, and doesn't want to die.

Which laws are those, exactly?
What ARE the laws on "armed uniformed partisan" activity?

It already does. Being a partisan is only a crime if your country becomes occupied by a hostile force. If you win, or at least manage not to end the war with an occupation, your partisans are considered heroes. Under current zionist occupation he is considered a criminal, if New Zealand ever frees itself then he would be considered a hero and a resistance fighter.

Again, why would anyone want to get into a gun fight? That doesn't make sense, especially if they DON'T want to die.

Laws that would forgive technically murdering non-whites that were being allowed into the country by traitors.

Under POW conventions (signed by nz) he is subject to sec 4 page 44 ALL CLAUSES of Geneva
ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument
archive.is/77DSM

Attached: 1599C688-E93E-4EFC-8E1E-0CBA92F696B3.png (1334x750, 147.54K)

I like how you threw in the "technically" there.
So what ARE the laws on "armed uniformed partisan" activity?

See

And what are the consequences thereof, if you don't mind spoonfeeding a bit?

Also Geneva conventions has a fucking grammar error in it (a minor spelling error, but one should be thorough in all they do)

Attached: John Locke Believed… Wrote… Citizens did have the right to rebel..jpg (960x720, 88.83K)

That was my question on the border invasion. Can we even get in legal trouble for blasting the invaders back to where they came from? Seems like we have every legal right to defend our home.

...

Seems like there should be a legal methodology here, needs more insight.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1050x138, 25.73K)

He walks when it’s found he can’t be charged or convicted of what they’re trying to charge and convict him of. He did it correctly. He armed himself openly , stated his intentions (here , clearly , fucking 11/10 m8) and wore his uniform with clearly marked insignia identifiable from a distance (any measure).
He walks he gets a medal and some back pay.

Oh, the teddy bear cliche; reporters love that. Manufactured sympathy.
Now let's cut to our local reporter downtown at the scene of a terrible 14-vehicle accident where he can zoom in on another teddy bear.
As you can see from the large number of teddy bears strewn among the carnage and charred remains, this was no mere fender bender. Several teddy bears have been taken to Memorial Hospital, presumably to have buttons sewn back on, while other teddy bears are receiving trauma counseling and are being comforted by other, smaller, teddy bears. Back to you, Trixie.

Ah, so, basically, because he's a PoW and acting as an armed uniformed partisan, he cannot be charged with murder in the context of enemy forces, correct?

Yids are mad once again about Tarrant.

The consequences also include hastening in an era of eco naturism , the only chance earth has at sustaining life into the foreseeable future. His actions were commendable and noble and he showed no sign of fear in face of the enemy

Yids will never not be made about Tarrant. He meme'd all the fuck over their faces and now they're going to have to ignore international laws in order to attempt to prosecute him.

You won't hear any complaint on my end lad, I'm just trying to figure out how this legalese works to discern how this can be applied in other scenarios.

If you can't try someone for murder or terrorism if they espouse the necessary qualifications of a "uniformed armed partisan", then that opens up a lot of potentiality.

Precisely.

Checked dub dubs
Couldn’t agree more

fucking digits confirm!
We're onto something, user. Look at the slide activity since this post!

That said, I'd like more information.

This bit here seems worrisome from a legal standpoint:

while that cuck pm is still in charge tarrant will not go free even if there is a legal loop hole
they will bend the laws to ensure he stays in prison
reminder that they've been keeping him in solitary confinement since the shooting and are effectively making him a nonperson

Tough shit they weren’t fast on the uptake.
He announced it here. 11/10 , nice shootin Tex , body count at 22/23 when he streamed live. That day was fucking GREAT. he announced his attack beforehand , openly armed himself and wore a uniform with icons and badges identifiable from a distance and ONLY targeted invaders or his direct opposing “force”
Also his opposing force was armed. Tough shit he got the drop on em (not really tough shit it’s funny as fuck)

academics threw out all of his work a long time ago

On the subject of Tarrant being a uniformed partizan fighting an invading force couldnt the prosecution just say there is no "invading force" ie muh religion of peace, and ignore that type of claim

I hope he continues to shitpost in prison.

uhhh

That is subject to debate.

Yeah, but thats beside point the point really, IMHO.
Our focus now should be on discerning the legalistic argumentation to justify such actions in future contexts such as to pursue strategies for judicial resolutions in our favor, no?

Fair enough, but I'm curious as to what the extensions of that condition are, ya know?
Like, okay, he can't be charged with murder or terroristic actions, because he was functioning in the context of an armed uniformed partisan - so what CAN they charge such a person with, in the context of future events, should this precedent hold?

Image if they actually released the footage, the amount of ass-hurt and the follow-up shitposting online would be even more

he won't win the case, the point he is trying to make with his defense obviously isn't contingent on winning

That would be a matter of debate and legal argumentation, and I think it would be very hard to prove in a court of law that the mass influx of non-Whites and specifically Muslims - particularly into a country like New Zealand - does not qualify in such capacities.

FFS KILL ME NOW wanted to select and hit reply
*present
doublebump for St.Tarrant

oy vey tarrant is a jew, and any fellow goyim who dont believe this must be themselves shills for the chosen people I'm glad I am a well informed gentile unlike you

Which is why they didn't, obviously.
(((They))) are terrified of this guy, but also of Bowers. Imagine a Tarrant-style event targeting a major (((elite))) synagogue, like the one Bowers targeted in Squirrel Hill.
Tarrant scared them because of the memetic context, but they were happy to see him target a mosque; while with Bowers, the memetic impact really wasn't there on the same level, but the target was MUCH closer to home than (((they))) would like.

Ya know, it might be interesting to start figuring out which (((temple))) some of these (((elites))) have and do attend. Strictly for research purposes, of course…

I don’t know. Not a lawfaggot and I would like to know if Hague convention was superseded by Geneva conventions.
Either way BT took his chances with us and I’ll do my best.

what I would have given to watch this

It was glorious
ec497a

here's another interesting thing I just thought of
What causes civil unrest from starting in NZ by people wanting his head? As far as I know there is 0 possibility of execution but from their point of view (quran is their pov) this would not be justice at all.

On that note, would also be good to generate a legalistic doctrine to clarify the judicial ramifications of defense of such actions in the context of armed uniformed partisan forces.

For example: What would be the appropriate legal justification for targeting jewish places of worship with regards to their activity as, effectively, unarmed uniformed-lacking partisan forces aiding and abetting invaders.

I'm genuinely curious about all this.

For example, in the US - how could it be possible that a country founded on the notion of the citizenry casting off the rule of an oppressive foreign power NOT include contingencies to legally justify equivalent actions in another context?
If such exists, what are the conditions and ramifications of such?

He's still studied in an academic setting, just not as extensively since the early twentieth-century. You simply can't ignore the guy whose words are echoed in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. You can't take a class on legal history or study law without reading about him, much less on British or American history (he wrote the constitution for the Carolina colonies).

Attached: Locke_ Second Treatise on Gov’t.jpg (960x720, 94.38K)

The muslims are not quite that stupid, unfortunately, at least IMHO. They'll be content to use this event politically while allowing him to rot in prison, with the intent to target him in prison or once he gets out (which, if found guilty, would only amount to like 30 years in all likelihood).

Blessed thread.

religion of peace dont forget

Checked for yes, you totally can, and (((they))) regularly do. Every single one of those documents you mentioned are, effectively, obsolete and no longer functionally employed unless it serves the interests of the status quo.

Your problem is that you don't seem to realize that people reading about him in the modern age are more likely to have his ideals presented as something to work around, not something to internalize and espouse.

Its like the jews and free speech: Jews were happy to use free speech to justify the proliferation of communistic speech and profanity/obscenity, but it was only ever a tool to them - something to be used when convenient, and worked around when not.

Didn't some sand nigger try to stab him a day after the attack but got arrested?

Now that I think about it, I wonder as to the legal ramifications of the Declaration of Independence.

Could we write up a Declaration of Independence of our own and then argue in the context of armed uniformed partisanship in the event of events ala Tarrant/Bowers?

Living in Israel, we aren’t as retarded as you.
That can only mean no diasporas.

A jew in israel that does not wish harm upon Europeans is no enemy of mine.
Of course, no such jew exists.

I've asked people like you countless times to present me an example. None have arisen thus far.

The racewar is going to give lawyers a heart attack.

Aka they must not be in any white nations trying to subvert them or at all.

From the Protocols of Zion:
Can someone tell me what Tarrant actually achieved by shooting up a Mosque? Last time I checked, Muslims aren't Jews.
Also,
There are 1.8 BILLION Muslims.
There at 15 million Jews.
By the time Tarrant finished his spree, 51 Muslim babies were probably born. Let that sink in.

Attached: religous populations.JPG (500x565, 31.17K)

I'm looking forward to it, actually. I'd love to make a name for myself by effectively using legalistic jargon and precedent to justify actions such as these. Its my intent in pursuing a greater education in legalistic procedures, after all.
Someone has to defend what will soon be described as the partisans. Might as well be me.

t. lawfag-in-training

goodluck brother

Attached: 1465175240250.jpg (640x480, 56.16K)

Can you try reading his Manifesto?

But considering you are probably a kike yourself, his point is to accelerate the police state and force people to revolt.

And muslim are a kind of jews, a lesser caste essentially.

Awesome. Study well user