Categories
Broken police I have now been broken Intelwars Open Letter police officers seattle police viral

Cop goes viral for open letter on how disrespectful protesters have ‘broken’ him: ‘You have not earned my duty and dedication’

A man purported to be a Seattle police officer penned an open letter to the city, insisting that he was “broken” over the fact that Seattle’s citizens turned their backs on the police department.

The letter subsequently went viral on the internet.

What are the details?

Conservative radio host Jason Rantz of KTTH-AM shared the letter on Monday, writing, “A Seattle police officer shared with me a heartbreaking letter explaining why they are ‘broken’ after so many years protecting the public.”

“This is an officer who has committed much of their adult life to serving a community that, right now, is doing little to support police,” Rantz writes. “This officer is ‘broken’ due to recent experiences as activists demonize cops and the Seattle City Council pushes to defund the department by 50%.”

Rantz insists, “This is an officer you don’t want to lose.”

The now-viral letter begins, “I am a police officer in your city. I say your city because I don’t live in the geographic boundaries that make up ‘Seattle.’ My kids were fully entrenched in school in a neighboring city when I decided to become an officer and I didn’t want to uproot them.”

“My experiences are my own,” the letter continues, “but I believe other officers will have had similar experiences and may be nodding their heads when they read portions of this letter.”

The letter points out that he always built a rapport based on respect with the citizens of Seattle, including even the most hardened of criminals.

“The criminals who I have interacted with trust me because I always treated them as human beings first, while still holding them accountable for their illegal behavior,” the letter continues. “Police officers are very mission oriented problem solvers by nature and I am definitely that type of person.”

The letter explains that the officer works in a thankless career in order to serve and protect citizens only to be shunted to the side by the very people who he promises to protect.

“Along the way my spouse and children suffered,” the letter continues. “They didn’t understand why I would choose to experience all this for strangers. Over the years I have tried to explain it to my family. I think my spouse understands but I am not sure my children have had enough life experience to fully grasp what I have been teaching them.”

The officer explains that he fought against crime even at the risk of putting his personal safety at risk.

“Then came the George Floyd protests. It was not a new experience to have protesters screaming in my face. Telling me to ‘go kill yourself, pull out your Glock, put it in your mouth, and pull the trigger and make the world better,'” he writes. “‘They hired you because you have an IQ below 80 and will do whatever they tell you to do’ and ‘I know you beat your wife because…'”

The officer points out that protesters assaulted him and other officers with any possible means, including “glass bottles, rocks, pieces of steel, chunks of concrete.”

The officer adds that demonstrators even attempted to maim or even kill him and other officers with what he says were “improvised explosive devices.”

Of the latter, the officer says the media knows full well about the explosives, but refuses to share video evidence with the public.

“Then came the politicians standing right in front of me, on the front lines, calling me a racist killer cop,” he adds. “Standing next [to] people who were telling us to kill ourselves, with people around them handing out rocks and bottles which were thrown at me shortly thereafter.”

“That,” he insists, “didn’t break me either.”

What has broken the officer, he writes, is that he no longer believes in “the mission” — or at least in what he says is his ability to complete the mission.

“At this point in time you have not earned my duty and dedication to ‘THE MISSION,'” he writes. ” You don’t deserve me. That may sound harsh. You may recoil at that line. But go back to my experiences before the part where the politicians sold me and you out. I made it through all of that unbroken … When a mob can control city streets, those who do not agree with the mob are not free. Who is responsible for this breakdown? You. You are allowing it.”

The letter adds, “Whether you are afraid to speak up to your political leaders. Whether you feel like ‘I pay the police to deal with that stuff.’ Or maybe you just try to ignore political stuff altogether. This is your responsibility. I, & the collective ‘we’ the police officers, cannot change the trajectory Seattle is on right now.”

“Only you can change it,” it concludes. “Only you can march in the streets against the mob or flood the city council meetings…only you who don’t want to see mayhem, disorder, and anarchy in your city can stop it. Only you can make the politicians allow us to complete ‘THE MISSION.’ Only you can unbreak me. Only you can let me return to THE MISSION. I await your decision.”

Share
Categories
authoritarianism Coronavirus COVID-19 Data death rate doomsday cult economic destruction Emergency Preparedness experts facts facts are ignored Fear Germany healthy population Infections infectologist Intelwars lock downs Open Letter pandemic Politics POVERTY power grabs Reinhard Busse social destruction Sucharit Bhakdi trade-offs Virus virus already spread

German Infectologist Decimates COVID-19 Doomsday Cult In Open Letter To Merkel

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge. 

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, released a now-viral video in which he calmly explained why nationwide lockdowns are “collective suicide”.

Now he has written an open letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel and it is fantastic…

Via Anti-Empire.com,

A medical expert with integrity asks the German Chancellor five devastating questions about her mindless coronavirus lockdown…

Open Letter

Dear Chancellor,

As Emeritus of the Johannes-Gutenberg-University in Mainz and longtime director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology, I feel obliged to critically question the far-reaching restrictions on public life that we are currently taking on ourselves in order to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

It is expressly not my intention to play down the dangers of the virus or to spread a political message. However, I feel it is my duty to make a scientific contribution to putting the current data and facts into perspective – and, in addition, to ask questions that are in danger of being lost in the heated debate.

The reason for my concern lies above all in the truly unforeseeable socio-economic consequences of the drastic containment measures which are currently being applied in large parts of Europe and which are also already being practiced on a large scale in Germany.

My wish is to discuss critically – and with the necessary foresight – the advantages and disadvantages of restricting public life and the resulting long-term effects.

To this end, I am confronted with five questions which have not been answered sufficiently so far, but which are indispensable for a balanced analysis.

I would like to ask you to comment quickly and, at the same time, appeal to the Federal Government to develop strategies that effectively protect risk groups without restricting public life across the board and sow the seeds for an even more intensive polarization of society than is already taking place.

With the utmost respect,

Prof. em. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi

*  *  *

1. Statistics

In infectiology – founded by Robert Koch himself – a traditional distinction is made between infection and disease. An illness requires a clinical manifestation. Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases.

In other words, a new infection – as measured by the COVID-19 test – does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed. However, it is currently assumed that five percent of all infected people become seriously ill and require ventilation. Projections based on this estimate suggest that the healthcare system could be overburdened.

My question:

Did the projections make a distinction between symptom-free infected people and actual, sick patients – i.e. people who develop symptoms.

2. Dangerousness

A number of coronaviruses have been circulating for a long time – largely unnoticed by the media.  If it should turn out that the COVID-19 virus should not be ascribed a significantly higher risk potential than the already circulating corona viruses, all countermeasures would obviously become unnecessary.

The internationally recognized International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents will soon publish a paper that addresses exactly this question. Preliminary results of the study can already be seen today and lead to the conclusion that the new virus is NOT different from traditional corona viruses in terms of dangerousness. The authors express this in the title of their paper „SARS-CoV-2: Fear versus Data“.

My question:

How does the current workload of intensive care units with patients with diagnosed COVID-19 compare to other coronavirus infections, and to what extent will this data be taken into account in further decision-making by the federal government? In addition: Has the above study been taken into account in the planning so far?  Here too, of course, „diagnosed“ means that the virus plays a decisive role in the patient’s state of illness, and not that previous illnesses play a greater role.

3. Dissemination

According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, not even the much-cited Robert Koch Institute knows exactly how much is tested for COVID-19. It is a fact, however, that a rapid increase in the number of cases has recently been observed in Germany as the volume of tests increases.

It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the virus has already spread unnoticed in the healthy population. This would have two consequences: firstly, it would mean that the official death rate – on 26 March 2020, for example, there were 206 deaths from around 37,300 infections, or 0.55 percent – is too high; and secondly, it would mean that it would hardly be possible to prevent the virus from spreading in the healthy population.

My question:

Has there already been a random sample of the healthy general population to validate the real spread of the virus, or is this planned in the near future?

4. Mortality

The fear of a rise in the death rate in Germany (currently 0.55 percent) is currently the subject of particularly intense media attention. Many people are worried that it could shoot up like in Italy (10 percent) and Spain (7 percent) if action is not taken in time.

At the same time, the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death – regardless of other factors. This violates a basic principle of infectiology: only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may a diagnosis be made. The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany expressly writes in its guidelines: „In addition to the cause of death, a causal chain must be stated, with the corresponding underlying disease in third place on the death certificate. Occasionally, four-linked causal chains must also be stated.“

At present there is no official information on whether, at least in retrospect, more critical analyses of medical records have been undertaken to determine how many deaths were actually caused by the virus.

My question:

Has Germany simply followed this trend of a COVID-19 general suspicion? And: is it intended to continue this categorisation uncritically as in other countries? How, then, is a distinction to be made between genuine corona-related deaths and accidental virus presence at the time of death?

5. Comparability

The appalling situation in Italy is repeatedly used as a reference scenario. However, the true role of the virus in that country is completely unclear for many reasons – not only because points 3 and 4 above also apply here, but also because exceptional external factors exist which make these regions particularly vulnerable.

One of these factors is the increased air pollution in the north of Italy. According to WHO estimates, this situation, even without the virus, led to over 8,000 additional deaths per year in 2006 in the 13 largest cities in Italy alone. [7] The situation has not changed significantly since then. [8] Finally, it has also been shown that air pollution greatly increases the risk of viral lung diseases in very young and elderly people. [9]

Moreover, 27.4 percent of the particularly vulnerable population in this country live with young people, and in Spain as many as 33.5 percent. In Germany, the figure is only seven percent [10]. In addition, according to Prof. Dr. Reinhard Busse, head of the Department of Management in Health Care at the TU Berlin, Germany is significantly better equipped than Italy in terms of intensive care units – by a factor of about 2.5 [11].

My question:

What efforts are being made to make the population aware of these elementary differences and to make people understand that scenarios like those in Italy or Spain are not realistic here?

*  *  *

This is an unofficial translation; see the original letter in German as a PDF.

Share