A SWAT team in St. Louis kicked in Angela Zorich's door without knocking. They made her and her family kneel as they killed her dog. Then they explained as the dog was dying that they were there because her gas had been turned off.
They told the judge beforehand they needed a SWAT team because her sons were violent—they lied.
They said the dog charged them, but they had shot her in the back—they lied.
They said her gas was off—they lied. (Her lawyer said that they couldn't destroy the evidence by flushing the meter down the toilet.) Also, it's none of their business if the gas was off.
They said a neighbor had informed them that Angela's gas was turned off—they probably lied. The cops wouldn't need an anonymous informant to know whether her gas bill was unpaid because the gas company could tell them that, but claiming an anonymous informant protects the gas company from looking bad, and claiming an anonymous informant doesn't require any evidence.
They said it was all the fault of one rogue cop—they probably lied. This sounds like the norm. SWAT teams, anonymous informants, and no-knock warrants, and shoot-the-dog-first policies have been around for decades, and the trend is more atrocity—not less.
Angela says her sense of security is gone. In other words, she now feels less safe in the presence of police. In other words, she now knows a little about how the world really works. She may have thought her life was hard before that, but now she knows … she was living in the candy coating on the real world.
Of course, Angela probably still doesn't know that agents shoot the dog first as a matter of policy. The cops may actually believe it is for their own safety, but all it does is escalate violence and incite and provoke the family when they have to watch their beloved dog murdered for no reason by thugs who invaded their home.
Given that such an obviously unnecessary and toxic policy has been in place for decades, the pretense cannot be the real reason for its existence. To be clear, the actual outcome must be the desired outcome (for those at the top), and hence the real reason for its existence. The actual outcome is that it provokes some families to fight back when they see their beloved pet murdered in front of them by invading thugs, and a family that fights back would be themselves be murdered or imprisoned, and thus a few more copies of the increasingly rare genes that compel one to fight back against tyranny will have been scrubbed from the gene pool. That is one of the actual outcomes. We will identify others, and they are similarly toxic for the people, but good for those at the top.
Anonymous informants (like in East Germany) are based on the pretense of fighting the war on drugs and the war on terror, and like all wars, those wars are based on lies, and the actual results of those wars (e.g. the war in Afghanistan) is toxic and 100% bad for Americans, so for such wars to continue for decades, the pretense cannot be the real reason for the wars, and the actual outcomes of the wars must be the desired outcomes (for those at the top), and hence the real reason for their continued existence.
Looking at some of the actual outcomes of anonymous informants, it is self-evident that a neighbor can make an anonymous tip in order to sic a SWAT team on another neighbor (and we have seen what that means), which is yet another of the many factors artificially imposed on the people that produce the outcome of inciting us to dislike, distrust, and distance our neighbors, our friends, our family, and co-workers. Such artificial incitements keep us looking at each other instead of looking at those at the top, and prevent us from uniting against them.
There is another actual outcome of policies such as SWAT teams invading homes, no-knock warrants, anonymous informants, and shooting the dog first. They make the people more likely to see themselves in an us vs. them relationship with the cops, which is how the cops have been trained to see us for years now, and which is thus a self-reinforcing narrative that only benefits the players at the top.
Angela probably also doesn't know that if she had insisted on going to trial so that a jury could put these thugs in jail, then she would have probably been killed before the trial, possibly during the trial, or else before the appeal. Not only do cops kill witnesses against them and destroy the evidence, but this is the kind of case that would have threatened the illusion of legitimacy. It would have revealed too much about how the system doesn't work, how it doesn't work like we think it does, and how the American government doesn't work for the American people. Therefore, people far more powerful than the cops would have ensured she was unable to finish litigating the atrocity perpetrated against her family.
Once one is aware of some of the ways in which we are all being played, one can more easily find many of the other examples.