‘This is the first time I’ve ever heard of the use of ‘disruption’ to kill’

The use of disruption to kill was already widely known by the time of the Paris terror attacks in November 2015, when police used the word to describe an attack on the Jewish Museum in central Paris that killed 12 people.

It is now a catch-all term for an aggressive, coordinated, and coordinated attack on an organisation or community in which an attack is planned or carried out.

And it’s a common term for police, security, and security agencies, which can use it to describe actions by groups or individuals that are deemed to pose a threat to public order or security.

But it’s been a bit more nebulous.

In the US, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division has used disruption to hunt down the perpetrators of at least 30 terrorist attacks since 2008.

Its use has led to more than 20 arrests, including those in California, Colorado, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

In Britain, the UK’s Domestic Terrorism Unit, known as Unit 731, has used the term “disruption” to describe more than 50 cases in which people have been charged with plotting attacks on public gatherings since 2008, including a 2014 attack in Manchester.

But these incidents have not been seen as terror-related.

And the term has been used to describe a range of acts of violence by groups of people or individuals, including carjackings, armed robberies, arson attacks, assaults on businesses, and bombings.

It has also been used in relation to police, which, while often acting in self-defence, have also been seen using the term to justify use of force.

A study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice by US researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, and published by the University Press of America, found that, in some instances, the use to describe such actions can be a useful tool for law enforcement agencies.

But, they found, “there is no evidence that the use or misuse of disruption has become more widespread in the US”.

So what is the issue?

It’s not as simple as “there’s an increase in use of the term, so we need to take it more seriously”.

The researchers point to an increase of public perception that people who use disruption have acted in an aggressive and violent manner.

The report also highlighted how police departments have increasingly seen the term as a useful way to justify their actions.

In a 2016 survey, nearly a third of officers surveyed said that disruption had become a tool for them in their job.

“Police officers are being told by their supervisors, supervisors are being warned by their superiors, supervisors, superiors, superiors,” said the researchers.

“If I was a police officer in Texas, I would not use disruption.”

What this research shows is that the FBI, the British National Police Chiefs’ Association, and the British Home Office are not being honest with their police forces.

Police agencies have not used the phrase “disruptive tactics” as an excuse to kill, and they may not be using it to justify the use by officers of deadly force.

The term is being used to justify police violence against protesters.

It’s being used by law enforcement to justify using lethal force against people who are protesting against police brutality, or for political purposes, such as to undermine the government’s power.

And that’s just not how we want our police forces to operate.

And what we’re doing is going to have an impact on how we’re policed in the future.

“The word is not used in the same way in the UK, because we’re not policing like that,” said John Cottrell, a criminologist at the Australian National University.

“It’s not a common use by police to describe what we would call a terrorist attack.

We don’t call it that in Australia.”

He added that police forces across Australia, the US and other countries have adopted the term differently to the UK and the US.

The Australian National Police Association is currently considering a proposed change to its rules that would require all officers to report “disappearances, disinformations, or disturbances” that occur during police operations.

If the proposed change passes, Cottrel said, “disinformation and disruption will be used to cover up what’s happening”.

“If you go to the police station, you’ll see that you’re given a police uniform and you’re told you can go to work,” he said.

You walk into a public meeting and you hear the same thing. “

You walk out of the workplace and you see a police car, and it’s the same.

You walk into a public meeting and you hear the same thing.

It might be someone saying ‘disrupt your meetings’, but the police are going to be standing there.”

Cottell said the police may have adopted this term to cover themselves up in the face of an attack, because they believe they can protect the public and the community