Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Everyone Here OK With This?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by xdpatriot View Post
    How about obtaining search warrants? Once that was done, then go search.
    OK done these things before like warrants, investigations and the team so:
    Phone pings indicate 6x6block area of 2 men, possibly more in a terrorist cell, who have killed and maimed a lot of folks, utilizing a variety of weapons which they still have many on them, and are looking, as we the public now know, to go to NYC among other areas to do more killing and they stated they didn't kill the ones they carjacked because they were non American and LEOs are supposed to find enough manpower to lockdown a 6x6 block area full of residential Americans with them being no less than say 20-30 ft apart in visual range for security and then find a judge, that didn't go to work either because of fear (one of their rights), who will sign off on an order for all those dwellings which must be individually typed by name, residence and description along with the specific reason,to stay within their rights, with the administrative staff, that didn't come to work either for fear, (also a right), all the while allowing the residents to come and go freely, to stay within their rights, as if there is no danger which means you don't have the area locked down at all which means the RFBGs simply walk, drive, carjack their way out and continue to do what THEY the Bad Guys want to do which is to VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS.

    It's a no win situation and while there may have been some zealous ones who were rough handed it appeared the majority were not to include the Officer who went to the local store (strangely still open even with the "orders" and yet no arrest were made) and bought milk for the family with multiple kids and carried it back for them so they wouldn't be exposed unnecessarily to gunfire or explosions because those were people in his community.
    There are hard choices to be made when going left is wrong and going right is wrong and there is no other way. You do what you believe is right in the interest of the ones you work for, ya know like your wife, mom and friends, until you fix the issue and then get back to the way it should be ASAP. This was accomplished within minutes of the capture and before they even got the terrorist out of the neighborhood people were lining the streets cheering.
    They were cheering because they had been liberated from the truly evil ones who had truly violated their rights and their rights had been in fact restored.
    Knowledge is Power, Practiced Knowledge is Strength, Tested Knowledge is Confidence

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Matt In Oklahoma View Post
      OK done these things before like warrants, investigations and the team so:
      Phone pings indicate 6x6block area of 2 men, possibly more in a terrorist cell, who have killed and maimed a lot of folks, utilizing a variety of weapons which they still have many on them, and are looking, as we the public now know, to go to NYC among other areas to do more killing and they stated they didn't kill the ones they carjacked because they were non American and LEOs are supposed to find enough manpower to lockdown a 6x6 block area full of residential Americans with them being no less than say 20-30 ft apart in visual range for security and then find a judge, that didn't go to work either because of fear (one of their rights), who will sign off on an order for all those dwellings which must be individually typed by name, residence and description along with the specific reason,to stay within their rights, with the administrative staff, that didn't come to work either for fear, (also a right), all the while allowing the residents to come and go freely, to stay within their rights, as if there is no danger which means you don't have the area locked down at all which means the RFBGs simply walk, drive, carjack their way out and continue to do what THEY the Bad Guys want to do which is to VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS.

      It's a no win situation and while there may have been some zealous ones who were rough handed it appeared the majority were not to include the Officer who went to the local store (strangely still open even with the "orders" and yet no arrest were made) and bought milk for the family with multiple kids and carried it back for them so they wouldn't be exposed unnecessarily to gunfire or explosions because those were people in his community.
      There are hard choices to be made when going left is wrong and going right is wrong and there is no other way. You do what you believe is right in the interest of the ones you work for, ya know like your wife, mom and friends, until you fix the issue and then get back to the way it should be ASAP. This was accomplished within minutes of the capture and before they even got the terrorist out of the neighborhood people were lining the streets cheering.
      They were cheering because they had been liberated from the truly evil ones who had truly violated their rights and their rights had been in fact restored.
      I agree with some of this. It is a hard job for a Peace Officer to do his job sometimes. I don't think there is a perfect answer to this situation. I do not think, however, it is ever a good idea to take rights away for security. I understand the need to get these guys, but ABSOLUTELY not out of the guidelines of the constitution. I also believe that if something tragic would have happened again, while warrants were being issued, it is not Peace Officers fault. That would be part of living in a free society. Peace Officers can't be everywhere at once. It's not their reaponsibilty to protect me and my family. That is my responsibility wih the help of my Lord. All of the civilians in this country need to realize the same.

      You have to understand, now more than ever, we can't give away any of our rights, for any reason. If someone did venture out after the authorities ASKED and were hurt or killed, it's the civvies fault, not the authorities. We all take a certain amount of chances on a daily basis without our freedoms being trampled.

      I really think the easy answer is getting warrants. I know it would have taken an ETERNITY for the system to get warrants for every residence searched. What went on was wrong. The authorities should have obtained warrants and the citizens also need to realize if something would happen during this period, that's what we pay for freedom. It's that simple. These 'over zealous' officers are also the same kind that would, in fact, confiscate firearms if they're ever ordered. I know it's considered a different situation, but is it really? This is something we all, civilian, prior military, active duty, Peace Officer, whatever. Would we step on the constitution because we were ordered to? Would we keep our oath to defend it? Hard times are coming like a train, we need to decide where we stand. It's pretty black and white.
      אני אעמוד עם ישו וישראל

      Comment


      • #18
        I have been thinking about this lately.
        Here is my take....

        Bomber/ terrorist on the lamb in my neighborhood.
        Doors are locked, kids in their rooms with wife.
        Me pacing with the 12 gauge.
        Cops going door to door.
        I go to the door, put my shotgun down and tell officer sorry no terrorist here , If I see them I will put #7 in their tail and I will hold them for you.
        Do they say, Mr wise owl, thanks and stay vigilant.
        Or am I drug out the front door and with my kids at gunpoint because I posed a threat and questions will be asked later as my kids are crying


        I seriously don't know what I would have done in this situation.


        I am glad that the pos's were caught and that no Leo's beat or shot anyone

        This had to happen and it could have even done just a tad differently.
        You know what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like this?

        Comment


        • #19
          yeah wise could have been done xxx way, what if's.
          problem i have is the extreme reaction/response in regards to the "man hunt". can you tell the LEO's apart from military? can you tell who the "bad guy" is from many of the pictures, and then with our technology thats available to us a 19yr old can hide in a boat only to be found by joe citizen..andf im not talking drones.. just helo based imaging systems.??? on top of that the stories of his boat and the "bomber" being shot even though the bomber was un armed.add my foil to the fire what about the " he had an ar15.." then reports of " ohh just a bb gun.."......yeah didnt see that angle coming for gun control...

          again, i know that the response was "lets find this sob" which is fine, but at what point do we as citizens draw the line on what we feel is stepping on our rights.

          i think the main problem with that is society...they are unarmed, and not self sufficient. radio show said it best last night " people are not self reliant/sufficient , do not have any sense of self responsibility, and have grown to accept that the government is there solely to take care of them.."

          each event like this enforces that mentality...as each time theres a battle cry for some new " law" to keep us safe.

          pretty soon we'll all be in bubble fed by sterile robots in order to keep us safe.....that is until skynet becomes self aware.
          Hey Petunia...you dropped your man pad!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Not_Yet_Prepped View Post
            "Still haven't heard any answers to what would you do?"

            You have 30-40 murders a month in Chicago... Do you close down the city every time you have a suspect considered "armed and dangerous"? When have we ever closed a city for a single SUSPECT... A TEENAGER at that, and again is only a suspect. We don't know all the real details of this and I doubt we ever will, but giving up our rights is NOT part of the Solution.

            They should have heavily increased patrols and kept his picture all over the media. Then let the citizens decide for themselves if they wanted to go out or not.
            You talk about a "teenager". "I was a teenager when I went in the Marine Corps, I was still a teenager when I was sent to Scout/Sniper School, I was an official "Designated Marksmen" before I turned 20." This could probably be said by quite a few "teenagers" in all branches of the service.

            They could have been a little more polite for sure, but the guy had to be found or he would have struck again.

            Comment


            • #21
              So most here seem to agree that to catch ONE TEENAGER it was worth the loss of freedom?
              That your SAFETY is more important than your FREEDOM?
              Someone kicking down your door and pointing loaded guns at you and your family is NOT loss of your rights or freedoms (because that guy wore a uniform?)?
              Your saying a kid with a pipe bomb and maybe gun is causes more TERROR than STORM TROOPERS roaming your streets and kicking in doors with guns drawn pointing them at you and your family?

              Go back and read your history... These "TERROR" attacks are used to take your freedoms... JUST because the TROOPS went home this time, does NOT mean the will go home next time. And there will be a NEXT time...

              THIS KID is only SUSPECTED and we all want the government to show him NO rights. The MEDIA is outraged that he has a LAWYER and someone read him is RIGHTS... Really??? You want the GOVERNMENT to act this way for this KID? If you champion the someone else's loss of rights... What happens when someone champions for the loss of your rights?

              It is NEVER worth giving up your FREEDOMS... Again the GERMAN willing gave up so much before they realized it was a PROBLEM... and then it was too late. Again go back and look what happened in Germany and realize we are going down that same road.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tarheelsman71 View Post
                You talk about a "teenager". "I was a teenager when I went in the Marine Corps, I was still a teenager when I was sent to Scout/Sniper School, I was an official "Designated Marksmen" before I turned 20." This could probably be said by quite a few "teenagers" in all branches of the service.

                They could have been a little more polite for sure, but the guy had to be found or he would have struck again.
                +1,000,000

                Having been a teenager that was the recipricant (sp) of similar training, the whole "teenager" thing means nothing to me. Their is a huge difference between a 13 year old and a 19 year old, and I think that's obvious to everyone.
                Boris- "He's famous, has picture on three dollar bill!"

                Rocky- "Wow! I've never even seen a three dollar bill!"

                Boris- "Is it my fault you're poor?"

                Comment


                • #23
                  most here
                  Negative.

                  And folks like I said previously, I WANT to keep this thread open. To that end, how you can help is to avoid GENERALITIES.

                  And let's think here folks- on a topic like this few are willing to even post, so counting up a couple of posts and saying "most here" is by no means representative.

                  We have had similar things happen in our area, albeit not terrorists. Po Po's were looking for an escaped fugitive that lived in a kinda nefarious area a mile or so away. No one drives down our "driveway" aka dirt road in from the county road. Seriously, ONE turn around/bad address in 14 years. No one just "visits" us and we don't even tell folks at church where we live. So Officer Po Po drives up to the gate -gate was open but he had the courtesy to stop AT the gate anyways. Wife and boy stayed in the house, I walked out, was armed but not openly, all transpired on my land.

                  "Afternoon sir."

                  "Afternoon officer Po Po, can I help you with something?"

                  "Well we had Mr. Dirtbag Drugdealerscumacus from over by Hell's Kitchen escape custody. He's been spotted on this side of the river."

                  "What's he look like, we ain't from round here (gotta talk the language ya know), so I ain't familiar with him."

                  Po Po shows a pic.

                  "Haven't seen him, want us to give ya'll a call if we do?"

                  "Yes we'd appreciate it if you would."

                  "He hurt anyone? He dangerous? He wouldn't hurt my dogs would he" (stupid response just to feel him out for more info)

                  "He's dangerous."

                  "Well we won't take any chances with him, we'll call you right away." (Nice little feel good answer, not suggesting anything)

                  "Thanks. Ya'll have a nice day."

                  Never once even set foot on the property.
                  Boris- "He's famous, has picture on three dollar bill!"

                  Rocky- "Wow! I've never even seen a three dollar bill!"

                  Boris- "Is it my fault you're poor?"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Just saw a news report that they were headed to times square next if they didnt screw the pooch with the car... a little devine intervention helps every once in a while.
                    WE all are responsible for our own safety not the gvts. responsibility. Im sick and tired of giving up my rights when there's already pleanty of laws on the books for that as it is.
                    The LEOs were stressed beyond comprehension... ask any service member/LEO whose been key'd up and on edge all day... did I like how they acted? NO, do I understand the reason for it? YES!!!
                    YMMV

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Sorry about the "most here" comment... You are correct that only a few response can by no means judge the majority of this great community that are silent on this subject.



                      Where is the LINE?
                      When searching for 1 terrorist is it ok for the Government to TERRORIZE 100,000 people or 1,000,000?
                      Boston we are talking almost a million people. By Locking our doors and hiding in FEAR the TERRORIST WON... They achieved their goal... 2 men caused 350 million be to stop their lives and watch the news. 2 men caused 1 million people of BOSTON to live under Military LAW... and the stress seeing STORM TROOPERS on their street causes. 2 men cost the economy billions of dollars. 2 men made us change our lives... THEY WON because we willingly gave up our freedoms.

                      My CONCERN is in the "Officials", the "MASS MEDIA" response and MOST IMPORTANTLY the "CITIZENS" response to the "OCCUPATION" a US city. We (the Citizens) should be asking ourselves some very serous questions as the title of this topic suggests... Are we OK with this? I am not and only wish the rest of my fellow CITIZENS would demand some tough answers from our "OFFICIALS" (these should be public servants not OFFICIALS). If we are NOT OK with this than we should be talking about it. LOUDLY...

                      Parents if your kids do something wrong, but you understand their reasoning for it, do you shut up and not have a talk... NO because the kids will just do it again! If we don't go to the Officials to say wait a second here... Then they will do the same thing next time or worse... We must also ask questions of the LEOs seemingly lack of questions/concern about their orders. Don't get me wrong, I having nothing but respect for those boots on the ground in Boston and anywhere around this great nation and the world.

                      As far as the LEO (other boots there) they SHOULD HAVE ASKED THEMSELVES some serous questions about what they were doing. If we say they were "AMPED UP" or "UNDER ENORMOUS STRESS" or any other "justification" just trying to rationalize their actions because we want to be patriotic...it does no one any good.

                      These are supposed to be Trained professionals and they should have be able to be more level headed than that. If they can not handle the STRESS of the job maybe they should find another JOB... If they SAY they were JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS they should surely ask themselves some questions...

                      What is Terrorism?
                      What did they take oath to protect?
                      What is it that we are fighting for?
                      If you are fighting for the FREEDOM of the Citizens than Taking that FREEDOM away is not really working towards your goal...

                      Where and how do you want to live?
                      The most secure place in the world to live is a SUPERMAX prision. Do you want to live there?
                      The safest place in the world is Vault by yourself, do want to live there?

                      Freedom is NOT SAFE, it is NOT SECURE...
                      Freedom is HARD, it is Challenging.
                      Freedom is responsibility, it is RISKY.
                      Freedom is LIFE...

                      People are abusing your Patriotism and Emotions. They tell you the "Patriotic Act" is patriotic... They tell you we must support the War in IRAQ or your are not Patriotic...

                      Wait giving up my rights that our founders worked so hard to protect is Patriotic? Wait DEAD AMERICAN BOYS is PATRIOTIC? No we went to WAR on a LIE and my PATRIOTISM tells me we must demand answers for our DEAD PATRIOTIC boys.

                      We must then LOOK at the PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION that the "officials" are using against us.

                      They create (or abuse) a PROBLEM. To get an emotional REACTION from us and then tell us their SOLUTION. Because they got us emotional we become LESS rational and the solution does not get put under the microscope... Just as in this problem we take a emotional reaction to being "attacked" and we don't ask questions as to why a very large number of people instantly lost their rights.
                      Last edited by Not_Yet_Prepped; 04-26-2013, 01:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Okay, I just wasted a lot of time on this deal...



                        See video in middle of page.
                        Last edited by Grand58742; 04-26-2013, 01:58 PM.
                        Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Grand58742 View Post
                          Okay, I just wasted a lot of time on this deal...



                          See video in middle of page.
                          Video to me seems to start off with an Anti "the ends justify the means" tone, but ends with a very PRO "make me exit my house at gun point is ok" tone...
                          The article to me seems to have a they "crossed the line" tone.

                          Just ask yourself...

                          When is it OK for armed men to point loaded weapons at 3 year old and her father carrying her in his arms and demand for him to leave the safety and comfort of their home?
                          Last edited by Not_Yet_Prepped; 04-26-2013, 02:18 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Not_Yet_Prepped View Post
                            Video to me seems to start off with an Anti "the ends justify the means" tone, but ends with a very PRO "make me exit my house at gun point is ok" tone...
                            The article to me seems to have a they "crossed the line" tone.
                            I actually had a far longer post put up, however, did my homework and found this. CNS isn't an unreliable source with a spin like Infowars. Plus, local reporters tend to get good stuff so even discounting the video in the original post, the story is legit. Longer post to follow...
                            Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Now, on the "legitimacy" of the overall searches...

                              I have mixed emotions on this. I can see the exigent circumstances of the situation driving a door to door search. But only on a small scale. Maybe a few neighborhoods at most. Far easier for a judge to buy off on. Do I support that? Hmmm...under certain circumstances, maybe. Look at it from this viewpoint...

                              Cops go up to a door. "Sir/Ma'am, we believe there to be one or both of the terror suspects from Monday's bombing in this area, would you consent for a search of your home and premises for these individuals?" Now thinking as a cop...if they comply, nice as pie I waltz in and look around the house, make sure someone is with me as I go through since i was invited in. "Are there any other locations they might be hiding in? Do you have an attic or crawlspace? Basement? Shed in the backyard? Have you seen the individuals pictured here in this area?" I'm still guarded, but at the same time, someone is being compliant, I'm not going to force them from their house at gunpoint to search. Too many unknowns. There are areas I might miss, rooms that will take too much time to sweep and of course the inevitable lawsuit that will emerge.

                              Now if they don't consent, makes my Spidey Senses start coming online with one of three possible explanations:

                              They have something to hide.

                              There is someone hiding in the location immediately behind the door with a gun pointed at their head or their loved ones heads.

                              They happen to know their Rights and I need a warrant to conduct a full search. However, exigency applies and whether a warrant was needed is going to be decided later.

                              Now, I believe exigent circumstances apply in this situation. I push in the door, grab Mom by the arm in front of screaming kids, point weapon at Dad for compliance, grab children running to protect Mommy and get them outside and conduct my search...and end up on the front page of Infowars, CNN, Fox News, YouTube and the Boston Globe before the sun goes down. As posted above. And completely, technically in line with the law. Someone, somewhere authorized police to do that and I can flat guarantee you it will eventually see the light of day. However, will probably get crushed by the news of the latest Hollywood star sleeping around and going to rehab. Or the tail wagging the dog and another "crisis" erupts (doesn't sound familiar at all now does it?). But overall, someone said exigent circumstances applied and acted on that. All the while being technically legal.

                              Overall I'm not saying the above isn't possible to do under the circumstances the Boston and MA police faced. Or potentially didn't happen the way I outlined. Gun in someone's face? A little stretch. But when you don't know what's on the other side of the door you need to be ready to act. So I can see the reasoning. I don't think it's right by any means, and a good lawyer could argue in a the violation of the 4th Amendment. Even in the circumstances surrounding Boston, I can see exigency could be argued. However, due to the "public safety" of the situation, the 4th Amendment does somewhat give authority in this case. And/or that's what someone will claim. Not saying it's right by any means. Furthermore, the whole "public safety" and exigent circumstances thing can be stretched pretty far and definitely be abused by those in power.

                              Now it appears in Boston, Watertown specifically, they skipped over the nice "hiya, I'm your local Boston policeman. Can I pahk my cahh and look around?" And again, inevitable lawsuits to follow I would be willing to bet. Just like New Orleans. And in NOLA, the cops/police commissioner were found guilty IIRC. Well, not guilty, but certainly in violation of the 4th Amendment. But in this case...not so sure.

                              I hope you weren't counting me into that generalization of "most here." I have mixed emotions on this one. I can see from one perspective why they did it. But the other part of me says there could have been a different tactic used. I can't say what I would do in that particular situation. Public safety is one thing. Chasing down a bombing suspect is another. Rousting people from their homes and performing a search based on someone's "exigent circumstances" only emboldens those that will do it again all while creating "exigent circumstances." I saw on another site someone said this is what happens when liberals start interpreting the Patriot Act. And I can't say they are wrong with that comment. Liberals, especially those currently in power, have shown quite the disdain for the Constitution and the letter of the law. So seeing them create a situation where "exigent circumstances" apply and conduct door to door searches for "known domestic terrorists" is not outside the realm of possibility.

                              All in all, I don't feel the tactics used were correct. And I also happen to understand Matt's question of "what were the other options available." This isn't an easy answer to the problem. For one, 4th Amendment Rights were potentially violated seriously. On the other hand a dangerous suspect was on the loose and probably threatened public safety. Can you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? Yes, in most cases. Was it the time to be "nice" and request permission with a suspect potentially hiding behind the door with a gun to someone's head that puts the public at risk as well as the fellow officers? I don't have a good answer to that and can obviously see both sides of the coin from a citizen view and from an LEO/Mil view.

                              But the fact I'm having this debate in my head should be of comfort to some on here since it means I'm not brainwashed by the .mil to following orders without question lol

                              But to the overall point, I still have mixed emotions/thoughts and honestly don't believe there is going to be a "right" answer for this particular situation. Balancing public safety against Rights is not an easy task. I happen to agree giving up Rights for safety is not the right answer. But I also can understand why it happened in Boston. Maybe not support it, but understand it from a legal aspect of exigent circumstances as applied under the 4th Amendment.

                              Just a couple of web links on what I'm talking about when exigency is known to exist:





                              And before we get wrapped up in this as Rights being stripped recently by the Patriot Act or NDAA 2011, exigent circumstances in relation to the 4th Amendment have been around for years. Nothing new so to speak and nothing the current administration has done to further this power in recent memory. SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and has been upheld time and time again.

                              But having said that...could embolden them (liberals and other authoritarian types) to stretch that particular "public safety" exception and push for more "exigent circumstances" in the future.
                              Last edited by Grand58742; 04-26-2013, 03:20 PM.
                              Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Grand58742 View Post
                                I hope you weren't counting me into that generalization of "most here." I have mixed emotions on this one.
                                Sorry about that... it was out of line altogether and not directed at anyone person.

                                I was emotional about this... Just as we all are. And speaking of that, the "emotional" response to the FEAR of the attack is what they were hoping for. And as the link to video you put up at least some of LEOs were apologizing those they were being "forced" to terrorize. That means that atleast they knew on some level they MAY be doing something wrong.

                                LEO can not guarantee your safety so why try to make them. They should be defending our liberty and trying to guarantee our rights and freedoms.

                                What we need to do is change our paradigm... Currently if LEO makes a mistake and someone gets away or injured that LEO is punished (in someway). But we should not look at it that way... LEO should only be punished if they error by taking away ones rights and freedoms unduly...

                                For example:
                                We must let LEO know they can dis-obey orders which they believe to be unlawful and then support them when they do so... If the order turns out to be lawful but was "on-line" still they should be supported for at least showing some independent discernment (even if it was slightly off).

                                We need to encourage them to be more independent thinkers.

                                What we need to do is ask and plan out now "what/where is the line?" Decide before the FEAR what is acceptable and what is NOT. I personally believe the founders already did that... but we need to think about it now.

                                Has the Patriotic Act made us safer or has it made it easier for "officials" to abuse their power?
                                Who found this Suspect, was it the "Officials" or the "Citizens"?
                                Do you protect liberty and freedom by giving them up?

                                Is anyone here an "Oath Keeper"? I know we have LEO and Mil (current or ex)... You took an Oath! Do you remember your Oath? That Oath did not have an Expiration date. The Oath Keepers read the #2 and #3 orders they should NOT obey...

                                2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
                                3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
                                Last edited by Not_Yet_Prepped; 04-26-2013, 04:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X