VIDEO: FBI Shows Up At Protesters House And Asks Strange Questions! Must Watch!

page: 18
120
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
She has an 'attitude' because at least she knows she is an owner of America.

Take possession of your nation, take responsibility,

and own your own attitude too.

It is your RIGHT & it is

your RESPONSIBILITY to your fellow citizenship owners.

Get an ATTITUDE. It is your JOB to do so.




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeytheHair
Is it just me, or did she seem like her goal was to upset them?
She constantly repeated their questions and kept reiterating the fact that she's a mom.... because it's totally unheard of for a mom to do illegal things/kill people.

Seriously, the guy gets a
from me for not getting severely annoyed at her for acting like a 12 year old trying to prove her parents wrong by providing only one, loosely based reason for why she is right and sounding like a broken record repeating everything he says five times. Then, to top it off, she tries to create an unnecessary heated political debate when all she had to do was answer, or refuse to answer ONE question.

She was just trying to "get a rise" out of him, from the very beginning until the very end, she seemed to try to antagonize them into saying or doing something, anything youtube worthy. Regardless of why they're there, cooperate, don't be a douche because you're bored, it only takes a moment to answer a damn question, or even to just plead the "first" as she EVENTUALLY did.
I don't like people like that....


[edit on 6/12/2010 by SmokeytheHair]


^THIS^

People are giving this woman way too much credit. She turned a simple little chat into the biggest deal in the world.

My neighbor was getting a job in the FBI so the next day we got an agent knocking on our door. He wanted to know more about our neighbor...asked questions like "Have you seen Paul consume or sell any illegal substances?" Did I get all freaked out and start shouting "WHY WOULD PAUL, A COMPLETLY NORMAL 25 YEAR OLD NICE MAN EVER DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!?"? No, instead I just answered the damn question. "No, I have never seen Paul take drugs"

This woman was just screaming for attention.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Izarith
reply to post by jfj123
 


I'm not familiar with the case however I do know that simply by putting a persons address on the Internet, you might be sued. As example, google earth.



Nice guess.

Google is being paid to get used.


Like a front, for what really is live feed.

Any evidence ?



For the most part, I don't think the FBI contracts google to do search work. The government uses it's own search systems which directly run through all major data backbones. They may request info from google on a specific case however.



They do a hell of a lot more than that on some levels, maybe not FBI but on some levels they can see your entire room simply by using your very own router signal.

Any evidence?



Could you provide evidence showing I'm wrong?



It's done the same way for audio, but mostly for text. As an example they would need a human to view the video in the OP but if some one took a picture of a document they would be able to turn it into text no problem.

A picture of a document has text in it. Text is easily identifiable via recognition software. Photo of say a tree cannot be disassembled the same way.


The proof of this is in the fact that on most forums you have to type in a word that is an image that is all garbled up before you can register for an account.

Why do you think that is?

This helps prove that a real person is signing up and not a bot since bots cannot read pictures.


This is completely different then visually searching within a video frame for common data and referencing to data changes in other frames.



Kind of but it's done by normal black hat programmers every day on a low level to spam forums using simple crawlers.

No it's not.


It's not impossible.

Nothing is impossible.



AGAIN, there is a difference between picking up a file and picking up visual contents of the file based on individual data changes frame by frame.



do me a favor...type something into Google anything.

Look at all of the different videos, images and web pages that come up.

What happens is a video has descriptive words attached to the file. When you search for a video about, let's say RACE CARS, any video with the words attached will come up.

Now do me a favor. Take a picture of your car and use the picture to search for similar cars.



I've seen no evidence to suggest it's possible.



You need to open your eyes and see the obvious free services you use every day, then multiply it a few times for government capabilities.

I'm aware. Thanks.



Irrelevant as video and audio are OBVIOUSLY not the same thing.



Irrelevant? Pifft..

yes. pifft..



Irrelevant as you were incorrect about your earlier assumption that the FBI arrested prostitutes.



Don't mean to brake your heart about the girl you had your eye on but most strippers are prostitutes.

Nope. Also FYI I've never been to a strip club in my life.


Apparently you are having trouble understanding.
The video shows people knocking on a ladies door claiming to be FBI and US Marshal. If this is a propaganda video, they are not committing a crime...they are acting just like the 2 actors on The X-files.
Why is this extremely simple concept so hard for you to understand? You're ASSUMING what you saw in that video was real as opposed to REALITY TV.



Your assuming that a clearly proven deputised Martial is in league with Hammas. And so is that other white dude.

Now you're suggesting that government agents are good people and would not associate with bad people for any reason. Which is it? you can't have it both ways.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by jfj123

Government employees should not be allowed to post unless they have a disclaimer, disclaiming the are funded, or employed by the government.

I agree.


So, you think a secretary working at an office in a national park should have to post a disclaimer if they post in forums should as these? Should soldiers and veterans too?

[edit on 13-6-2010 by DoomsdayRex]


I think it would be nice if a government agent posted the fact that they were an agent. Of course I also think it would be nice if Jennifer Love Hewitt showed up at more door wearing dirty nurse outfit


But of course if they did do that, it would destroy their abilities to conduct undercover investigations.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hedera Helix

Isn't that pretty much what the guy I responded to just said???



Yes pretty much.
I was just responding to your question.
I didn't want to be rude



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
The reason we have a US Constitution is because our forefathers [mothers?] had an ATTITUDE against tyrannical government thugs.


What were these investigators doing that was either tyrannical or thuggish?


Originally posted by slank
It is SO refreshing to see a REAL American patriot, respecting our history, founding & tradition


And what was she doing that was either respecting our history or tradition?


Originally posted by slank
It certainly highlights ones legal rights & the treachery [out]law enforcement is indulged to commit.


What treachery was that?

[edit on 13-6-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I think it would be nice if a government agent posted the fact that they were an agent.


But what constitutes a "government agent"?


Originally posted by jfj123
But of course if they did do that, it would destroy their abilities to conduct undercover investigations.


Wait, are we talking about investigations or the simple right to express your opinion?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeytheHair
Is it just me, or did she seem like her goal was to upset them?
She constantly repeated their questions and kept reiterating the fact that she's a mom.... because it's totally unheard of for a mom to do illegal things/kill people.

Seriously, the guy gets a
from me for not getting severely annoyed at her for acting like a 12 year old trying to prove her parents wrong by providing only one, loosely based reason for why she is right and sounding like a broken record repeating everything he says five times. Then, to top it off, she tries to create an unnecessary heated political debate when all she had to do was answer, or refuse to answer ONE question.

She was just trying to "get a rise" out of him, from the very beginning until the very end, she seemed to try to antagonize them into saying or doing something, anything youtube worthy. Regardless of why they're there, cooperate, don't be a douche because you're bored, it only takes a moment to answer a damn question, or even to just plead the "first" as she EVENTUALLY did.
I don't like people like that....


[edit on 6/12/2010 by SmokeytheHair]


Completely agree ... why the hell didn't she just answer the question and be done with if she has nothing to hide ... this woman wanted a rise out of the 2 FBI agents.

As others have said ... they were sent out to ask her the questions because someone (likely a neighbour) had called the FBI about her.

It is there job to follow up such calls.

Hell the same guys on here commending her for 'handling herself well' or 'like a pro' ... would be the same people who shouted the loudest if the FBI had ignored the call and the damn woman turned out to be a terrorist (oh the irony).

I don't know about 'handling herself well' ... I thought she was childish ... and extremely naive to play the 'I'm a mother with 5 kids' card ... does she really think a female is incapable of committing acts of terrorism just because she's given birth ?

In an ideal world maybe ... but we live in a far from ideal world.

Personally if it had been down to me I would have arrested her for obstruction ... just to throw some cold water on her arrogant attitude.


Woody



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by jfj123
I think it would be nice if a government agent posted the fact that they were an agent.


But what constitutes a "government agent"?


Originally posted by jfj123
But of course if they did do that, it would destroy their abilities to conduct undercover investigations.


Wait, are we talking about investigations or the simple right to express your opinion?


My "I agree" statement was just a fanciful thought.
You know how it's easy to tell the good guy and bad guy based on the color hat they wear?
I don't really expect that anyone should need to post info like that so they can express their opinion.
No what I mean?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwytch
I don't know about 'handling herself well' ... I thought she was childish ... and extremely naive to play the 'I'm a mother with 5 kids' card ... does she really think a female is incapable of committing acts of terrorism just because she's given birth ?


I do not think it would be too much of a stretch to think that is the world Ms. Anonymous lives is. I spent a lot of time around people like Ms. Anonymous a few years back. Among certain ultra-progressives there is a kind of pseudo-matriarchalism, wherein being a mother is not only the highest calling but makes one the highest authority. They believe being a mother makes her beyond reproach and incapable of doing anything harmful to anyone.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Izarith
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


I'm sorry to let you know this but the books and information you have recommended comes from a different time....


What a crock of crap because you haven't read those books.

There's two reasons I know that.

1) You didn't claim to have done so.

2) None of your bogus claims even resemble knowledge of the F.B.I.

Did you even watch the video in it's entirety?

If you did you would notice the A.C.L.U. at the end of the video and this website link.

If an Agent Knocks : Federal Investigators and Your Rights : Center for Constitutional Rights

Now, let us look at the Center for Constitutional Rights, shall we?


Quote from : Wikipedia : Center for Constitutional Rights

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal advocacy organization based in New York City, U.S., co-founded in 1966 by self-described "radical lawyer" William Kunstler.

In recent years, CCR has been frequently in the news for its civil liberties and human rights litigation and activism, as well as its legal assistance to the people imprisoned in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp.


Interesting, is it not, co-founded by a "self-described radical lawyer"?

Possibly, someone radical enough to produce a video, being propaganda?

I would say so.

You will notice I never claimed the video's claims were false, like what to do if the F.B.I. comes to your door, those claims were true, but the alleged interview is not.

The video is an obvious fake, because you can see the video camera is evident to them.

As I said originally, the F.B.I. and pretty much all Law Enforcement agencies do not allow themselves to be knowingly video-taped, meaning if they know they are being video-taped, they immediately close out the interview, most YouTube videos contain imagery where the Police Officer is seizing the video camera.

Obviously, you've never watched any videos like that, or you would know that.

It is one of those things ATS'ers rant and rave about being illegal, all the time.

And I am an attention to detail oriented person, and I noticed immediately within the video all sorts of things how these two actors did not conduct themselves accordingly.


Originally posted by Izarith
A time when The FBI was a unique branch of Law enforcement, and their primary role was to fight organised crime.


Yes, I know times have changed, and yes, those books do reflect that exactly.

Again, if you had read those books, you would know that, they address 9/11.

Remember I am an attention to detail person?

I noticed a detail, about you, which makes it obvious about you, you're either a foreigner, or a bad speller, nothing wrong with either thing, but both lead to knowledge about you.

You spelled the word organized, as "organised", which tells me you're not from America, because American's spell that word with a Z.

This means, either you're non-American, or a bad speller, neither of which is a crime.

But if you are a foreigner, you are placing your misconceptions about the F.B.I. and America ahead of logic, if you're a bad speller, you're not someone who has the ability to have attention to detail, again nothing wrong with that.

I am not attacking you, I am stating a fact, and an observation, the same as I did about the video, a false video, claiming those were two F.B.I. videos.


Originally posted by Izarith
Today the FBI's primary role is to bust strip bars and watch child pornography all day long. Just before 9/11 bush set up the FBI's new role as accomplices in organized crime.


That's a crock of crap too, nothing happens in strip bars, except stripping.

Crime happens if the strippers and or strip club owner are actual criminals.

Is that what you were alluding to because if it is you need to state it as such?

As for your comment about the F.B.I. watching "child pornography" and being accomplices in organized crimes, you're either not knowledgeable of the F.B.I., or you're bad at stating what you actually mean, or have zero logic.

The only thing Bush did in regards to the F.B.I. is created Homeland Security.

And he did that as a means to stage a coup on the American Government itself.

And as well the American people, creating an agency, which sets the systems of how our Law Enforcement does things differently, under the umbrella of D.H.S.

He put the F.B.I. under Homeland Security, which I am certain pissed them off.

Just the same as it did all Law Enforcement agencies.

And he created another layer of bureaucracy, however, its intent was to stifle inter-agency antagonism, turf wars, and idiocy in competing for budgets.


Originally posted by Izarith
You did not read that in any of your books did ya?


There's a bit of lack of knowledge within your post that leaves much to desire about your argument and lack of debating skills that cries for you to read.

I suggest you read those books.

One thing I will say about ATS is that people sure have a lack of knowledge about the F.B.I.

See, there's a difference between their actions, the laws they uphold, and the truth in the middle, which is what I am dealing with, because while I will not condone the F.B.I. breaking the law, neither will I condone people telling outright lies about them.

This video is a lie, it is a professional lie, filmed as something claiming to be an actual interview conducted by F.B.I. Agents, which shows based on everything within it.


Originally posted by Izarith
If indeed you are right then the two actors in the supposed fake video have committed a federal crime by impersonating Feds. I don't think A protest group who is probably well researched in Laws would do that. But I could be wrong.


No, actually that's a misconception, because Hollywood makes movies and television shows all the time about the F.B.I., if you had read the second book in my three suggested books, you would know it states as such and why.

The reason why?

Because J. Edgar Hoover encouraged it all the time because he was a media-hound.

Anything which promoted the F.B.I. was encouraged and anything undermined it was not only thrashed, but they were hounded until they went bankrupt.

Yes, Hoover abused his position as Director of the F.B.I., he also built the F.B.I. through blackmailing Congress and Washington D.C. to get it as large as it is today.

Now, if you read the Wikipedia link I provided on the Center for Constitutional Rights, and do some digging on your own, you might come to the same conclusions I have about the C.C.R., that they are a shell company for the A.C.L.U., supporting what they do, which is not necessarily always for the betterment of America, sometimes it is, sometimes it is not.

I have to get the A.C.L.U.'s newsletter, their intent is well-meaning, however how they do what they do is highly questionable, just as your claims are.

At best, the A.C.L.U. is fighting for civil liberties, at worst they are a lobbyist group.


Quote from : Wikipedia : American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) consists of two separate non-profit organizations: the ACLU Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization which focuses on litigation and communication efforts, and the American Civil Liberties Union, a 501(c) organization which focuses on legislative lobbying.

The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

It works through litigation, legislation, and community education.

Founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles, the ACLU was the successor organization to the earlier National Civil Liberties Bureau founded during World War I.

The ACLU reported over 500,000 members at the end of 2005.

Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been influential in the evolution of Constitutional law.

The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk.

Even when the ACLU does not provide direct legal representation, it often submits amicus curiae briefs.

Outside of its legal work, the organization has also engaged in lobbying of elected officials and political activism.

The ACLU has been critical of elected officials and policies of both Democrats and Republicans.


In essence, it is a lobbyist group, and a policy think-tank, through non-profit work.

I have actually been working towards opening a non-profit and think-tank.

And I see both sides of a conflict, this video is a lie, it is produced as propaganda.

While the claims it makes, about your civil rights, if indeed you are American, are indeed correct, the video itself is done as a fundraiser video, something the A.C.L.U. does all the time, making videos to sell their potential contributors on their ideals and over all message, if you've seen a fundraiser video you would know this is one, I've seen plenty of fundraiser videos.

For various reasons, usually all tied to people trying to get me to donate to their organizations.

Let's look at the A.C.L.U.'s funding practices shall we?


Quote from : Wikipedia : American Civil Liberties Union : Funding

Funding

The ACLU receives funding from a large number of sources.

For example, in 2004, the ACLU and its affiliate, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation reported revenues totaling $85,559,887.

Of that total, 87% was from donations and dues from the public, 1.8% from program services, including awards of legal fees, royalty income, and literature sales, and the remainder from investment income and income from sale of assets.

The distribution and amount of funding for state affiliates varies from state to state.

For example, the ACLU of New Jersey reported $1.2 million in income to both the ACLU-NJ and its affiliated tax-exempt foundation in the 2005 fiscal year.

Of that income, 46% came from contributions, 19% came from membership dues, 18% came from court awarded attorney fees, 12% came from grants, 4% came from investment income and the remainder from other sources.

Its expenses in the same period were $800,000, of which 12% went to administration and management. Smaller affiliates with fewer resources, such as that in Nebraska, receive subsidies from the national ACLU.

Foundations

In October 2004, the ACLU rejected $1.5 million from both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations because the Foundations had adopted language from the USA PATRIOT Act in their donation agreements, including a clause stipulating that none of the money would go to "underwriting terrorism or other unacceptable activities."

The ACLU views this clause, both in Federal law and in the donors' agreements, as a threat to civil liberties, saying it is overly broad and ambiguous.


Something I will say about people who are "conspiracy theorists" is most of the time they know what they are talking about, something I can say with a degree of certainty, that you do not.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Vendetta1986
 


like that would keep them out!! they would probably shoot them...



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123



The actors did not commit a federal crime. Actors pretend to be FBI all the time. Ever hear of The X-files ?



You might think is ok to impersonate a Fed, but I assure you that if you do, you are committing a Federal Crime which could lead to your imprisonment in a Federal Prison. It's not a Joke.

So all actors who are pretending to be FBI agents will be/are/have committed a federal crime? And they are all now imprisoned? Wow the jails must be full of actors right now. You're talking literally thousands and thousands of actors who are jailed. uh no....not the case.



I'm gonna have to weigh in on this back and forth, and chuck my two cents worth in.

If THIS video can be conclusively shown to be a hoax, all 3 participants are guilty of a federal crime, by misrepresenting FBI agents, and are due to see the inside of a federal courtroom. The two "agents" for impersonating federal agents, and the camera operating lady for conspiracy, on a federal level, for her role in promotion of the charade.

The "X-files" is recognized as a TV show, not a documentary of an actual FBI operation. At the end of each episode, when credits roll, the actual names of the actors playing each character is given, thus acting as a disclaimer that they are 'actual' FBI agents.

No such credits were presented in this video. We are supposed to believe them to be actual federal agents. If they aren't, and have misrepresented themselves as such, they can be prosecuted. I daresay that if the FBI isn't already aware of this video, they will be in short order, from people demanding 'answers' for their activity, as if any are due.

The creditation is the difference.

I know of a fellow who got in hot water with the feds over misrepresenting himself as a US Marshal, when in fact he wasn't. His transgression occurred in a bar, trying to impress women, and flashing fake credentials. Dumbass. Feds found out about THAT, and pounced. I have no reason to believe they'd miss a YouTube video being spread across the 'net.

Yessir, it's a crime. The fellow in question didn't do time, but lost his job over the deal, and got federal 'supervision' as a result. That was several years ago, and I'd guess he's out from under the supervision by now, but I'd also guess he lost all desire to impersonate a federal agent.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hedera Helix
reply to post by Izarith
 


They gave permission for her to record the interview. They did not give her permission to post it on youtube. This woman is SO much toast... and quit making excuses for the inexcusable.


If they gave permission for the taping, ownership of the tape is retained by the woman doing the taping. She is free to do with it as she will.

That's why you don't give expressed permission for recording of things you don't want going around the world in the digital age.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
When they said, "I just don't understand why you can't answer a simple question", she should simply have replied, "You won't tell me who called you, i won't answer your question either. Quid pro quo, respect comes mutually."

Simple, polite, and truthful.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
When they said, "I just don't understand why you can't answer a simple question", she should simply have replied, "You won't tell me who called you, i won't answer your question either. Quid pro quo, respect comes mutually."

Simple, polite, and truthful.


That's assuming they had the right to be there questioning her in the first place.

Participating in a protest, to me, is not sufficient reason to get a visit from the FBI.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
She has an 'attitude' because at least she knows she is an owner of America.

Take possession of your nation, take responsibility,

and own your own attitude too.

It is your RIGHT & it is

your RESPONSIBILITY to your fellow citizenship owners.

Get an ATTITUDE. It is your JOB to do so.


So your saying that to be an owner of America is to be a jerk and rude to government officials who are protecting that piece of America YOU own?

No sorry, she was in the wrong. As much as I detest the government, this time they were in the right. See, this is what police are supposed to do to protect us. Its called following leads. Someone ratted on her and they were doing a follow-up... that's all.

I can easily imagine this woman at one of those rally's talking about blowing up the federal building or whatever in the heat of the moment. It is the police's RESPONSIBILITY to follow up on this stuff. They never once were rude, as she was, or infringed upon her rights.

Your treating this like she was taken to Gitmo, Cuba and placed in a cell and held against her rights without due process. Let's talk about responsibilty as Americans. After 9/11 we gave up our rights to due process out of fear, which is what the people behind 9/11 were hoping for. Now this little cupcake gets a door knocking and your upset?

For her to sit there all condensending and state 'how could you think me a terrorist because I have 5 children'? How does that mean anything? Lots of terrorists have children. I'm sorry, but when you support terrorists you are gonna be linked to them.

For her to plead the 5th (I think she said the 1st amendment... so much for knowing her stuff) in this situation is just stupid and used as a tactic to provoke the FBI. It's there to protect you, not to be used to piss someone off. All she had to do was say NO and they would have left her alone. Now she places herself under suspcion.

I for one hopes that she gets a few more visits from them because of her ATTITUDE. I think she needs an attitude adjustment. If you condone her behavior please treat the police like this next time they pull you over on the road and see how far it gets you. These guys are out there protecting us and deserve our respect. And yes, there are bad cops out there... BUT their in the minority. You just hear more about them cause its newsworthy. Most cops out there are out there to protect you. Hating cops is no different than hating all persons of one skin color because of that color.

You need to KNOW your rights so they aren't infringed upon. You need to know your amendments (this lady didn't) to protect yourself. You need to be responsible. However, when the cops are just doing their job you NEED to be polite and helpful. Its this kind of lady that was probably friends with Timothy McVeigh. To condone her actions is childish and unAmerican.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Alienmojo]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
This is the third and final time I will post this in this thread, as it is continually ignored by everyone except those who seem to accept it as evidence.

My question: do those suggesting the possibility (and I accept that it is indeed a possibility) that the people in the video are merely actors in a propaganda piece believe that the actors are assuming the identities of law enforcement officers who have positions with relation to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and/or FBI?

I ask this because while I can't find anything on the man personally, the name of the female in the video is that of not only a law enforcement officer assigned to the Central Texas JTTF, but also a liaison to the FBI.



Officer Layne Brewster-Smith was assigned to the Central Texas Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in February 2008, becoming a liaison between UTPD and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).


Source: Page 4 of the University of Texas Police Department 2008 Annual Report

The failure to reference this information - previously posted twice in this thread already - in posts arguing for the hypothesis that these are merely actors (which, again, I accept as a valid possibility,) is quite frustrating. Please consider this evidence. Thank-you.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 

I saw a post of someone suggesting this was made up, but I never thought more of it. They acted like FBI, at least how I thought they would act. Thanks for taking the time to research that information. Very helpful. No matter what you do though, no matter how much research, people are gonna believe what they want to believe.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   



That's assuming they had the right to be there questioning her in the first place.

Participating in a protest, to me, is not sufficient reason to get a visit from the FBI.


Your missing the point, as that good lady did, they had every right to be there. As they even said, they weren't there because she was in a protest, they were there because someone said (probably someone she was with at the protest) she had spoken about doing violence.

I don't know why you continue to defend this woman. She was wrong, plain and simple. The police were just there following up on a lead. If I heard her say something and they didn't go over and ask her about it, I would be mad! That's all they were doing. They were polite and never infringed upon her rights, yet she was rude, condensending, and invoked the 5th even though there was no need to.

Its ok to hate the bad guys people, but don't link ALL law enforcement into that barrel. Some cops are bad... these weren't. They were out there protecting us by following up on a lead. That's what good cops do.





new topics
top topics
 
120
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join