Political Profiling of a "Constitutionalist" Turns Simple Domestic Call Into SWAT Raid

reply to post by jude11

Shows how little you know about me.
I'm presently fighting my state over the Real ID act, and its “real” legal infringements over my states constitution and my legal rights. Your issue is that you don't obviously understand the law, or how it really works. If you did, you'd realize that the state laws give the police the authority to do what they did, and the supreme court has found in favor of these state laws being perfectly fine under our Constitution.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by jude11

 

Shows how little you know about me.
I'm presently fighting my state over the Real ID act, and its “real” legal infringements over my states constitution and my legal rights. Your issue is that you don't obviously understand the law, or how it really works. If you did, you'd realize that the state laws give the police the authority to do what they did, and the supreme court has found in favor of these state laws being perfectly fine under our Constitution.

I understand enough to realize that your posts clearly state that you are in support of the law and how it REALLY works. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

And if you are in support of State laws without question then you are clearly in denial of what the Constitution truly defines.

Your support of this incident and its clear ignorance of the constitution is absolutely an insult to all that support freedom in all its forms.

It's truly a shame that so many here on ATS have to school people like yourself in what your basic human rights mean when you are the ones that should be aware of it without question.

Day to day you are accepting of what you define as law and rights without even questioning how far it should go and not seeing the day to day deterioration of those rights. It's no longer what you wish it could be nor what you thought it was. Time to open your eyes.

So this your law now? What about before it became law? Why was it made law and who made it law?

Question these issues before you weigh in on a topic that millions are more schooled in.

Oh, and BTW..The Supreme Court being in favor of these laws is the most ridiculous argument you could launch. You actually think the SC is still in your favor? Please.

Done

reply to post by jude11


I don't know where you've been hiding for the last 20-30 years, but these Domestic Violence laws have been around for at least that long. The same thing often happens if you, or someone in your house, accidentally calls 911 then hangs up.

reply to post by jude11


when all was said and done....I would plant drugs in massive quantities on my neighbors property and then call the cops on him....

I would be very pissed at my neighbor if this is what his "concern" over a married couple having a dispute led to....

That and become a hard core constitutionalist seeing that maybe there is valid reason for concern. These cops just made enemies......that is all.

reply to post by defcon5


Yes DV calls are dangerous, however the call said it was a verbal argument, not a physical confrontation.

I had a girlfriend once who when she got mad she would scream. Not yell, not even say words. She would scream at the top of her lungs a blood curdling scream. You would swear someone was attacking her.

One night we had an argument. She went into another room and began yelling. Eventually a maintenance man came to the door to tell us to keep it down. Neighbors had been calling. He threatened to call police and I begged him to do so. He really thought I was beating her, which was not the case at all. Eventually the cops came, they heard her screaming and thought I was attacking her. When they banged on the door, I opened it and they could still hear her screaming. When they got her out of the room, she admitted that no one was touching her. She was just mad and screaming.

Know what didn't happen? No one handcuffed me at any time, no one held a gun to my head, no SWAT team showed up, and there were no assault rifles.

It was still considered a DV call when they showed up until they found out for themselves there was no violence of any kind.

So how do you explain the automatic weapons? How do you explain cuffing the women and the man? Fact is, it does not happen this way for a simple domestic violence call much less a call of people arguing. I know this for a fact, the example I gave was just one of many times the Police came to my home over her screaming like a murder victim. Not once was I ever treated the way these people were treated during the investigation phase for a possible DV call. Not once.

reply to post by MrWendal


Very simple:

When they banged on the door, I opened it and they could still hear her screaming. When they got her out of the room, she admitted that no one was touching her. She was just mad and screaming.

You allowed them in the house without giving them any grief, and they were able to “clear the scene” at that time.

1)These folks already had a history of run in's with the police.
2)The wife turned, ran in the house, and tried to close the door, when they gave her the lawful order to stop.
3)On further research, the wife was visibly bleeding from the knuckles.

Whenever you cooperate and are polite with the police, they will normally cooperate and be polite with you. I've had tons of interactions with law enforcement over the years, and never had an issue.

Now if they had detected that there was any abuse going on when they arrived at your door, then they would have arrested either one or both of you. If you're instance would have happened in Florida, even though there was no battery, they would have probably asked you to leave the premises for the night to allow her to cool down. They would have also asked/searched for any weapons. Laws do vary from state to state.

Imagine if they were known as communists, and raided by SWAT. The outrage would have hit the MSM.

reply to post by jude11


If it weren't for the fact that FUSION CENTERS were creating DOSSIERS on everyone and labeling people like CONSTITUTIONALISTS this kind of thing would not be happening. FUSION CENTERS are in every state, collecting data on everyone. They are illegal. They have no oversight. They were funded by the OBAMA administration.

The US Congress should not be complicit in allowing these FUSION CENTERS to go on. They need to shut them down IMMEDIATELY !

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Very simple:

When they banged on the door, I opened it and they could still hear her screaming. When they got her out of the room, she admitted that no one was touching her. She was just mad and screaming.

You allowed them in the house without giving them any grief, and they were able to “clear the scene” at that time.

1)These folks already had a history of run in's with the police.
2)The wife turned, ran in the house, and tried to close the door, when they gave her the lawful order to stop.
3)On further research, the wife was visibly bleeding from the knuckles.

Whenever you cooperate and are polite with the police, they will normally cooperate and be polite with you. I've had tons of interactions with law enforcement over the years, and never had an issue.

Now if they had detected that there was any abuse going on when they arrived at your door, then they would have arrested either one or both of you. If you're instance would have happened in Florida, even though there was no battery, they would have probably asked you to leave the premises for the night to allow her to cool down. They would have also asked/searched for any weapons. Laws do vary from state to state.

Umm I hate to tell you... with her screaming, they actually assumed she was being beaten. I don't blame them for the assumption, I would have thought the same thing. It is tough to explain, you would have to hear the screams, but make no mistake about it.. I was assumed to be guilty of a crime until they spoke to her to find out that no one was touching her at all. When I told the cops my story, they thought I was lying through my teeth. They were all set and ready to arrest me. I as lucky that in the sense that SHE told the truth. The look on their faces was amusing I must admit. They actually felt bad for me, and since they could not make her leave they gave me a ride to a hotel. The change in the attitude of the Police from the time they arrived to the time they left was a full 180 degree turn. Again- they thought she was being beaten by me. Not that she was off her rocker.

Yet nothing you describe makes any sense when taking into account that a SWAT team arrived at the home with automatic weapons. Sneaking up on the home like they were raiding a dope house. That is not how DV calls are handled.

And what is this "history" with Police that you are talking about exactly? Neither person had a criminal record. Unless I missed something in the article?

Well, it makes sense to me. The government is so off course from constitutional, legitimate rule, that constitutionalists - those who recognize the lack of law's legitimacy if not constitutional - are a real threat. They're the ones telling the truth and exposing the government's lies. The government doesn't think there is any way to get back to constitutional rule, nor would they want to. So, these people become public enemy number 1, just for insisting the constitution - which is anathema to the current government - be adhered to.

I find it concerning that this intelligence on political leanings of individuals is even known to police departments. I suspected intelligence agencies, but why police would have this, and adjust their responses according to it, is unnerving.

I'm pretty sure the article explicitly states that they DIDN'T have legal history...so this whole 'history of run-ins with the police' is bunk...

reply to post by jude11


Wow unfortunately this seems to be happening more and more across the country. According to the article a feuding neighbor called the police and reported domestic violence. Still these officers had no business searching the house coming up to the door with ar15's etc. an dragging her out of the house. How about; we had a report of a domestic violence can you step outside so we can speak to you...

Apparently it is now a crime to expect government to adhere to the constitution. Since they said this guy was a constitutionalist and that was their excuse for treating them like criminals...

Folks do your best to get along with your neighbors as you can see what one vindictive neighbor can do now in police state America. If you are at odds with a neighbor go make a peace offering take them some fruit or veggies you grew or cookies or what ever. You may or may not become good friends with them may not ever trust them but it will go a long way toward peaceful coexistence.

As times get tougher we need to try and get along with each other and help each other out instead of holding grudges and being vindictive over stupid crap...

PS And remember there is no situation so bad the cops can;t make it worse!

Originally posted by jude11


I understand enough to realize that your posts clearly state that you are in support of the law and how it REALLY works. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Shows that you don't know that the constitution is what gives states the power to make the exact laws you're against. The laws are usually enacted by the people as well, and the people have the power to change law. Have you ever thought of being proactive and trying to get support from others to over-turn these laws? If so, send me the info, I may be interested in joining the cause...

Originally posted by MrWendal

Yet nothing you describe makes any sense when taking into account that a SWAT team arrived at the home with automatic weapons. Sneaking up on the home like they were raiding a dope house. That is not how DV calls are handled.

No swat team showed up with automatic weapons. I saw 3 cops, 2 with a semi-auto pistol and 1 with a semi-auto AR-15. All guns that I can possess as well.

I really don't see anything about them being flagged as "Constitutionalists" the story throws that in there without any verification. The cops mention it (according to the story) but the reason the cops were there in the first place was because of a feuding neighbor.

they were called to the house over a bogus domestic disturbance call that was made by a feuding neighbor.

This story is so over the top sensationalized, it was quite clearly written for those who had their mine made up after reading the headline. We have no idea what the neighbor told 911 operator, for all we know he could have told the cops the couple shot someone.
This type of "journalism" is no better than fox news, just because you are in agreement with this kind of shoddy reporting it does not make you any less of a mindless rube.

Originally posted by Superhans
I really don't see anything about them being flagged as "Constitutionalists" the story throws that in there without any verification. The cops mention it (according to the story) but the reason the cops were there in the first place was because of a feuding neighbor.

they were called to the house over a bogus domestic disturbance call that was made by a feuding neighbor.

This story is so over the top sensationalized, it was quite clearly written for those who had their mine made up after reading the headline. We have no idea what the neighbor told 911 operator, for all we know he could have told the cops the couple shot someone.
This type of "journalism" is no better than fox news, just because you are in agreement with this kind of shoddy reporting it does not make you any less of a mindless rube.

I really don't see anything about them being flagged as "Constitutionalists" the story throws that in there without any verification. The cops mention it (according to the story) but the reason the cops were there in the first place was because of a feuding neighbor.

um...you don't see them flagged as Constitutionalists but at the same time acknowledge the police recording labeling them as such??

Make up your mind.

Yes we have an idea what the neighbor said. It's stated. But you apparently have an agenda of denouncing the OP. What's your end game? Should it be on CNN or FOX in order to prove itself?

And "For all we know"...

You're right but for all we know, it's more than is being reported because as we all know, the truth is edited.

Peace

reply to post by jude11

um...you don't see them flagged as Constitutionalists but at the same time acknowledge the police recording labeling them as such??

There was one cop that refers to him as a "Constitutionalist" that is not the same as being "flagged" as a Constitutionalist or being "labeled" a Constitutionalist.
A sex offender or a man on parole are "flagged" and "labeled". ONE cop mentioned that they had run ins with him before and that he was a "Constitutionalist". The other cop had never heard of him before

Are you familiar with these guys?” asked a deputy identified in the 911 recordings as “Officer 57.”

“Negative,” answered another deputy designated “Officer 56.”

So did you see that claim of "Political Profiling" fly out the window right now along with the claim that they were targeted over this?

"In a recording that surfaced after the raid it is explicitly stated that this couple is being targeted because of their political beliefs."

Also interesting to note that the "recording" says no such thing, 100% made up by the writers of this story.

Make up your mind.

Me? Im not the one claiming that they were raided because of their political beliefs OR that a neighbor called. Funny, the writters can get all these details about the police like conversations and and the raid video but they could not give us the details of the 911 call.

Yes we have an idea what the neighbor said. It's stated. But you apparently have an agenda of denouncing the OP. What's your end game? Should it be on CNN or FOX in order to prove itself?

Wow, that is a strawman if I have ever heard one, please tell me more.

You're right but for all we know, it's more than is being reported because as we all know, the truth is edited.

Is this blatant rhetoric supposed to mean something to me?

reply to post by Superhans


Straw man:

en.wikipedia.org...

A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet nonequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[

Please troll elsewhere or at least contribute to a thread when you understand the content and are fully aware of the terms you quote.

reply to post by jude11

Please troll elsewhere or at least contribute to a thread when you understand the content and are fully aware of the terms you quote.

Im not trolling, I speak the truth.

But you apparently have an agenda of denouncing the OP. What's your end game? Should it be on CNN or FOX in order to prove itself?

I never said nor alluded to any of that, its a position you made up and attacked making it a strawman.

If you cannot refute any of the points I made that is fine, you do not have to resort to calling me a troll to make a point. When someone is right they are right, you don't HAVE to argue with them.

Originally posted by Superhans
reply to post by jude11

 

Please troll elsewhere or at least contribute to a thread when you understand the content and are fully aware of the terms you quote.

Im not trolling, I speak the truth.

But you apparently have an agenda of denouncing the OP. What's your end game? Should it be on CNN or FOX in order to prove itself?

I never said nor alluded to any of that, its a position you made up and attacked making it a strawman.

If you cannot refute any of the points I made that is fine, you do not have to resort to calling me a troll to make a point. When someone is right they are right, you don't HAVE to argue with them.

edit on 15-10-2012 by Superhans because: (no reason given)

You conveniently left out the definition of "Strawman" of which you labeled me. May I post again?

A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[

By doing so, are you not the very definition?

Peace

Of course, anything to distract from that which we were talking about right?