If your city is on "lock-down", do NOT look outside.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Would you assume "oh, its just some guy taking a picture", or would you think "it is possible this is the suspect. I need to have him in my sights until I know it is safe".

I mean really. Lets think for a second people.

Well I've thunk!
Was this pic related to the recent Boston 'lockdown'?
I found the Boston lockdown disturbing. Hopefully this military takeover of a city couldn't happen on UK streets - or at least not so easily (but never say never heh?).
I found the cheering of Boston citizenry after the event even more disturbing.
But most disturbing of all is finding that not everyone finds any of this disturbing!

reply to post by captaintyinknots

And again, I have to wonder, at what point do some of you own up to the responsibility of being a member of a society?

You keep on bringing that up, so the definition of responsibility being a member of society is what captaintyinknots deems necessary? You are reaching on that one - not everyone thinks like you do (at least there is some hope left)

reply to post by starchild10


I agree this should be the most disturbing event that America has been subject to. Not because it is worse than all the others , but because it was in your face blatant intimidation through staged slaughter of your own country men and women for propaganda , fear and control.

Your country is dividing into those that support and deny this and those that can't quite believe it is happening to them.
Those that support it are just as much responsible for it through their blind adherence to the Corrupt State.

Link below is graphic, that puts together a very interesting aspect of this event and some hidden knowledge.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Ok I was going to read the entire thread before I posted but I got to page 5 and couldn't take the arguing.

There are a few things wrong with this photo in my opinion.
1) there is an uparmored hmmwv which is only supposed to used by the US military. No one is legally able to buy or use that vehicle if they aren't part of the federal armed forces. Sure you can get a civilian hummer and make look military but it won't have ballistic windows like that.
2) why is the guy in the turret the only one not wearing a helmet? Everyone else on the street in full gear but this guy has on a backwards baseball cap? anyone riding in the turret of any vehicle always wore a helmet (unless you were a navy seal)
3) I was trained extensively for convoys that took place in a war zone and you never flagged anyone you did not intend to eliminate from existence. We had training exercises repeatedly with large groups yelling and screaming, towns with "suspicious" people in windows, and many other scenarios, but one thing you never did was point your weapon at civilians. You had better be sure that individual was a threat before you pointed a weapon at them, and be double sure they were going to harm you before you pulled that trigger. Hey and guess what that mentality kept us from having unnecessary firefights.

So say what you want and argue it till your blue in the face but in my opinion this guy is sloppy and not well trained. And someone that thinks its more important to look cool and "tactical" shouldn't be on the street with a weapon in public.

The reason we must not allow "lock down" is simple, our governments are corrupt. Always. They must not, ever, be trusted. They will misuse this.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Afterthought
Do we even know how old the photographer is?
How many of you would change your tune to "this is all fine and dandy" to "no way!" if the person taking the picture was a 10 year old boy or girl?

Not in the least. See my first post in that thread. Do you think a shadowy figure peering out a window is automatically easily identifiable as far as age, sex, skin color, etc? No.

What if it HAD been a shooter? What if the officer did not have his weapon trained, and people got killed because of it. What would you say then?

I will add that the 'terrorist' would be very, very stupid looking out of a window whilst the police/military is driving by armed. Or in other words someone easily visible will most likely [99.9999999%] NOT be the person they are looking for.
On the other hand, innocent people would be looking outside their windows, at a parade NK would be proud of.
Not only that, ALL civilians are innocent victims and have to be treated as such [they are scared, please show compassion]. Instead you get some bullies ignoring all common sense and the outcome is this:

- Innocent, scared people 'locked down' [just like in prison]
- Advice given 'not to look out of the windows' [don't wind them up in any way, they are trigger happy brainless drones out there for your own 'good']
- Houses are invaded AGAINST people's will by showing aggression [which will make anyone comply].
- Kids are scared, pets are scared, everyone is scared...apart from the 'terrorist'
- In the end all that macho display results in...nothing, an unarmed civilian finds the culprit.


Anyone who in any way agrees to anything that has been happening is exactly like any German was during WW2 and like anyone in NK or in the old Soviet Union. You will never learn until it is FAR too late. Ignoring little steps because you don't believe it could get worse, then you ignore big steps because surely the government has only your best interest at heart and finally you will be surprised to find yourself in BIG s*it because nothing was ever worth worrying about. ////rant over

As an Aussie, I've spent time around guns but only ever in a rural setting. We tend to not see any of em around our towns. Guns are for the outback areas. Where there's space… So a stray bullet doesnt accidentally kill anyone…. It kinda makes sense you know? I'm torn on the whole gun debate….. I love the fact that the common American can form a militia and resist a tyrannical government (hurry up and do it already!), but the fact that an innocent person can be accidentally killed is reason alone to ban the bloody things from built up areas…. Anyway, I know this isn't about the gun debate but I just sort thought a bit of background might help you understand why that picture disturbs me personally.
That being said, if looked out my window to see what the commotion was and saw a young fellow Aussie pointing a gun at me, I would be offended and very, very angry.
No one has the right to point a gun at me, especially when I'm in my own house and especially when the person pointing the gun at me is being paid with my taxes.
It's disgusting.

Originally posted by TexasSeabee
Ok I was going to read the entire thread before I posted but I got to page 5 and couldn't take the arguing.

There are a few things wrong with this photo in my opinion.
1) there is an uparmored hmmwv which is only supposed to used by the US military. No one is legally able to buy or use that vehicle if they aren't part of the federal armed forces. Sure you can get a civilian hummer and make look military but it won't have ballistic windows like that.
2) why is the guy in the turret the only one not wearing a helmet? Everyone else on the street in full gear but this guy has on a backwards baseball cap? anyone riding in the turret of any vehicle always wore a helmet (unless you were a navy seal)
3) I was trained extensively for convoys that took place in a war zone and you never flagged anyone you did not intend to eliminate from existence. We had training exercises repeatedly with large groups yelling and screaming, towns with "suspicious" people in windows, and many other scenarios, but one thing you never did was point your weapon at civilians. You had better be sure that individual was a threat before you pointed a weapon at them, and be double sure they were going to harm you before you pulled that trigger. Hey and guess what that mentality kept us from having unnecessary firefights.

So say what you want and argue it till your blue in the face but in my opinion this guy is sloppy and not well trained. And someone that thinks its more important to look cool and "tactical" shouldn't be on the street with a weapon in public.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, for wise, experienced, honest and accurate words.
I wouldn't share a walk or patrol with a puke like this ever, In fact he wouldn't have even come close to any valid team I've ever seen. He's a liability and a problem waiting to happen.

CV42
carry on

Ok, followed this for a while and just want to add some things:

1. Do not consent to searches, this will be an officer asking for permission. If he orders you to do something do it, he is no longer asking.

2. We are judging an entire operation on some idiot who pointed a weapon at someone. He should be judged individually, not blanket judgement of them all.

3. We have no idea if these searches were legal/illegal. I got into an argument with Mr.Wendal about this recently (who is a great debater by way) where we went back and forth over the validity of them. The more I think about it, from my side at least, I have no idea if they were or weren't. I don't have all the information yet and I doubt anyone does.

4. Why were so many assets used by the government? One word, politics. No mayor, governor, president, wants to be responsible for two individuals escaping and harming more people. If they would have killed/injured even more people, you can bet there would have been a lot of bad press and angry citizens.

The guy pointing his gun isn't the problem. I would've done the same in that situation. The problem is that this man was deployed into this situation to begin with. How is a tank on the street going to help catch the guy? They can clearly have time to escape if they can see you going door to door a mike down the road... Unless you're telling me they can search one whole property within seconds before moving onto the next one...even then, it gives them time. They should've just had a standard manhunt. I don't remember doors being kicked in and random houses searched after OKC or 9/11 orWTC'93

Originally posted by muse7
What disturbing path is that?

Advising people not to go outside because there is a terrorist on the run willing to do anything to escape?

People who give up their liberty in the name of security....deserve neither.

2nd line.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Why would they think an onlooker would be "him"?

Is he carrying a backback? From Middle-eastern decent? Holding a sign that says "I'm the terrorist."?

A unit in full battle garb and that are afraid of a gawker in the window?

Maybe they need a new line of work?

He should be waving. Assuring the neighborhood that everything is "A-OK, now that they're on the job".

This threatening image only assures me that American is totally eff'd in the ace.

Originally posted by sprtpilot
The reason we must not allow "lock down" is simple, our governments are corrupt. Always. They must not, ever, be trusted. They will misuse this.

so, what form of organized society do you advocate we have?...since, you say "our governments are always corrupt"... North Korean? Islamic? Chinese?

reply to post by tyranny22

Originally posted by tyranny22
Why would they think an onlooker would be "him"?

Because it COULD have been him (or another threat). The picture was taken during the split second that the LEO was discerning whether or not the person was a threat. He OBVIOUSLY discerned that the person was not a threat, because he didn't shoot.

If the photographer HAD been a threatening presence with a gun aimed at the LEO and the LEO wasn't prepared, he'd be dead now. Every LEO in a situation like this is acting in defense of his own life and the lives of the citizens.

If you're a LEO looking for a specific dangerous threat, ANYONE could be him. Have you seen police training where they train in various scenarios, using "shooting targets" of many types of people (pregnant women, children, and other "safe" targets along with threatening targets) to sharpen the discernment skills of the officers? It doesn't matter if the target is a pregnant woman or a gun-toting "criminal", the weapon is AIMED at it. The discernment comes when they decide NOT to shoot the pregnant woman (the innocent citizen) and decide to shoot the actual threat.

You all are just so pumped up about the big, bad, government taking over that you've lost all sense of reason.

For all we know he could be using his scope to get closer look. The window is closed have you ever tried looking in closed window from a distance during the day with stuff reflecting off it

Originally posted by DCPatriot

Originally posted by muse7
What disturbing path is that?

Advising people not to go outside because there is a terrorist on the run willing to do anything to escape?

People who give up their liberty in the name of security....deserve neither.

2nd line.

yeah right...I bet those 14 that were blown to small pieces in West, Texas wish they had harsher government regulations imposed on the owners of that fertilizer plant. but that would de-rail your argument.

After the bombing most Bostonians wanted the perp arrested asap so they could begin healing and getting life back to some degree of normalcy; consequently they were cooperating with military and law enforcement requests.

If you want to run around thumbing your noses and singing "nana nana nana, I don't have to.. you are not the boss of me", then do so at your own juvenile peril.

OK.

So, the Police are looking for someone who has blown up the finishing line of a Marathon.

Somoene who has killed one cop and seriously injured another.

Someone who has no qualms about throwing explosives at people.

And you're a cop, and you are moving down a street and the curtains of a building twitch or someone comes to a window suddenly and you notice it and your training kicks in because you are told in no uncertain terms that in a life and death situation, when someone could be about to shoot at you that you lead with your weapon, so that you are in a position to fire back immediately.

Thats a cop doing his job. He didn't shoot, but he had to scope.

That is what trained professionals do.

Its time someone called this BS hyseria for what it is. Total BS. These people do their job and were trying to ensure that some lunatic wasn't out there blowing up other people.

Got a problem with that? Fine. Next time some idiot like this goes on the rampage, YOU go and look for him, on the streets and hunt him down and bring him to justice, and put your life on the line to do it. If you aren't prepared to do that then maybe, just maybe, be thankful that there are people that do it, and understand that when they are out there doing it, they need to protect themselves as well, or at least give themselves a chance at being protected.

Where the hell has people's common sense gone? What do you expect this guy to do - sit there and not react until someone blows his head off?

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by Danbones
Funny, he can point a gun at you, but you can NOT point a gun at him...

Or any type of picture/video taking apparatus either...
That'll get ya shot.

Well apparently not, since the photographer wasn't shot.

If "you're" stupid enough to open a window shade to point any type of device directly at a man, with a gun, sitting in a turret, then don't be surprised when he points his gun at YOU! The people were warned what was going on and that person should have been no where near that window, especially trying to snap a picture.