It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 27
92
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Nicks87
 





Just say you love the govt and love licking boots. No need for all this posturing.


Weren't you the one claiming I was going to use straw man arguments?
I do thank you though, for continuing to prove me right about your kind.



My kind? You mean people who love freedom and dont want our constitutional rights trampled on?
edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)


nope, I mean people that can only see things as extremes, and who have no concept of middle ground, and who will jump to lies, personal and ad hom attacks to discredit someone when they can back up their stance.
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


No, but I was told directly by police I would be. I can't speak for others. I'm just pointing out that "asking" isn't really asking if those are the choices. I have no info as to if anyone was arrested, but I would venture to guess since this was considerably more intense than a snow storm the choice would have been the same. If i was there I would know 'cause i would have assured them i was ok and they could come back when they had a warrent.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 





Some were Ordered into their houses, yes. Fact. Yelling "Get back inside" with a drawn weapon is an order.
Ill give you that. A small number of people were actually ordered to stay in their homes. The majority were not, however.




Those (the initial lockdown order) who were "asked" to stay home, what do you really think would have happened if they hadn't? Detained, roughed up, cuffed, arrested, questioned. Maybe even eventually charged (with something, cops are charge happy about most anything they can), just for causing a .ache.


And here we go again with the 'what ifs'. There are a million what ifs. And all of them are irrelevant.

If exercising your rights isnt worth a .ache, do you deserve them?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Nicks87

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Nicks87
 





Just say you love the govt and love licking boots. No need for all this posturing.


Weren't you the one claiming I was going to use straw man arguments?
I do thank you though, for continuing to prove me right about your kind.



My kind? You mean people who love freedom and dont want our constitutional rights trampled on?
edit on 28-4-2013 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)


nope, I mean people that can only see things as extremes, and who have no concept of middle ground, and who will jump to lies, personal and ad hom attacks to discredit someone when they can back up their stance.
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


There is no middle ground when one's house is forcibly searched at gunpoint without a warrant when there is no reasonable belief or suspicion that the suspect is in that particular house.

Blanket warrantless searches=violation of constitutional rights.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivbnu
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


No, but I was told directly by police I would be. I can't speak for others. I'm just pointing out that "asking" isn't really asking if those are the choices. I have no info as to if anyone was arrested, but I would venture to guess since this was considerably more intense than a snow storm the choice would have been the same. If i was there I would know 'cause i would have assured them i was ok and they could come back when they had a warrent.


And I just come back to this question:

Why would you go out of your way to make it harder for them to catch this guy? Why would you intentionally create more confusion, and suspicion? Why would you not want to help?

it is your right to deny them entry, I just dont get why you would. What is the point of making this situation that much harder, just so you can say 'i didnt do what the cops asked me'?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Wow. When close to 50% of a website like ATS thinks it's a good idea to hide in your home and don't dare look out a window because the streets are crawling with military presence and guns are pointed at you just for taking a picture, then I know that the end of this country as it once was is dangerously near.

I'm so darned tired of the argument that "nobody was forced out of their homes, it was voluntary". What a steaming pile of bovine excrement. You get a bunch of trigger happy guys in full military gear pointing an automatic weapon in your face, you're probably going to let them do whatever. If you said no and closed the door on their face, how much you wanna bet they're gonna knock that door down, knock you down to the floor, tase you or even worse if you resist in your own home, and then trash the place because you "acted suspicious".

I don't care WHAT the reason is: Terrorist bomber, gang member, killer, drugs, whatever. There are rights which were, until the last 10 years, held sacred in this country, and made us great. Those rights are now being trampled, and a bunch of government apologists want us to obey and to cower, while we lick the boot that's stomping on our neck.

I'll be damned before I agree with what is happening. If you want to be powerless cattle, then you are part of the destruction. Some people will always have Stockholm Syndrome, and worship their captors.

They should be embarrassed to call themselves Americans.


My opinion only but the above is one of the best worded posts in this thread.......
Read it slow and and read it twice it says what I think the majority of us are thinking or wanted to say.

Regards, Iwinder


I starred that post the first time I read it, and will continue to star it every time I see it, as it is the truth of the entire situation.

There is never under any criteria, outside of a foreign invasion force, a good reason for this kind of military response on American streets, NOT EVER!!!!!!!

This was not law enforcement, this was a full blown combat deployment, I know, I have been in them, and trained for them.

You go in hot with overwhelming force, in the hopes that your overwhelming presence will stifle any and all resistance, and your prepared if it doesnt..

This was sick, it was wrong, it should ever have happened, it will god willing never happen again, not for any reason other than an actual invasion by a foreign army!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont see how there is any misunderstanding this, it seems to me those that dont understand this, dont want to.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 





There is no middle ground when one's house is forcibly searched at gunpoint without a warrant when there is no reasonable belief or suspicion that the suspect is in that particular house. Blanket warrantless searches=violation of constitutional rights.
And if that is what happened here, you might have a point. But its not. So you dont.

Re-read what you typed there, and realize that YOU are playing into the 'us vs. them' mentality. YOU are playing into extreme views. Ask yourself, why.
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Ok.

How would you go about catching a potentiality dangerous terrorist who has no regard for human life whatsoever and has killed on two occasions that is at large in an urban area and may have access to explosives and possible accomplices?

Remember, you have no clue where he is at all, except for a general area, no idea what his motives are and what equipment he has at his disposal.

There's a pretty heavy-duty scenario. How do you solve it?


So does that excuse work for Bush invading two countries to find one guy?

If it takes 9000 cops to find 2 would be terrorist's seems "Bush would be vindicated".

Silly me of course not.


Does that mean it was "justified" ?




Gotta say you bring up a great point, that many will have to second guess their own realizations and beliefs. Both of these "instances" are actually the same.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Liquesence
 





Some were Ordered into their houses, yes. Fact. Yelling "Get back inside" with a drawn weapon is an order.
Ill give you that. A small number of people were actually ordered to stay in their homes. The majority were not, however.




Those (the initial lockdown order) who were "asked" to stay home, what do you really think would have happened if they hadn't? Detained, roughed up, cuffed, arrested, questioned. Maybe even eventually charged (with something, cops are charge happy about most anything they can), just for causing a .ache.


And here we go again with the 'what ifs'. There are a million what ifs. And all of them are irrelevant.

If exercising your rights isnt worth a .ache, do you deserve them?


Having seen comparable incidents (failure to heed/obey, even if not breaking a "law"), I think in this case a "what-if" is entirely relevant. And an accurate speculation.

And, again, why i wish someone *would* have stood up for his or her rights. Because I am pretty sure my "what if" would have proved accurate.
edit on 28-4-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


New Orleans had martial law after hurricane katrina and understandbly so. I am not one of those saying martial law is never appropriate....sometimes it is....and sometimes it is not.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 





Having seen comparable incidents, I think in this case a "what-if" is entirely relevant. And an accurate speculation.
But its not. We can play 'what if' until the cow comes home. none of it will have any baring on the reality of what happened.




And, again, why i wish someone *would* have stood up for his or her rights. Because I am pretty sure my "what if" would have proved accurate.
How do you know nobody did? Again, empty speculation. Ive refused a search before. And guess what? I didnt get arrested. I didnt get cuffed. I didnt get roughed up. I got "ok sir, sorry for the inconvenience".

Not saying the situation was the same, just pointing out that people DO exercise this right, even if others are scared to.

On top of that, if you refuse entry, and your rights are then violated, you have legal recourse. Sometimes that is what it takes to reaffirm our rights. Standing up for them.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


New Orleans had martial law after hurricane katrina and understandbly so. I am not one of those saying martial law is never appropriate....sometimes it is....and sometimes it is not.
There are very few situations where I would ever condone martial law. Martial law is almost always a dangerous thing.

But this wasnt martial law. At worst it was a lockdown. The military did not take over the city. They did not take over all law enforcement duties. They came into town for one specific purpose. Nothing more.

Heck, the governor even THANKED the citizens for their help and understanding.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





Does that mean it was "justified" ?


I see them as the same however others will not.

If one action is to suffer condemnation's wrath I think both should be equally contemptuous.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


How is my not letting them in my house hindering. At that point I am an individual unless you think the community extends into my house. Inside my house they have no obligation to protect me. Yup he could have been in there, if you think so stand one of your 9000 men there till someone gets a warrent.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ivbnu
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


How is my not letting them in my house hindering. At that point I am an individual unless you think the community extends into my house. Inside my house they have no obligation to protect me. Yup he could have been in there, if you think so stand one of your 9000 men there till someone gets a warrent.


You are not giving any thought to the other perspective. How are they to know that there is not a man behing the door with a gun to your . telling you to say its all good?

And if they have to post someone at your door because you want to prove you dont have to let them in, thats one less officer able to be out looking for that actual criminal. So that you can make a point.

ive said it so many times, and Ill say it again: If you are opposed to cooperating with the police in any situation, no matter what, you are no better than them.

Some times we have to work together.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Liquesence
 





There is no middle ground when one's house is forcibly searched at gunpoint without a warrant when there is no reasonable belief or suspicion that the suspect is in that particular house. Blanket warrantless searches=violation of constitutional rights.
And if that is what happened here, you might have a point. But its not. So you dont.

Re-read what you typed there, and realize that YOU are playing into the 'us vs. them' mentality. YOU are playing into extreme views. Ask yourself, why.
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


That *is* what happened there, to many people, and that is my point.

You are directly avoiding the subject and the actuality of what happened.

Ask myself why the cops acted like they did, or why I'm "confused" about the us v them mentality? I'm not confused. It's pretty dang clear, lol. To the former, see the post you quoted. To the latter, I'm not playing extreme views (and see the post you quoted). As soon as i heard on the news (which did not fault or question LE) about door to searches, I drew an immediate conclusion. Said conclusion which is still valid.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


New Orleans had martial law after hurricane katrina and understandbly so. I am not one of those saying martial law is never appropriate....sometimes it is....and sometimes it is not.
There are very few situations where I would ever condone martial law. Martial law is almost always a dangerous thing.

But this wasnt martial law. At worst it was a lockdown. The military did not take over the city. They did not take over all law enforcement duties. They came into town for one specific purpose. Nothing more.

Heck, the governor even THANKED the citizens for their help and understanding.


No, it's not martial law, I give you that.

It was a temporary police state.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Is this to be the new pattern now every time the police are looking for someone "armed and dangerous"? Put whole neighbourhoods or even whole cities on "lockdown" and have everyone cowering in their homes waiting for the "authorities" to come knocking (or kicking down) the door? Are they really THAT scared?

That whole episode looked like a conditioning exercise carried out on the people. Forced compliance at the end of a gun and meant to frighten the crap out of the citizens. Keep them cowering in their homes, scared to come out in case the they get shot..... and not necessarily by the alleged bad guy!


Agreed and they started small, first is was locking down schools just to prime the populace, now its quite obvious they are stepping up to neighbourhoods, then next will be entire towns or cities then it goes Nation wide.

Regards, Iwinder
edit on 28-4-2013 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 





That *is* what happened there, to many people, and that is my point.
No it isnt. There were not forcible blanket searches. That is a flat out lie.




You are directly avoiding the subject and the actuality of what happened.
I am doing no such thing. I am refuting the false claims, such as 'orders' and 'forcible searches'.




Ask myself why the cops acted like they did, or why I'm "confused" about the us v them mentality? I'm not confused. It's pretty dang clear, lol. To the former, see the post you quoted. To the latter, I'm not playing extreme views (and see the post you quoted). As soon as i heard on the news (which did not fault or question LE) about door to searches, I drew an immediate conclusion. Said conclusion which is still valid.
It is clear. You think it is you vs. them. You are no better than those you claim to oppose.

So, you made your conclusion from minute one (yeah, very rational),and havent bothered to stick to the facts about it (such as the fact it wasnt forcible blanket searches), but you're still sticking to that conclusion? Where does reality fit in here?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So in your view this was right all the way around, and you don't mind living in that world?
Where violence can only be handled with more violence. I have pointed out how this could have been done.
How many mistakes do you allow before you say this isn't working.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join