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: 28
92
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence



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

It was a temporary police state.
I gave you a star, but I dont think that label is accurate either. the police were not enforcing the laws. They were executing one specific task.

So far I have not seen one single shred of proof that the police did anything but look for the suspect. I have seen no reports of people being arrested for something found in a search. I have heard no stories of people being arrested just for leaving their house. I have heard no stories of complaints filed for violations of rights.

There are a lot of empty claims about those things, but no actual evidence, as of yet. And thats what this all comes down to, for me. Overreacting to an overreaction only creates more overreactions.
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ivbnu
 





So in your view this was right all the way around, and you don't mind living in that world?
For the hundredth time, I have said no such thing. In fact, I have repeatedly stated the opposite. Glad to see more proof that people can only see one extreme or the other, though





Where violence can only be handled with more violence. I have pointed out how this could have been done.
You have not. You have claimed they could have quietly grabbed him before, which is simply not true, and then flat out ignored the fact that they hadnt even identified him at the point in which you think they should have just gone in and swooped him up.




How many mistakes do you allow before you say this isn't working.
Funny, Ive been saying it for 15 years. Its just that, when events like this happen, all of the ye-haw-cowboys come out and play armchair quarterback and participate in sensationalism.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
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?


As soon as people's houses are searched at gunpoint without a warrant and with no reasonable belief or suspicion that the suspects are there I draw a pretty quick and clear conclusion, yes.

This is silly. You just agreed with me that people *were* ordered to go inside, and now you're saying there were no orders.

You said there were no blanket searches; I saw coverage of that very thing happening. People being drawn out of their houses at gunpoint and their houses searched (they might have consented, sure, but I;m sure some was under coercion and duress). Not one, but several were searched this way.

Facts? Man, get your own facts straight. I'm done with this merry-go-round.

Peace



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: nevermind, no point



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 





As soon as people's houses are searched at gunpoint without a warrant and with no reasonable belief or suspicion that the suspects are there I draw a pretty quick and clear conclusion, yes.
Even when the searches are done on a basis of permission?




This is silly. You just agreed with me that people *were* ordered to go inside, and now you're saying there were no orders.
No, I agreed that a small amount of people were ordered in. the majority were given no orders. Please, try to keep up.




You said there were no blanket searches; I saw coverage of that very thing happening. People being drawn out of their houses at gunpoint and their houses searched (they might have consented, sure, but I;m sure some was under coercion and duress). Not one, but several were searched this way.
You admit it may be by consent, in turn admitting that you do not know, yet you claim it was forcible blanket searches. That doesnt add up. If you do not know if consent was given, stating that it was a forcible search is nothing but empty speculation.




Facts? Man, get your own facts straight. I'm done with this merry-go-round.
Ive dealt with nothing but, so far, even as you all try to attack me with unsavory message board tactics.
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: nevermind, no point


What are you talking about? I have done no such thing, why dont you go back and read what you typed, bro.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well look at it This way folks...

At least, This time, ole trigger happy GIJOE didn't shoot up a house of a certain color, or a kid...This time,

And IF he did,

Do you Think they'll cheer USA USA USA

When they are forced to pay out, lets see what was it in LA, 4.2MILLION dollars to those Dangerous old women

Because ya know the GIJOES won't have to fork out anything, LOL,

Oh wait! I almost forgot,

You can't SUE the Military now can you, when they blow up little Johny or Susy to bits, ooops, sorry,

Too bad. Welp, that's all folks, now just teach those brats of yours not to cry when ole SS Bull grabs the privates to search for fertilizer or what have you in Susie's underwear at the checkpoints. You know, like they do in airports,

No need to over react or anything.

MooooooMoooooooMoooooo



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Why is it so hard for some people to admit that the govt is wrong?

Those in power, politicians/law enforcement, have been doing wrong for hundreds if not thousands of years and they only get away with it because good people do nothing...

...Or they let people like captaininknots(whatever) bamboozle them into thinking that it's wrong to question govt.

Wake up folks before it's too late.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87


...Or they let people like captaininknots(whatever) bamboozle them into thinking that it's wrong to question govt.

Please quote for me anywhere where I have said anything even remotely close to that. Id say Ill wait, but it doesnt exist, so I wont hold my breath.

Still wondering why it is that you feel the need to resort to lying


And Ill return fire, why I am at it: Why is it so hard for some to realize that sometimes it is a GOOD thing to cooperate with the government?


edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Clear evidence that "OUR Soldiers" are ready and willing to turn against their own people
edit on 28/4/2013 by Revealation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformoreHow 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?

How do you solve it?


You weigh the cost to benefit ratio that a hard presence on the freedom of movement and pace of normal life against for those who are not part of the situation against the possible risk to the general population and agents of going in soft and reacting to a civilian tip.

Instead of locking down the city and waving your loaded weapons in the faces of everyone you see you could have positioned quick reaction forces at key locations within the city that allowed for a 2-3 minute response time to a tip. Augmented with airborne reaction teams of agents with a fast rope and teams of airborne target interdiction teams (the nice way LEO’s label sniper teams) with even less reaction time and let the city go about its normal routine. It gives the suspect less indication that he is being hunted in a specific area and therefore possibly avoid that zone. It allows for the population to go about their daily routines if they so chose thus not perpetuating the conspiracy theories and enraging a certain segment of the population by inflaming tensions.

The suspect was after all not in the cordoned off zone and was found by a civilian going about their daily routine. Who knows how much faster this could have been over if they had never put the restriction in place.

The bottom line is the police fear no negative reaction from the population as the people of Mass have all but been disarmed with their draconian gun laws. Therefore they can act in whatever manner they please and there isn’t a thing anyone can do about it.


Originally posted by neformore
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.


I think there are several posts in this thread from professionals (myself included) who have told you (and everyone else) that this is exactly the opposite of what a trained professional would do. There is no training, military or otherwise that teaches one to scan ones assigned security sector by looking down the muzzle or through the “scope” of one’s rifle. It is too limited a field of vision, leads to early eye fatigue and is overall ineffective.


Originally posted by libertytoall
Honestly he could have been aiming his gun in order to use a scope? Maybe he wanted to get a closer look to be sure it wasn't the terrorist hiding out.


Regarding the “scope” I am not sure there is one, I cannot tell because of the angle. I suppose it is possible there is one; however, it is just as possible it is some kind of red dot quick fire type scope with zero magnification.

As for range and the necessity to use a scope; based on the size of the agent, officer or whatever in the photo in relation to the other men in the street and the houses on the other side I estimate the range from the window to the agent to be about 50’ or so maybe 75' tops. If this guy can’t determine if the person in the window is the suspect (or even armed) without the aid of a scope then he has no business holding a rifle on anyone anywhere and I would recommend a trip to the optomitrist as well.


Originally posted by neformore
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?


Again, snap fire takes a fraction of a second to transition from target ID to target acquisition. If he doesn’t know that technique he is not a trained professional and has no business pointing a loaded weapon at an American citizen in their home – period.


Originally posted by TexasSeabee
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 it’s more important to look cool and "tactical" shouldn't be on the street with a weapon in public.


See there is one – there are others, this is not professional behavior at all.

There is zero justification for flashing all these civilians with thier weapons in this scenario. Zero.
edit on 28/4/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87
Why is it so hard for some people to admit that the govt is wrong?


I thought that congresses approval rating obviously spells what "we the people" think about Government......






Congress Approval Holding Steady at 15%



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!!



The topic of this thread is "If youre city is on "lock-down", do NOT look outside". .....not other members.

Please stick to the topic...

You are responsible for your own posts.

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
edit on 28/4/13 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Bomberous....I like that.


I thought it witty – thanks!


Originally posted by projectvxn
I find it worrying that a Special Forces operative has more respect for a foreign population sympathetic to the Taliban than the Mass. National Guard, Boston police, and Federal Agents had for their fellow countrymen.


As do I my friend as do I… I think the difference is I knew that I had to win the hearts and minds of the people in the village and a provocative and threatening sweep, zipping all the combat age males and sorting through them all like criminals until I found the target would have been easier and safer for my Team and the other blue and green forces involved but would have in the end netted me a negative long term result.

Treating the population like suspects and accomplices only inflames the distrust of the established order. Down range where a cache of 120mm rounds big enough to blow up the whole village is but a stone’s throw away at all times one must be very careful to not create more sympathy for the enemy than catching them causes. Go in treat everyone harshly, disrespect their property and their rights and take their dignity and the next time you come in you’ll find a little surprise for yourself in the market.

The problem in the US is that the police have all the laws on their side – if they threaten you what recourse do you have? None really, other than be really pissed that some wanna-be Rambo held his gun in your face even though you in no way resemble a 19 year old suspect you can’t do a thing. If you argue, you’ll be impeding, if you resist physically you’ll be arrested, if you respond with like force you’ll be shot. In this regard I think the conditioning has become complete. The citizens of Mass are all but disarmed by their restrictive laws the cops can treat everyone as a suspect and detain people face down at gun point for daring to walk about when “advised” to Shelter in Place.

IMO this is the day America died… very sad.


Originally posted by projectvxn
That's the problem with non-active units. If they're not slotted for deployment, they don't train. They show up their 2 weeks a year and one weekend a month and drink coffee, play soldier, and occasionally actually fire at stationary targets.


Personally, while this is an MP vehicle I don’t think the “agent” in the turret is a Soldier – perhaps they were just on loan. He has what appear to be SWAT patches on the right sleeve of his uniform.

I agree with you in principle here though the NG units are poorly trained.

I also find it ironic that I have to appeal to some LEO for a CCW permit who likely has less trigger time in his entire career than I have had in one tour. Like NY’s finest who can’t bring down a knife wielding suspect in 34 rounds from 7 feet without injuring 4 civilians and only hitting the suspect once get to carry in NYC because they are “trained professionals” but I with 24 years in special operations will never be granted permission to be armed in NYC – ever.

The fact is most LEOs are no more proficient with their sidearm than the average CCW holder and most times a lot less so as they have less free time for range qualification and get so few authorized rounds for practice. They get paid very little and few if any spend thier own funds for extra range time.

Certainly, they are not more proficient than some returning veteran who seems to be on the radar nowadays as a potential threat.

These cowboys scare me…they are dangerous.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66


These cowboys scare me…they are dangerous.


I am sure you will see this more often, as our current economy isn't getting any better.
A little dated, but you get the point.




Private firms with outright police powers have been proliferating in some places -- and trying to expand their terrain. The "company police agencies," as businesses such as Capitol Special Police are called here, are lobbying the state legislature to broaden their jurisdiction, currently limited to the private property of those who hire them, to adjacent streets. Elsewhere -- including wealthy gated communities in South Florida and the Tri-Rail commuter trains between Miami and West Palm Beach -- private security patrols without police authority carry weapons, sometimes dress like SWAT teams and make citizen's arrests.

Private security guards have outnumbered police officers since the 1980s, predating the heightened concern about security brought on by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. What is new is that police forces, including the Durham Police Department here in North Carolina's Research Triangle, are increasingly turning to private companies for help. Moreover, private-sector security is expanding into spheres -- complex criminal investigations and patrols of downtown districts and residential neighborhoods -- that used to be the province of law enforcement agencies alone.

The more than 1 million contract security officers, and an equal number of guards estimated to work directly for U.S. corporations, dwarf the nearly 700,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. The enormous Wackenhut Corp. guards the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia and screens visitors to the Statue of Liberty.



The Private Arm of the Law Some Question the Granting of Police Power to Security Firms

Cowboys...for real.





edit on 28-4-2013 by sonnny1 because: link fix



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





I also find it ironic that I have to appeal to some LEO for a CCW permit who likely has less trigger time in his entire career than I have had in one tour. Like NY’s finest who can’t bring down a knife wielding suspect in 34 rounds from 7 feet without injuring 4 civilians and only hitting the suspect once get to carry in NYC because they are “trained professionals” but I with 24 years in special operations will never be granted permission to be armed in NYC – ever. The fact is most LEOs are no more proficient with their sidearm than the average CCW holder and most times a lot less so as they have less free time for range qualification and get so few authorized rounds for practice. They get paid very little and few if any spend thier own funds for extra range time. 

Amen.
You said a lot in that post and this is right on the money.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Yeah, those are trigger happy police who finally get to put on all that new, unused, dusty gear. I know this because this is called flagging. You don't flag people.
NOW for the sake of this situation, he did'nt shoot, he was prolly pulling security when he saw a curtain being pulled to the side, for all he knew, whoever it was they were trying to get MIGHT of had an accomplice an what better position than the high ground to fire at you, so it was prolly just instinct. But its sad that this is happening on american soil, your just not use to it
edit on 28-4-2013 by Arnie123 because: spelling



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 





Is the threat of lethal force appropriate for taking a picture?



Any reflective glass looks a lot like a scope.

Good advice not looking outside.




top topics



 
92
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join