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.
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.
Originally posted by Liquesence
No, it's not martial law, I give you that.
It was a temporary police state.
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
So in your view this was right all the way around, and you don't mind living in that world?
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.
Where violence can only be handled with more violence. I have pointed out how this could have been done.
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.
How many mistakes do you allow before you say this isn't working.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Liquesence
No it isnt. There were not forcible blanket searches. That is a flat out lie.
That *is* what happened there, to many people, and that is my point.
I am doing no such thing. I am refuting the false claims, such as 'orders' and 'forcible searches'.
You are directly avoiding the subject and the actuality of what happened.
It is clear. You think it is you vs. them. You are no better than those you claim to oppose.
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.
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?
Even when the searches are done on a basis of permission?
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.
No, I agreed that a small amount of people were ordered in. the majority were given no orders. Please, try to keep up.
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 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.
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.
Ive dealt with nothing but, so far, even as you all try to attack me with unsavory message board tactics.
Facts? Man, get your own facts straight. I'm done with this merry-go-round.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
edit on 28-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: nevermind, no point
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.
Originally posted by Nicks87
...Or they let people like captaininknots(whatever) bamboozle them into thinking that it's wrong to question govt.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by Nicks87
Why is it so hard for some people to admit that the govt is wrong?
Originally posted by projectvxn
Bomberous....I like that.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Golf66
These cowboys scare me…they are dangerous.
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.
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.
Is the threat of lethal force appropriate for taking a picture?