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

page: 39
92
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
Then maybe one of you experts can tell me when it IS okay to point your weapon.


Fair enough - one aquires a target (takes shooting stance with an accurate and clear sight picture) when it has been positively identified as a threat, not before, ever.

One doesn't flash (which is the act of moving the barrel of one’s weapon in line with another human being) movement because movement is not indicative of a threat.

One doesn't scan with the scope, down the barrel or through the iron sights because it limits the field of vision and generates eye fatigue.

There is a technique taught to operators and even infantrymen (I presume cops as well) called snap fire. It is a technique used at short range that allows the operator to scan for and identify targets with both eyes open allowing for the maintenance of an entire field of vision (including peripheral) for identifying and cataloging multiple threats at the same time and then choosing which is the priority for engagement.

Snap fire is useful at a range of about 100' or so perhaps more if you are well trained and rehearsed.


Originally posted by Bone75
And while you're at it, tell me what you noticed in the photo that indicates this is NOT that time.


Because based on the size of the vehicle in relation to the houses on the other side of the street to my trained eye I estimate the range from the photo taker to the "agent" to be about 50-75'.

Likewise the person in the window was clearly not a threat because he didn't fire at it.


Originally posted by Bone75
How can you evaluate this guy's training based on a still shot with no other information to support the photo?


He is poorly trained because he pointed a loaded firearm (with his finger on the trigger BTW) at an unarmed civilian in the window of their own home. He could either not tell that the person was unarmed at that short distance which means he sucks at making snap judgments based on the silhouette of a person backlit in a window or he simply reacted to movement which means likely he'd react to any movement in the same manner.

You don't ever put your finger on the trigger unless you know 100% its a threat and you are going to fire - period. Its a cherry mistake.

Reacting to all movement in that manner is the hallmark of a noob and a poorly trained one at that.

If he reacts to movement in that manner he is just as likely to be flashing his fellow agents in the execution of his duties.

I can tell you that if is a major minus in any SF training school and your session will go from "we are having fun shooting" to "we are practicing carrying a heavy ass casualty up a hill repetitively" really fast. That's how you learn not to do that stupid #. We'd peer somoene who kept making that mistake out.

If I had a team mate consistently flashed me (or others) with his weapon I'd either beat his ass and insist he be fired by our team leader (the younger me) or I'd just let him go with some rather unpleasant corrective training from the team sergeant until he either stopped the practice or I had to let him go (the older leader me).

I'd find him a home at the school house teaching knot tying or snare making where he can't get someone killed because he is too jumpy.

Hope that clears things up.


edit on 30/4/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/4/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/4/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Hope that clears things up.


No it doesn't really. I understand its hard to express yourself freely once you've been sucked into the group-think mentality around here. Can't be seen giving an inch to the other side now can we


A reasonable person who had any interest whatsoever in understanding both sides of an argument could have easily come up with a scenario where a WELL trained soldier might find his self in this position.


edit on 1-5-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 
The only time it's OK to do as done in that photo is when said officer or soldier identifies, not suspects, an immediate specific threat. This is a friendly, urban setting and this sort of behavior would be discouraged for numerous reasons.

The existence of this thread and the wide spread negative response by the public to how this operation was conducted is the sort of thing that plays a role in mission planning for operations stateside. Especially in the presence of media and civilians with cameras.

Public safety should be paramount and anything such as this picture depicting officers as having little regard for it should be avoided. In short, this officer didn't care and as far as public image goes it is damaging as a result.

In no particular order:

-Pointing weapon directly at civilian who does not pose threat.
-Apparently cannot differentiate between camera and firearm.
-No head protection.
-No eye protection (in this situation he should have it on).
-Standing vulnerably high in the turret (defilade), offering tall silhouette.
-Officers around the vehicle on the sidewalk are holding a poor, if any formation (we'll call it the clusterwedge) with very tight interval in the midst of alleged explosive/IED threat - One grenade could take that whole lot out.

I could go on but it's silly at this point.
The entire op should've been done so much differently in my opinion.

The reasons for not operating in the 'high-ready' firing position were previously well covered by Golf66.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ivbnu
You really need to get a grip. All your post here sound like you are very scared. Life really isn't as dangerous as you think.

Terrorist attacks are very rare, and to think this is oh so much scarier than a home invation or mass shooting, or whatever crime, and warranted this response is just silly.

Think about it how weapons and bombs and ammo could the wounded kid carry? Was he gonna toss the bomb then make the call to set them off? hows that work?

If you are REALLy that scared you had better stay huddled in your house because there are real threats out there that you have a much higher chance of dying from, say crossing the street. Scary!


Your perception there is born of ignorance. Its not a case of being scared at all. As far as I'm concerned if my number is up, then there is very little I can do about it. Its not about being scared, its about reality.

I agree that terrorist attacks are very rare - but then so is this kind of response - hasn't stopped you from feigning outrage over it and proclaiming it as the slippery slope to martial law though, has it?

Once again though, in your post you are making 20/20 hindsight proclamations. You simply don't get it do you? The people on the ground at the time that this manhunt was going on did not know if this kid was acting alone or not, and they had no idea what other equipment he/his potential accomplices may have had, or what other lengths they might go to to further their cause.

And again, you simply have no idea - and yet you should - because three people were killed with small home made bombs in the middle of a crowded street, and 200+ were injured - about the amount of damage a hand grenade can do, or a suicide vest, or an IED with a remote trigger.

Did you watch that video I posted earlier of the IRA bomb in Manchester? That was basically fertiliser and other active ingredients, in a delivery van. It caused nearly £1billion (that's $1.5 billion approx) in damage. It took a 6 person cell to orchestrate it.

You condemn the LEO's in this picture because of your ignorance, and yet they were deliberately exposing themselves to the reality of the situation.

The next car down that street could have been packed with explosives and set to go off when they walked past. They didn't know that. The person coming to the window could have had a trigger, hand grenades, a machine gun... you name it. Fact is they had a camera and nothing happened to them. We know that now, they didn't know it at the time.

In fact, the ignorance of that simple fact on display in this thread is astounding. I don't know how many times myself and other posters have said this - the LEO's DID NOT KNOW the extent of what they were facing until the kid was caught and they ascertained that it was only him and his brother working together. They did, however, know what the two people they knew about were capable of. Two small bombs could have been a trigger to a larger event, indeed one of the best ways of promoting "terror" is to provoke a response, let things calm down and hit them again. The key is unpredictability. Add in to that the fact that one of the initial suspects was dead and the other was running and may not have had anything to lose.

You aren't thinking like a terrorist, or someone who has to deal with them and be extremely careful about how they do it.

You're thinking like someone who is simply ignorant of the reality of the situation.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
No it doesn't really. I understand it’s hard to express yourself freely once you've been sucked into the group-think mentality around here. Can't be seen giving an inch to the other side now can we


As you have demonstrated that is quite obviously the case...why did you even ask?

You asked me to explain it to you - I did based on my 24 years of service in the US Military. I spent the bulk of that time as a member of Special Operations. I started my career as an Infantryman in 3/75th, went on to be an 18C (Special Forces Engineer Sergeant) and latter a Counterintelligence Agent in a special mission unit doing covert operations. Later, I went to OCS became a Military Intelligence Officer for 3 years then right back to Special Forces as an Officer and spent almost all that time in either Iraq or Afganistan. In that 24 years I have over 5 years of continuous combat experience in theater with less than a 90 day break between 1 year tours. I also have too many short tours to count (missions of a short duration in theaters to accomplish a specific task that don’t always make the papers) 30-90 days in neato places where everyone but my team mates is quite willing and able to end my life in a second. Somalia, Sudan, Chad, and others. No, I don’t go around flashing every moving curtain ir window, I don't even flash the myriad of people in those places who walk around with AK's, RPKs and PRGs on thier way to get water for the day or I’d be dead a thousand times over.

I do not do "group think" I am actually very anti-social and an outside the box thinker, thus the career in Special Operations. I am no fan of institutionalized thinking.

When I was a young operator I’d ask my grizzly 1st Team Sergeant (Vietnam Vet) for some advice on a certain issue. He’d never really solve it for me but talk me through my options then say “1000 ways to skin a cat as the only wrong ways are those that break the law, cost the government unnecessary money or place yourself, your team mates or bystanders at risk”. “The first two I can live with actually”, he’d say, followed by an emphatic “those last three will get you kicked off my team no questions asked”. Then in a really thick southern drawl he’d smile spit and say Comprende? (He spoke no Spanish other than comprende so somehow that was funny.)


Originally posted by Bone75
A reasonable person who had any interest whatsoever in understanding both sides of an argument could have easily come up with a scenario where a WELL trained soldier might find his self in this position.


I have no interest in understanding why a police officer would either find it necessary based on some failed assessment of a threat from less than 100 feet away that lead him to believe pointing a loaded weapon at a civilian in their home with a cell phone/camera was a potential threat or that he simply reacted to movement in the same manner. If he is that scared then he needs to find a new line of work because if it doesn’t change he is going to get some innocent person killed – if not his team mates as well.

Both responses are the hallmark of a poorly trained and drilled operator, agent, cop, or soldier - period. A WELL trained agent/operator or solider would simply not do it, it is really that simple.

Not saying that this is you but there is a name for someone who asks for advice and or an explanation but doesn't accept it or follow it - an askhole...

If one doesn’t really want the answer - why ask?



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Patriot act trumps the Fourth Amendment. Created by the Right perpetuated by the Left. Get used to it, you are being conditioned to accept this as the norm. As you can see many on this site here are already indoctrinated. Bet your ass if Bush did this, they would have a different opinion.




you are being conditioned to accept this as the norm.


the big scare ! People Killings in schools offices collages etc Latley ! Just Maybe ..... lets get a boarder Line Skitz and MK-Ultra Him like a ( Manchurian Canidate ) the GOVT may be into it to restrict more Gun Control
and causing more Fear!!



Ever heard the

How to catch a Wild Hog Story ?



HOW TO CATCH A WILD PIG
hughs-kojak.blogspot.com...

To Catch a Wild Pig - A Parable About Society That Offers Valuable Lessons for Leaders
www.fastcompany.com...

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

Adolf Hitler quotes (German Chancellor, leader of the Nazi party, 1889-1945)

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

Joseph Goebbels
edit on 1-5-2013 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Here's a question for those that have a huge issue with this pic:

What would you do if the shoe was on the other foot?

You are part of a tactical team tasked with catching someone who is willing to kill a lot of people. You are clearing a street. Suddenly, you see the curtain on a window pull back. You see a shadow of a figure through it. That figure raises something to eye level, pointed right at you.

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.



I had to make an account just so I could address this non-sense. Have you EVER owned a firearm? Be honest. If you have and your previous statement remains the same, you never took a firearm safety or tactical response training course, unlike myself. Some of the most BASIC etiquette of owning a firearm applies to LE and military who are actively engaged in OP.

This is America, where the rule of law is of up-most importance. Take it from me and all of the experience I have with firearms and tactical response (I know I haven't posted a resume of exp and this is my first post; you'll either have to take my word for it or just imagine me wrong, I suppose):

you don't get to point a gun at the movement of a curtain. For starters, the military isn't even supposed to be assisting law enforcement in matters that generally require a warrant. In the instances that police and or military searches someone's home, it is more times than not because the home owners gave their consent to forfeit their 4th amendment right. The constitution and rule of law are not suspended in states of emergency.... the U.S.S.R. constitution gave people their freedom of speech, except in times of emergency.... hmm, wonder how that worked out for all those who spoke out against Stalin?

My main point is, it doesn't matter if a bomb went off or not. In AMERICA, when you are in a residential, you don't get to aim your gun at whatever pops out, whatever the badge you wear. Do not take this out of context-- this is much different that visually pursuing a suspect (eyes on) and then something jumps out at you. In those situations, LEO have valid ground to be fearful for their life. In this specific circumstance, they had NO VISUAL or the slightest clue as to where the Boston Bomber was. Because of this, there is no valid ground to be fearful for your life. While there is valid ground to be afraid because a bomb went off, the legalities of the matter speak for itself. You can't just aim a damn gun at people while going door to door. It doesn't work like that, bro.

If you have ever owned a gun or taken the proper training like I have, you would know that you don't even put your finger on the trigger or in the guard until you have identified your target and know what is beyond it. You also never flash your muzzle at anything you do not tend to destroy. That soldier knows better, and so should you.

The soldier has the person in his sights with his finger in the trigger guard. There is no denying that that is irresponsible firearm use, unless of course you've never owned a firearm or are irresponsible.


edit on 1-5-2013 by 762x39 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-5-2013 by 762x39 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Your still using the same failed logic I responede to, and you haven't responded back yet, though this is a large thread with many replies, and you have a life I assume, plus your mod duties, so I will just believe you missed it.

So I will explain it again.

They didn't know what they were facing, that is correct.

They also had not one single reason to believe this was many people, who pessessed anything above a single pistol that was stolen from the MIT officer they killed.

Which means they have reacted to the facts they had, which were 2 guys, and 1 gun, and maybe another momb or two.

By your logic, since LEOs get shot on a simple traffic stop somtimes, they should approach every vehicle with their guns out, and immediately remove and ground and handcuff everyone, but cause they "could" have anything, or any intentions, and any car driving by could be accomplices, so they would need to stop all traffic, and search those people as well etc...

It gets stupid very fast when one runs off of imagined senarios instead of known facts.

The facts are, they messed up, they ran around scared, and they endangered many lives with their idiocy, all on nothing more than imagined fears, and want of using all the military gear DHS has given them.

I mean why have it if you aren't going to use it right.

This is the way it is supposed to work, when they know only about 2 suspects, a couple of bombs, and a single hand gun, they don't pretend all of alqiada is at their doorstep behind every window and or door.

They plan to find and arrest 2 people, that may have a bomb or 2, and a pistol, since these are the facts they have available.

Your scenario gets way too far out control in mere moments, the protocol for this, keeps things in perspective, and ensures public safety first, and brings in the bad guys every single day of the week.

Just the facts ma'am, is a well known police phrase, because they deal in facts, not assumed, imagined, or could be scenarios.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by neformore
 

They also had not one single reason to believe this was many people, who pessessed anything above a single pistol that was stolen from the MIT officer they killed.


3 dead people, 200+ injured on a public street by explosive devices.

You know, bombs and stuff, remember? Did you forget that?

I think the bombs, the dead people, the injured people and the damage caused kinda set the precedent.

You know, just the facts.


edit on 1/5/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


And just to add...following your logic...

They were only 19 people, with three planes. Why assume there were more of them?




posted on May, 1 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


When the lockdown occurred, the authorities didn't know where the suspect(s) were or what weapons they might have.

When the bombings occurred, the authorities didn't know where the suspects were or what weapons they might have.

Shouldn't the authorities have locked down the entire United States immediately after the bombing until they were completely sure that they had everyone involved in custody?



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
This is still going, huh? Wow.
Inverselyproportional, you have a good head on your shoulders. Rational, concise and correct as far as I am concerned. You are debating with folks from not only a non gun culture, but one many generations removed from the necessity to be totally self reliant and capable of taking care of one's self without outside help.
As a former police officer during the 70's and early 80's, I still like to believe that the primary mission of the Police was to serve and protect not only the public's safety but also their rights as citizens. It was my job to go into the diciest situations and keep the peace WITHOUT trampling all over someone's rights in the process.
My very last night in uniform, I was called to an unknown disturbance at a private residence and walked into a room with a gun in every corner, on every table and even across the old man's knees as he sat in his easy chair glaring at me. Some of the "logic" I am hearing here would dictate that I draw my service revolver and put the crazy old SOB on the ground or even shoot him. Did I have that right? I still say no to this day. The act of sitting in a chair with a shotgun lying on your knees in your own home is not a crime, rather like looking out your own window is not a crime, eh? (Except in Boston.) Long story made short is that it was a despondent, elderly widower grieving his departed wife on the anniversary of her death. In my world, you make no threat, overt or implied, to a citizen based on an act or action that is completely legal. It is not about JUST physical safety, but also the preservation of the dignity and rights of those you serve. I enforced the laws, served the public and protected the rights of everyone ONLY with the consent of those same people. Without them, I am irrelevant.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

If one doesn’t really want the answer - why ask?


I asked those questions in order to shed some light on a problem I have with many of the discussions taking place on this site. I didn't expect a straight-forward, honest answer to either of them.

You are presenting yourself as an authority figure on the topic we are discussing... and rightfully so. I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt your credentials, and neither does anyone else. Therefore your opinion on this matter is one that carries a great deal of respect and influence on the minds of those who happen to read this thread.

With that said, I would just like to remind you that with this type of power comes great responsibility.

You and your chest pounding comrades have painted the guy in the picture as a jumpy, blood thirsty, poorly trained poser who is ready and willing to put wrist ties on everyone in my home, and force us onto a bus that is going to take us to a FEMA camp where we will be exterminated.

All you have is a picture to go on.
You know absolutely nothing about the man with the gun.
You know absolutely nothing about the person taking the picture.

Yet you and your buddies have managed to paint me and anyone else who disagrees with the conclusion you've jumped to as pussified morons who are going to be singing Imagine by the Beatles on the bus ride to the gas chambers.

I asked the questions to bring your judgement under scrutiny.
So now I'll ask some more questions that might help us all get a better understanding of who the morons are in this discussion...

Was the photographer holding a gun?
Was the photographer pointing a gun at him?
What kind of camera was this picture taken with?
Was this photo taken with a phone?
Is a cell phone a threat in an IED situation?
Is this the only picture the photographer took?
Were there other people in the photographer's home?
Did the photographer shout a threat to the gunman?
Why didn't he pull the trigger?

If you could see through his scope and it happened to be a stubborn redneck with a phone and a shotgun, would you also criticize this guy for not pulling the trigger?

edit on 1-5-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by neformore
 

They also had not one single reason to believe this was many people, who pessessed anything above a single pistol that was stolen from the MIT officer they killed.


3 dead people, 200+ injured on a public street by explosive devices.

You know, bombs and stuff, remember? Did you forget that?

I think the bombs, the dead people, the injured people and the damage caused kinda set the precedent.

You know, just the facts.


Oh you sensationalist you... I can't believe you used the word "bombs". You should probably tone down the rhetoric before you scare someone.
edit on 1-5-2013 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spock51
This is still going, huh? Wow.
Inverselyproportional, you have a good head on your shoulders. Rational, concise and correct as far as I am concerned. You are debating with folks from not only a non gun culture, but one many generations removed from the necessity to be totally self reliant and capable of taking care of one's self without outside help.
As a former police officer during the 70's and early 80's, I still like to believe that the primary mission of the Police was to serve and protect not only the public's safety but also their rights as citizens. It was my job to go into the diciest situations and keep the peace WITHOUT trampling all over someone's rights in the process.
My very last night in uniform, I was called to an unknown disturbance at a private residence and walked into a room with a gun in every corner, on every table and even across the old man's knees as he sat in his easy chair glaring at me. Some of the "logic" I am hearing here would dictate that I draw my service revolver and put the crazy old SOB on the ground or even shoot him. Did I have that right? I still say no to this day. The act of sitting in a chair with a shotgun lying on your knees in your own home is not a crime, rather like looking out your own window is not a crime, eh? (Except in Boston.) Long story made short is that it was a despondent, elderly widower grieving his departed wife on the anniversary of her death. In my world, you make no threat, overt or implied, to a citizen based on an act or action that is completely legal. It is not about JUST physical safety, but also the preservation of the dignity and rights of those you serve. I enforced the laws, served the public and protected the rights of everyone ONLY with the consent of those same people. Without them, I am irrelevant.


I know this isn't a place for one liners, but there isn't really much else to say. Thank you, sir.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
You and your chest pounding comrades have painted the guy in the picture as a jumpy, blood thirsty, poorly trained poser who is ready and willing to put wrist ties on everyone in my home, and force us onto a bus that is going to take us to a FEMA camp where we will be exterminated.


I think my assessment is that he was either poorly trained, poorly disciplined or jumpy. I never mentioned anything about him being a poser, I did not address his proclivity for the use of zip ties though I provided photos of other police and "agents" doing exactly that. I also produced photos of other poorly trained police pointing loaded firearms at civilians who obviously were no threat (hands in the air and or face down in the dirt) and in no way resembled the 19 year old Dzokhar T (a middle aged female, a black male a white 30 something and fat white kid to be exact).

I however, did not mention anything about buses or FEMA camps.


Originally posted by Bone75All you have is a picture to go on.


That photo is worth a thousand words and his demonstrated proficiency level/training.


Originally posted by Bone75
You know absolutely nothing about the man with the gun.


I know he is an agent or LEO of some kind and has the authority to go around armed to the teeth in a manhunt but clearly not much of the discretion that should go with it. He's probably a young guy (looks it anyway) and while I am sure he has nothing but the best of intentions he has failed to follow basic firearms safety rules for most military and law enforcement organizations.


Originally posted by Bone75
You know absolutely nothing about the person taking the picture.


I know the person was not a threat in any way as we heard no reports of armed civilians being shot in their homes for resisting the "Shelter in Place" recommendation.


Originally posted by Bone75
Yet you and your buddies have managed to paint me and anyone else who disagrees with the conclusion you've jumped to as pussified morons who are going to be singing Imagine by the Beatles on the bus ride to the gas chambers.


I have called no one a pussified anything - I have said elsewhere in the thread (not in response to you IIRC) that if the 4th amendment has been suspended and people are being removed from their homes at gun point and not free to go about their business without being searched forcibly at gun point for daring to do so it may not be called Martial Law but I doubt very much what it is called matters very much to the locals whose lives were affected by the "Shelter in Place" recommendation.

If you extrapolate from that me accusing you of being in denial about a fictitious ride to the gas chamber that is perhaps something you need to deal with.

I don't think we’ll be heading off to camps anytime soon but do think that these "lockdowns" shelter in place orders" or "emergency restrictions" are going to be the way of law enforcement in the future if people accept that it is necessary and proper. I for one think it is the hallmark of poor and lazy law enforcement work to not be able to both solve the crimes, locate suspects and arrest them while protecting the rights of the rest of the population.

Sure law enforcement is easier when you can go door to door looking for suspects in an area why all that investigation and leg work and analysis do when the people will applaud you for trampling though their living rooms heavily armed and pointing guns in their faces - but not necessarily better.

If you feel I have attacked you personally I apologize - you asked me to explain my analysis I did just that.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The guy with the gun just looked to me like he was making a tasteless jest by pretending he was going to kill the picture-taker.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Deceasedfantasy
 


And afterthought yeah they can't shoot innocent civilians yet I wonder how long it will be till its ok to shoot a civilian just for watching police activity

Agreed. I've been busy lately and couldn't stay on top of the thread, but I'm happy to see it's still alive and kicking. Boston is going to set a precedent for future events and activities and we must fight to keep our rights from being trampled by jumpy jack booted thugs with itchy trigger fingers.
I leave you all with this:
www.aclu.org...

Yet, a continuing stream of these incidents (often driven by police who have been fed "nonsense" about links between photography and terrorism) makes it clear that the problem is not going away. New examples continue to be reported weekly, and sometimes daily, on web sites such as Photography is Not a Crime.

Taking still and video photographs of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right — and that includes the outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

Of course, as with everything there are some narrow exceptions and limits. That's why we have created a new web resource on photographers' rights, including a "Know Your Rights" page. Everyone — photographers and police — should be clear on what rights we have in America when engaging in photography in public spaces.

Educate yourselves, folks. Quickly!



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


So then in your estimation this is the worst tragedy in the history of America?

Because this was the most ridiculous response to one on American soil in our history.

Tell me, timmy mcvey killed how many with a bomb?

Oh and a few fed agents managed to bring him in with little fuss huh?

Wow, I can't believe they managed that with out the entire 101st airborne division by your standards.

This was by no means the worst or most tragic such attack in this countries history, so why the need for such a idiotic response?

Your logic is very flawed, your not even trying to use reason, your using emotion, which has no place in such things.

Emotional reactions are what causes decade long wars in multiple countries resulting in hundreds of thousands of death hundreds of thousands of people.

This isn't the worst tragedy in history, and as such, does not require such an idiotic response.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 762x39

Originally posted by spock51
This is still going, huh? Wow.
Inverselyproportional, you have a good head on your shoulders. Rational, concise and correct as far as I am concerned. You are debating with folks from not only a non gun culture, but one many generations removed from the necessity to be totally self reliant and capable of taking care of one's self without outside help.
As a former police officer during the 70's and early 80's, I still like to believe that the primary mission of the Police was to serve and protect not only the public's safety but also their rights as citizens. It was my job to go into the diciest situations and keep the peace WITHOUT trampling all over someone's rights in the process.
My very last night in uniform, I was called to an unknown disturbance at a private residence and walked into a room with a gun in every corner, on every table and even across the old man's knees as he sat in his easy chair glaring at me. Some of the "logic" I am hearing here would dictate that I draw my service revolver and put the crazy old SOB on the ground or even shoot him. Did I have that right? I still say no to this day. The act of sitting in a chair with a shotgun lying on your knees in your own home is not a crime, rather like looking out your own window is not a crime, eh? (Except in Boston.) Long story made short is that it was a despondent, elderly widower grieving his departed wife on the anniversary of her death. In my world, you make no threat, overt or implied, to a citizen based on an act or action that is completely legal. It is not about JUST physical safety, but also the preservation of the dignity and rights of those you serve. I enforced the laws, served the public and protected the rights of everyone ONLY with the consent of those same people. Without them, I am irrelevant.


I know this isn't a place for one liners, but there isn't really much else to say. Thank you, sir.


Ya, what they both said! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Spock, please sir, you flatter me too much, I am not so wise as to say these words because they are mine alone, this is years of training talking, along with 35 years of living the life of a free man, that does exercise my rights, as if you don't use them, surely you will lose them.

So as much as I would love to claim credit, and stroke my ego, these words were taught to me by the true heroes and patriots, the founders, and those that fought and died before we lived, so we might one day have the freedom to voice our opposition to such acts.

IMHO, it is your sir, that shows great strength of character and wisdom.

I am merely stating the truth as I see it, and that same truth belongs not to me, but all men that would live free a good lives.






top topics



 
92
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join