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: 4
92
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963


Did you watch the video of the people coming out of their houses with their hands over their heads with guns pointed at them???

Yes, you are correct that I most certainly would protect myself from ANY law enforcement officer OR military personnel whom would violate the Constitution that they took an "OATH" to uphold (as did I) to protect myself!!!!

So if you are a US citizen, then why are you acting so ignorant as to the words of our Constitution????? Or our you one of these "Progressives" whom actually believe in this so called "New World Order"????

I would say "Nice try though" as you did, but I would prefer for you to keep showing your ignorance as to the words of our "Founding Fathers"! Because obviously, you are so scared of the boogie man terrorists, that you are willing to give up what freedoms you have left!



1)Sure did. And I see nothing in that video that shows that they were forcefully ejected. If they agreed to the search, they would still be escorted out.

2)You didnt say that. You said any that were gathered at your door. Again, you are part of the problem.

3)Tell me, what am I acting ignorant of? Not one of you that are crying 'martial law' have shown a single piece of evidence of ANY constitution injustices.

4)Please, enlighten me as to what you are claiming I am ignorant about. I see a lot of ignorance in the claims of constitutional injustices, and nothing else. So please, elaborate.




posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So what do you think would have happened if you said no to the search in Boston, do you think that would have been an acceptable answer.

and as you are well aware, the cops never did find him, a citizen did.
edit on 27-4-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   


I have refused a police search before, and guess what? They didnt illegally search me.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There's a world of difference between ordinary LEOs requesting a search, and this particular scenario, in which all the military gear was dragged out and used. Apples and oranges.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So what do you think would have happened if you said no to the search in Boston, do you think that would have been an acceptable answer.


Legally, not a darn thing. And I would have recourse for any illegal acts taken by the police after the refusal.

Again, though, I wouldnt refuse the search in that situation, as I am a reasonable member of society, and understand that I have responsibilities in said society.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus



I have refused a police search before, and guess what? They didnt illegally search me.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There's a world of difference between ordinary LEOs requesting a search, and this particular scenario, in which all the military gear was dragged out and used. Apples and oranges.


Ill ask again (no one has come through yet):

Can you provide any evidence of people being illegally searched? Can you provide any complaints filed by people after the fact showing that their rights were violated?



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



I know you feel very passionately about matters and I can respect that 100%. At the same time. what you're advocating here is Capital Murder 6x's over as an example. I don't hear you saying you'd envision a scenario of RETURNING fire to a tragedy started by overzealous law enforcement ..but that you'd deliberately open the killing and with forward thinking and planning before they came to your home.

AS I noted, the Federal Medical Center for Prisons isn't that far from me (and we'll leave it at that for detail ) so this is absolutely not 100% theory for me. The Compound wall that was blown out at the Benghazi, Libya consulate ..well BEFORE Stevens was murdered in the final attack ...was done by a group demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh who helped plan and encourage the 1993 bombing attack against the World Trade Center.

That man has been, at different times, housed at that medical center I've driven right past, countless times. It's not impossible that his die hard supporters could be more ....direct... someday. (It's located right INSIDE the city...not some distant and remote spot like most prisons are)

I won't be murdering police officers who are chasing the terrorist scumbags that might have initiated an attack to spring the Super-Terrorists from his medical suite


You know what Wrabbit, your right, I am passionate!!! I want to be clear that I am NOT advocating "killing" anyone! But I must say that my fellow citizens whom seem so willing to give up our freedoms and liberty for their "safety" are becoming very tiresome!!!! Especially when our founding fathers warned us of this happening!

I can tell you this much! I love my country!!!!! I am also very sad that I served it, to only watch my fellow "freedom lovers" be so scared that they are willing to give it all up!!!!

Once we lose it folks, we WON'T get it back!



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The Fourth Amendment states that authorities must have “probable cause” before searching “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” As in, they or another witness saw the suspect run into a house, or they had good intelligence that suspect was hiding in a specific location.

They had no clue where he was, they took an area within a 20-blocks and were going to search them.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide

and as you are well aware, the cops never did find him, a citizen did.
edit on 27-4-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)


And the funny thing about it is, everybody is too busy bashing the cops for this and that and too blind to see what really happened for him to get caught.

if you all want to complain, complain about the fact that the citizens of boston were literally used as bait to catch this kid. LITERALLY.

But thats gone right over most of y'all's heads.

edit on 27-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The Fourth Amendment states that authorities must have “probable cause” before searching “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” As in, they or another witness saw the suspect run into a house, or they had good intelligence that suspect was hiding in a specific location.

They had no clue where he was, they took an area within a 20-blocks and were going to search them.


The word 'permission' nullifies your point.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

edit on 27-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: double



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


So what do you think would have happened if you said no to the search in Boston, do you think that would have been an acceptable answer.

They may very well have assumed they found precisely what they were doing this to find. They had multiple terrorists with what they believed to be Chechen origin and motives, loose somewhere in the city. No idea where...but absolutely not accepting 'they got away' as an answer.

Well, if they're running THAT hard, it's not just possible but damn likely that they could kick the back door of a residence and make themselves at home while insuring the residents either cooperate or die. So a person saying no to the house clearing operation suggests they very well may have hit the jackpot with one of their TRUE targets back behind the door or around a corner in a hallway with a gun to the head of another household member. It's not unheard of, just rare ...and in this case? Hey, they had bombs detonated in public, at a national event and meant to kill as many innocent people as possible.

I can't help but think they had some very good reasons for not only securing their OWN positions as they went (Just what did these two do the first time they were cornered hard? ...Precisely what they feared would happen) but insuring civilians in Boston hadn't been recruited against their will and at gun point from the OTHER side as their shelter and safety while the manhunt passed by.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I see your just going to dance around the issue. Martial law per say wasn't declared, no military was used. Though the police pretty much was militarized. No one is going to press charges, you would be vilified by mass media by doing so.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I see your just going to dance around the issue. Martial law per say wasn't declared, no military was used. Though the police pretty much was militarized. No one is going to press charges, you would be vilified by mass media by doing so.



I am dancing around nothing. I am directly addressing your points.

So, you dont refute that A)Martial law was NOT declared; B)No branch of the military was used; C)No complaints have been filed; D)No one has come forward and said their rights were violated.

So basically, all this is about is hypotheticals.

Yet You say I am the one dancing around things....pretty funny the way some of your mind's work.
edit on 27-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Again, militarized police at you door, assault rifles aimed in your direction.

"Sure guys, come on in" you stutter as you drop a loaf in your pants. Permission - Intimidation.....what is the difference.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Again, militarized police at you door, assault rifles aimed in your direction.

"Sure guys, come on in" you stutter as you drop a loaf in your pants. Permission - Intimidation.....what is the difference.


Key word there, police. I have a huge issue, and have expressed it for quite some time (funny how its only now that people are catching up) about the para-militarization of our police force. The FACT is, though, that they are still designated as police, and thus, not part of the military, and thus, there was no illegality to their use.

There is a huge difference between intimidation and force. Letting yourself be intimidated is still a choice.

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?
edit on 27-4-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 



Again, militarized police at you door, assault rifles aimed in your direction.

"Sure guys, come on in" you stutter as you drop a loaf in your pants. Permission - Intimidation.....what is the difference.


You hit the nail on the head brother!!!



What has Homeland Security done to protect us???? As far as I am concerned, I can make a list of the freedoms they have taken away from us..........................but after watching Uncle Janet being drilled by Congress, I am not so sure that our protection is their main goal!!!! It is really hard for me to believe that the AlQaeda boogyman is what we should fear as it is our own government whom created them!!



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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?


Well what I find disturbing, besides the strange acceptance of this...is granny supposedly volunteering not only for someone to search her home, but being marched down the block with her hands on her head and her body felt all over by young gunmen 50 or so men all around heavily armed and outfitted for war...WHY, what law did herself and her family break? Was the bomber hiding under her apron? Was she maybe mistaken for him because she looked so much like him?



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I just want to really emphasize here....while people argue this like a generic 'this reaction could happen any time' event, that's simply not true and this WAS a very hot and anxious situation.

It was over two years ago that I attended a seminar put on by the same people I got my CCW and additional tactical shooting training from. They train local and federal law enforcement as well with a long background of doing that for a living.

It was there that I learned and saw more than I ever wanted to, what happened at Beslan. What makes that important and why it relates DIRECTLY to Boston is that after Beslan, American Law Enforcement radically changed their thinking in response to legitimate terrorists loose in American cities or in the act of a takeover/siege situation. Where for years, doctrine was to contain and negotiate an end (still is when they aren't terrorists), it changed to "arrive, assault, acquire and fire" in that order. Why? The post mortem on Beslan showed that IMMEDIATE and aggressive assault would likely have saved hundreds of lives ...many of them, young children.

It was hesitation and holding back against people who had only one purpose and intent ...which surrendering was NEVER a part of ...that allowed them to fortify themselves into a position where the good guys lost nearly 1/3rd of the hostages being rescued when the terrorists started the final slaughter.

Over 350 people were murdered at Beslan. Nearly half that number were kids between 6-12 years old. Saying Chechens are loose after having already attacked something is the best way to see this kind of reaction, IMO.

So...in Boston, when they knew they had political killers (terrorists), they responded with enough force to be engaged in an Honest to God firefight with people who wouldn't necessarily see that as a foreign concept ...and NOT be killed to the last Cop for lack of support on that street or within that house it happened at.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

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 would think to myself, I am on a street in "America the free" and there are children on this block, and this is not a war or a war zone!
edit on 27-4-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Danbones
 

Pssht, you cant even refuse entry into your own home...


Yes, yes you can. If they have no warrant, you have every right to refuse.



Did you watch the videos? I would be like those people shaking, scared and no way have the courage to say..where is the warrant? Every average joe searched was wasting tax money and time in getting any criminal.
edit on 27-4-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join