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

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!

reply to post by Golf66

I appreciate your perspective on this, and it is nice to have someone talking from experience, and not just 'well i think they are bad'.

There was one thing you said that really caught my attention:

Yes, I can and until I am 100% sure it’s a threat or target I do not point my weapon and most especially I do not aim at or acquire it. Snap fire technique takes about a fraction of a second to acquire a target once visualized. Flashing the civilians unnecessarily inflames anti-American sentiment, (in this case anti-LEO) it is provocative and uncalled for and the hallmark of a poorly trained unit.

To me, this is part of the point. These men are not fully trained for this type of situation. Guardsmen are not given the type of training that someone on the ground in hostile territory such as yourself would receive. In short, they are not as well prepared for this type of situation.

In the end, I come back to one thing: context. We have no context for this picture. If someone can give me some, I might change my tune.

Is it the type of thing you hope to see on american (or any) streets? Absolutely not. But this was a unique situation. If this starts becoming the tactic for catching joe shmo liquor store robber, ill be leading the charge against it. Im just not sure that is going to happen, though.

Originally posted by mandella1099


Yes, let's think. Weapons are mechanical instruments, and mechanical instruments have a tendency to fail. Would you accept your argument if a child that is close to you pulled back the blinds and the weapon went off, killing him?

I'm sorry, but this action is wrong on many levels - moral, constitutional, safety, etc....

A tendency to fail? Not really, but it does happen. I, personally, would not be letting my kids play around the window when there was an armed and dangerous bomber, and heavily armed law enforcement on the street.

....But thats just me...

Morally? Yes. Safety? Yes. Constitutionally? No, and thats been my point all along.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mandella1099


Yes, let's think. Weapons are mechanical instruments, and mechanical instruments have a tendency to fail. Would you accept your argument if a child that is close to you pulled back the blinds and the weapon went off, killing him?

I'm sorry, but this action is wrong on many levels - moral, constitutional, safety, etc....

A tendency to fail? Not really, but it does happen. I, personally, would not be letting my kids play around the window when there was an armed and dangerous bomber, and heavily armed law enforcement on the street.

....But thats just me...

Morally? Yes. Safety? Yes. Constitutionally? No, and thats been my point all along.

Thanks for the post, but you danced around my question without answering it. Would you still feel the same way if your child was killed?

reply to post by Golf66

Sorry, I did omit that in fact we were hunting one HVT at the time for a capture/kill mission so it was almost an identical scenario. With the exception that we didn't lock down the whole market, order everyone to their homes and zip cuff and detain everyone who failed to comply. That was an option I had but I considered it too harsh... The target was an IED maker for the Taliban so presumed to be armed and of course - bomberous.

Bomberous....I like that.

When I weighed my options for the mission I could have called a Platoon(+) of Rangers for support had air assets, cordoned off the entire area with roadblocks and gone in what was called "hard" and done just what happened in Boston. However, since I was the defacto law in the area and in the beginning of the war (early 04) I was trying to ingratiate not offend the entire population. So we went in soft with our team and found the guy without a shot fired. In that case I gambled and won - I considered that the hard presence would be less risk for my team but might illicit a negative response from the local population and tip off the subject.

Likewise one over aggressive trigger (Rangers are notoriously trigger happy - it is thier forte) puller and we'd be in deep #e since the whole village was Taliban friendly.

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.

Yes, I can and until I am 100% sure it’s a threat or target I do not point my weapon and most especially I do not aim at or acquire it. Snap fire technique takes about a fraction of a second to acquire a target once visualized. Flashing the civilians unnecessarily inflames anti-American sentiment, (in this case anti-LEO) it is provocative and uncalled for and the hallmark of a poorly trained unit.

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.

lets not forget that with 9000+ cops around they DID NOT FIND the suspect. a dude smoking a cigarette found him, so i give the cops zero credit for anything except treading all over our rights this is a new world order in every way.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Mate its not just america, the whole world seems to be skipping merrily along a path towards societies destruction.
I'm often left awake at night worried for my children.
What sort of future do they have?
A future with no freedoms, with no say in the leadership of their country, where their rights are slowly but surely stripped from them.
I could go on and on but this is my first legitimate reply,
So I'll just say that pic gave me chills.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I would just like to point out a few of the many many many flaws with your supposed use of logic here.

You have never been trained have you? I can tell, as if you were, you would know that it is a blatant breach of protocol to insert your finger in the trigger housing unless your squeezing off a round or three, ever, under any criteria.

You do not point weapons at the civies EVER!!!!! Not in a combat zone during a war, not when searching, not when hunting a person, not EVER!!!!!!!!!! Unless your gonna shoot them dead, or you have already been given plenty of cause to believe they are a viable target.

Your entire illogical stance on all of your comments comes from some misguided belief, that their safety is more important than any others. The police were never threatened, not one time, not at all, by any of the thousands of civies that had a gun clearly aimed at them.

In the military, when confronted with a civie, you must give at least 2 clear orders to stop, as they approach your position, before you may even think about pointing your weapon in their general direction, and you only do so, if your reliably sure that you will need to use lethal force, you may just yell at them 10 times and never point a weapon at them.

As pointing a weapon at someone is a clear and universally recognized threat against ones life. It is clear you know nothing about handling weapons, or tactics, or the use of force, as I have stated, the act of pointing a weapon at anyone, ever, under any criteria, is a threat against their life, and is recognized universally as such, by all courts, and international treaties etc....

The police in this country act like they have a right to be secure above all others, this is not the case, they have volunteered to risk their lives, by the act of taking the job. Hence they are required to be at risk more so than the public at large.

It is clear from the videos and pics, these "LEOs", and I use the term loosely, like I would call a gang shooting a "misunderstanding", threatened the lives of many quite innocent folks, because they are cowards, who think they have a right to defend themselves above all others rights to the same, when this is not the case at all.

If they point a gun at you, it is completely within your rights to point one right back, as you have an equal right to be secure, under any criteria, as they do.

By your "logic" ( notice the use of the " " it means I am using the term loosely) if I would have been pointing a gun at the guy pointing one at me, he would have been in his rights to shoot me, but I would not have been within my rights to shoot back.

This is not the case at all, all Americans have the right to self defense, and to be secure in their rights, and property at all times, not just when the LEOs think it is ok.

Any LEO that points a loaded weapon at a civie, who is not under suspicion of a crime, should be subject to the same laws and punishments anyone else would be. They are not special, they are not more trust worthy, they do not get special treatment, or more of a right to safety than anyone else ever.

I challenge you to think more clearly on this subject, as trained soldiers are telling you, that it is not right to point a weapon at civies even in a combat zone, why do you think it ok in a suburban environment?

These people should be fired, immediately, and imprisoned up to the maximum extent of the law in their jurisdiction, because they threatened the lives of every single person they pointed their guns at, and showed less judgement than a private in boot camp when they broke the number one and number 2 rule of weapons safety and handling of firearms.

1- Never point a weapon at someone, unless your planning on using it to kill them
2- Never insert your finger into the trigger housing, unless your in the process of squeezing the trigger

I could go on, but I dont think you will even comprehend the points I have already laid out, nor do I think you can be swayed from believing it is ok for the police to threaten innocent lives, because their safety is more important than everyone elses.

Enjoy the 4th reich, it is thinking like yours that shows us all how far we have fallen, and there is not much farther to go before we hit the bottom.

Originally posted by mandella1099

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mandella1099


Yes, let's think. Weapons are mechanical instruments, and mechanical instruments have a tendency to fail. Would you accept your argument if a child that is close to you pulled back the blinds and the weapon went off, killing him?

I'm sorry, but this action is wrong on many levels - moral, constitutional, safety, etc....

A tendency to fail? Not really, but it does happen. I, personally, would not be letting my kids play around the window when there was an armed and dangerous bomber, and heavily armed law enforcement on the street.

....But thats just me...

Morally? Yes. Safety? Yes. Constitutionally? No, and thats been my point all along.

Thanks for the post, but you danced around my question without answering it. Would you still feel the same way if your child was killed?

You want me to answer your hypothetical question that can not happen? Ok, aside form the fact that my child would not be by the window as I am not an idiot parent, yes, of course I would be upset, and of course I would seek damages. A couple of points about this loaded question that you pose:

1)No one was shot in this case. You are playing 'what if'. So Ill come back to my 'what if': What if the person with the camera had been a shooter?

2)It chucks aside all responsibility on the civilian's part. As I keep saying, sometimes, as members of a society, we have responsibilities to keep.

3)A 6 year old would likely not be pointing something at an armed guardsman.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


What if he had been a shooter?

Well, this is why we don't play what ifs.

What that LEO did was wrong by any measure of ROE in the theatre of war let alone against his own countrymen. I find his actions evidence of not just poor training, but reckless behavior.

It's the best day of the year to have a military uniform costume, so you can blend in. Have a few in your bugout camp, next to the gas mask and the crossdresser outfit, a few uniforms of cop, soldier, UPS guy, blind guy, and tourist props.

Don't you think that if a criminal were to do something bad surrounded by uniformed men, he would come prepared, wearing the camo and the boots, to scurry away when the disaster happens? Maybe he would have planned his disaster years in advance, and could have gotten into the military or police, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Do you remember that story of Mitt Romney who would play jokes on his friends by dressing up as a cop, planting bottles of booze? So, when did these soldiers declare war on the city enough to get all that -- a tank even -- for going after a couple people? That is military presence. Scope guy is a jerk.

What you could do with that is to turn off all lights at the source (fusebox), media, and phones, putting the gps tracking things and microphone things out of earshot. Hide your Jews under the rug and floorboards. (that's a bad joke now because they have heat-tracking satellite nowadays) You can't guarantee that these occupationers are not deciding to personally profit from their position of power. So their embroidery lets them walk through your home? That's not healthy. Meet up with your neighbors somewhere.

It's disappointing that neighborhoods don't have a lynch mob plan for when there is an escaped terrorist somewhere. The head-in-sand method costs soldiers from out of town a lot of time, which the fugitive is using. Where is the plainclothes militia of Massachusetts of over a century ago? The farmers and shipment traders and such with their flintlock pistols and pitchforks? They're indoors watching TV while these boot people tromp around intimidating the locals.

I have been exactly where that camera man is before different circumstances though.

Was doing 45 in a 35 and the local leo's( 6 of them pulled me over) guns drawn as if i was some "dangerous person".

I am telling you that is not a place you want to be smartest thing a person can do is immediately put your hands up in the air.

Don't be combative no matter how much you want to yell, "What the bleep do you think your doing? ".

So the Posse Comitatus Act is really dead and totally bypassed now in more than one way.

Give the police the same Humvee's that were used in Iraq the same soldiers that are now police in a new career, same rifle, same soldiers cloths and body armor and there it is.

I never minded SWAT but they had less of a military look to them, SWAT always had there own unique look.

It's sad.

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!

Here is the deal, Boston suffers from Stepford Citizen Syndrome! Yes it is a pattern!
This picture is to brainwash you!



As in the case of Nazi Germany, state-sponsored propaganda (brainwashing) is a vital part of Corporate America strategy. What you see are the beginning stages of a military dictatorship in precisely the same way Nazi Germany got started!

Titor quote: I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

You have never been trained have you? I can tell, as if you were, you would know that it is a blatant breach of protocol to insert your finger in the trigger housing unless your squeezing off a round or three, ever, under any criteria.

Ive been trained. Not in military tactics, but I have plenty of firearm training. Breach of protocol? You bet. Illegal? Nope.

You do not point weapons at the civies EVER!!!!! Not in a combat zone during a war, not when searching, not when hunting a person, not EVER!!!!!!!!!! Unless your gonna shoot them dead, or you have already been given plenty of cause to believe they are a viable target.

And once again, I will say, show me ANYTHING that proves to me that this person knew it was a civilian that they were aiming at, OR that they kept engaged after they had identified them as a non threat. The person was standing at a window, pointing something at them, for crying out loud.

Your entire illogical stance on all of your comments comes from some misguided belief, that their safety is more important than any others. The police were never threatened, not one time, not at all, by any of the thousands of civies that had a gun clearly aimed at them.

I said nothing of the sort, or anything even remotely close to that. Please dont resort to lying. It helps nothing.

Thousands of civilians had guns aimed at them? Please, provide a source for that claim.

In the military, when confronted with a civie, you must give at least 2 clear orders to stop, as they approach your position, before you may even think about pointing your weapon in their general direction, and you only do so, if your reliably sure that you will need to use lethal force, you may just yell at them 10 times and never point a weapon at them.

And if they are pointing something directly at you?

As pointing a weapon at someone is a clear and universally recognized threat against ones life.

yes, it is.

It is clear you know nothing about handling weapons, or tactics, or the use of force, as I have stated, the act of pointing a weapon at anyone, ever, under any criteria, is a threat against their life, and is recognized universally as such, by all courts, and international treaties etc....

You couldnt be more incorrect, as I have over two decades of experience and training, but thats really neither here nor there.

The police in this country act like they have a right to be secure above all others, this is not the case, they have volunteered to risk their lives, by the act of taking the job. Hence they are required to be at risk more so than the public at large.

I agree with you 100%. But I will see, for the umpteenth time in this thread, that as members of a society, we, too, have a responsibility. And sometimes that responsibility means helping and listening to the police. Or maybe we should just stop going after people who maim hundreds

By your "logic" ( notice the use of the " " it means I am using the term loosely) if I would have been pointing a gun at the guy pointing one at me, he would have been in his rights to shoot me, but I would not have been within my rights to shoot back.

If you aim a gun at a cop, you should expect to be shot. Its pretty simple, really.

This is not the case at all, all Americans have the right to self defense, and to be secure in their rights, and property at all times, not just when the LEOs think it is ok.

Yes, all americans do. But that does not relieve civilians of the responsibility that comes with being a member of society.

its like so many of you in this thread have the 'because i can' mentality. "I'm gonna ignore cops, becuase I can", "Im going to refuse a police request, because I can"....what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do can often be two different things.

Any LEO that points a loaded weapon at a civie, who is not under suspicion of a crime, should be subject to the same laws and punishments anyone else would be. They are not special, they are not more trust worthy, they do not get special treatment, or more of a right to safety than anyone else ever.

I agree, to some extent.

I challenge you to think more clearly on this subject, as trained soldiers are telling you, that it is not right to point a weapon at civies even in a combat zone, why do you think it ok in a suburban environment?

Im thinking quite clearly. You are apparently missing everything I have said, though. I never, at ANY point, said it was okay to aim at a civilian.

I challenge you to remove emotion from your thinking, and use a level head. But I dont expect it to happen.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What if he had been a shooter?

Well, this is why we don't play what ifs.

What that LEO did was wrong by any measure of ROE in the theatre of war let alone against his own countrymen. I find his actions evidence of not just poor training, but reckless behavior.

Thats my point. In case you missed it, my 'what if' was in response to the questions "what if you had been there, and this had happened, and what if your kid got shot". Playing 'what if' in these instances is stupid and pointless.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


What's happening in this photo is a rambo syndrome.

I see it sometimes with less active LEO and military units.
They get overly pumped FINALLY getting to do their "I'm a bad ass" thing that they forget that there are rules to the game. They think they should be seen doing something, anything, to feel legitimate. This man's actions are anything but, and the more I hear about what went down in Boston the more and more I see this narrative playing out.

They were war gaming in an American city with live rounds. That should worry every American.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

I could go on, but I dont think you will even comprehend the points I have already laid out, nor do I think you can be swayed from believing it is ok for the police to threaten innocent lives, because their safety is more important than everyone elses.

Again, please dont resort to lying. I have never once said it was okay for the police to threaten innocent lives.

Enjoy the 4th reich, it is thinking like yours that shows us all how far we have fallen, and there is not much farther to go before we hit the bottom.

Thinking like mine? You mean, stopping, and taking in the entire scenario, and realizing that we have no context for the picture, and therefore, its nothing but hypotheticals, baseless claims, and sensationalistic phrases like "fourth reich"?

I hope that you, at the very least, own the fact that you are one of the people that advocates the 'us vs. them' mentality.

Originally posted by imitator

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!

Here is the deal, Boston suffers from Stepford Citizen Syndrome! Yes it is a pattern!
This picture is to brainwash you!

As in the case of Nazi Germany, state-sponsored propaganda (brainwashing) is a vital part of Corporate America strategy. What you see are the beginning stages of a military dictatorship in precisely the same way Nazi Germany got started!

Titor quote: I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse.

Just look at the pic, do they really need an uparmored humvee, with a machine gun turret, to look for one wounded 19 year old?

It is not like there was a squad of spetznaz running around shooting and taking hostages all over town.

Those LEOs are all wearing flat out, tactical gear, just like a foot patrol in an actual war zone, they are not police, they are soldiers, just without any of the training or discipline that goes along with it.

LEOs- trained to believe their safety is all that matters, in all situations, at the expense of all others, always!
Soldiers- trained to understand that danger is part of the job, and safety at the expense of all others, is not the right mind set.

Why do they need all the armor etc... when they are gonna have a gun in the face of everyone they see, and be ready to shoot them all in an instant?

Soldiers need it, because they get military weapons used against them, and the armor to protect them when a threat comes from nowhere to find them.

It makes no sense, and I cant see any way any rational person can justify this insanity.

I challenge anyone to name one time, just one, where military hardware was needed to stop a single lone wounded kid.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What that LEO did was wrong by any measure of ROE in the theatre of war let alone against his own countrymen. I find his actions evidence of not just poor training, but reckless behavior.

Ill agree with this 100%. Nor have I argued against that in any way.