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

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

Again, you have not answered the question. I did not ask you if you would be upset if your child was killed. That is a given. The question is, would you still maintain the same solid beliefs in the arguments that you have provided to us today if your child was killed? A simple yes, or no will suffice....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
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.

Your the one not being honest, you have repeatedly said it was within the rights of the police to point their weapons at the people whos houses they searched.

You then went on to act as if them pointing weapons at those same people shouldnt have let it make a difference in them "allowing" their homes to be searched.

The officer volunteered to risk his life for the public, hence being a cop, he should have taken the time to see if there was even a threat from the window before threatening the life of the person taking the picture, which he clearly did.

The police have made the us vs them distinction, not the public. They risked every single life in every one of those houses, to make sure the police would be safe.

The picture is self explanatory, it doesnt require context, they are just as heavily armed and armored as a combat platoon in a warzone, they are pointing their guns a civies, they are in a suburban environment with armor....

I would think all this was obvious, and obviously the problem.

None of my points are based on anything but my prior training, and real world experience, along with simple, not even complex use of logic.

I think your avoiding the meaning behind my post intentionally, as it doesnt fit your view, that it is ok to threaten civie lives, and use lethal threats to circumvent the peoples rights.

Your saying they were aloud in to search because they said it is ok, is the same as a car theif saying he didnt steal the car, because even though him and his buddies were pointing guns at the victim, they asked if they could have his car.

Just remove the police, and insert gangmembers, when they knock on your door with guns in your face, and they ask if they can take a look around your home, they are not breaking any laws because you said they could, correct?

It is not right in one situation and wrong in the other, both are the same scenario, both are Americans and American citizens, both times the home owners are threatened with lethal force.

I dont see how you can not see this for what it is, unless that was your intent from the start.

reply to post by mandella1099


So its even more asinine than I thought. Not only do you want to play 'what if', and not only are you posing a situation to me that literally cannot happen, but you are asking for an answer that I literally cannot give. And this is your way of defending your stance?

You can play this game all day. You know and I know that there is no way I can tell you how I would react to that situation. And you and I ALSO know the the question has exactly nothing to do with this subject.

Great photo.

Reminds me of Goodfellas when the cops shoot a guy as he gets out of his car holding a footlong sub wrapped in tinfoil, ''He's holding a damn hero sandwich!'' ''I thought it was a gun!''

You know folks, as I've posted on this thread and had more time to really think about things....and look at the pictures and material? Something strikes me pretty hard about all this.

Some of these guys were 'finger on the trigger' while people came out of their homes. They definitely were aimed right at people's heads as they came out ....what a thing to see from their side, eh? That isn't the thing that's starting to really bug me though.

These aren't rookies called out of the Academy to dress up like SWAT. I think we can assume these are experience and professional law enforcement people. If I'm not mistaken (combat vets can correct me, I'm sure) thats not ALL fighting related tactical gear they have on either. That really is the whole boatload??

So ..Here is what I've started to wonder. How SCARED were they and WHY? I think we may be asking the whole wrong set of questions in assuming cops got a Rambo Complex to terrorize the population while hunting terrorists.

Perhaps what we need to be asking is what they were told in their briefings that caused them to roll out geared up so fully and acting like each house could contain a whole undiscovered cell of terrorists just waiting to kill them all in a cross fire?? Perhaps they WERE told something like that ...and perhaps that's the first point of major failure to address? Just my thinking as it's evolving a bit.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by mandella1099

 

So its even more asinine than I thought. Not only do you want to play 'what if', and not only are you posing a situation to me that literally cannot happen, but you are asking for an answer that I literally cannot give. And this is your way of defending your stance?

You can play this game all day. You know and I know that there is no way I can tell you how I would react to that situation. And you and I ALSO know the the question has exactly nothing to do with this subject.

Do you mean "what if" games like this:

"What if it HAD been a shooter?" (your third post)

You are big boy, so put your money where your mouth is or shut-up. An answer to my question please (would you still stand by all of your arguments if your child was accidently killed by the indvidual pointing the weapon in the photo during this action in Boston) - yes or no?

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Your the one not being honest, you have repeatedly said it was within the rights of the police to point their weapons at the people whos houses they searched.

No, I said it wasnt illegal.

You then went on to act as if them pointing weapons at those same people should have let it make a difference in them "allowing" their homes to be searched.

I 'acted' in no such way. I said the have the right of refusal. Which they do.

The officer volunteered to risk his life for the public, hence being a cop, he should have taken the time to see if there was even a threat from the window before threatening the life of the person taking the picture, which he clearly did.

I agree.

The police have made the us vs them distinction, not the public. They risked every single life in every one of those houses, to make sure the police would be safe.

The police may have started it, but there are plenty of people, such as you, who are perpetuating it. You either do so knowingly, are are ignorant of the fact that you are being used.

The picture is self explanatory, it doesnt require context, they are just as heavily armed and armored as a combat platoon in a warzone, they are pointing their guns a civies, they are in a suburban environment with armor....

It doesnt require context? REALLY? You are that quick to judge, with no context? Thats truly a scary mindset.

I would think all this was obvious, and obviously the problem.

And therein lies the problem. You want it all to be 'obvious'. In reality, what is right, and what is the truth, is rarely 'obvious'.

None of my points are based on anything but my prior training, and real world experience, along with simple, not even complex use of logic.

If you say so....

I think your avoiding the meaning behind my post intentionally, as it doesnt fit your view, that it is ok to threaten civie lives, and use lethal threats to circumvent the peoples rights.

You meant 'you're', and I am avoiding nothing. I am flatly addressing your every point. And once again, I have never said such a thing as 'it is ok to threaten civies lives'. I'll ask you again to please refrain from lying. All it does is take away from any relevant points that you may make.

Your saying they were aloud in to search because they said it is ok, is the same as a car theif saying he didnt steal the car, because even though him and his buddies were pointing guns at the victim, they asked if they could have his car.

Completely untrue. Apples and oranges.

Just remove the police, and insert gangmembers, when they knock on your door with guns in your face, and they ask if they can take a look around your home, they are not breaking any laws because you said they could, correct?

The problem with that? Gangsters wouldnt be trying to remove a VERY dangerous KILLER from the streets before he bombed another event.

It is not right in one situation and wrong in the other, both are the same scenario, both are Americans and American citizens, both times the home owners are threatened with lethal force.

Except that they are completely different.

I dont see how you can not see this for what it is, unless that was your intent from the start.

I see it for exactly what it is. An instance of a picture with no context showing a national guardsman showing very poor judgement. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You know folks, as I've posted on this thread and had more time to really think about things....and look at the pictures and material? Something strikes me pretty hard about all this.

Some of these guys were 'finger on the trigger' while people came out of their homes. They definitely were aimed right at people's heads as they came out ....what a thing to see from their side, eh? That isn't the thing that's starting to really bug me though.

These aren't rookies called out of the Academy to dress up like SWAT. I think we can assume these are experience and professional law enforcement people. If I'm not mistaken (combat vets can correct me, I'm sure) thats not ALL fighting related tactical gear they have on either. That really is the whole boatload??

So ..Here is what I've started to wonder. How SCARED were they and WHY? I think we may be asking the whole wrong set of questions in assuming cops got a Rambo Complex to terrorize the population while hunting terrorists.

Perhaps what we need to be asking is what they were told in their briefings that caused them to roll out geared up so fully and acting like each house could contain a whole undiscovered cell of terrorists just waiting to kill them all in a cross fire?? Perhaps they WERE told something like that ...and perhaps that's the first point of major failure to address? Just my thinking as it's evolving a bit.

Yes wrabbit, that is what is known in the ARMY as "full battle rattle".

Perhaps your correct, and we dont know the whole scenario, maybe they have actionable intel that there is in fact a large cell of heavily armed terrorists, that have some major hardware, and thus would necessitate such gear on the part of the LEOs.

If that were the case though, shouldnt they have told the folks so they could properly plan for their safety and that of their children?

I also noticed the fingers on triggers, and the blatant pointing of weapons at civies faces and chests, that is what I have been going on about, as that is a very huge no no.

It is not right under any scenario, except where lethal force is obvious in need to point a weapon at a civie, or especially to have finger on trigger. These are the tactics of thugs, not trained professionals.

Your finger should be straight, and along side the outside of the trigger well, ready to do the deed if needs be, but not on the trigger hoping for a reason, this is sick, and a horrible tactic for them to follow.

All it takes is one dumb trip up or anything and an accident will happen, it is begging to get one of these civies shot, and the LEOs dont care, as usual, only their safety matters, not the folks they are abusing the rights of.

Originally posted by mandella1099


Do you mean "what if" games like this:

"What if it HAD been a shooter?" (your third post)

You are big boy, so put your money where your mouth is or shut-up. An answer to my question please (would you still stand by all of your arguments if your child was accidently killed by the indvidual pointing the weapon in the photo during this action in Boston) - yes or no?

edit on 28-4-2013 by mandella1099 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2013 by mandella1099 because: (no reason given)

And thank you for proving you missed the point. That 'what if' just like the one posed to you, was in response to someone else asking 'what if it was a 10 year old boy'. The point being, we can play 'what if' from all sides. Its moot, and pointless.


Again, you know, and i know, that there is no way for that question to be answered. I cannot tell you how I would feel in this situation that is literally impossible.

Shut up? Come on now, kiddo, you can do better than that. If all you have is 'what if' and 'shut up', it may be time for you to go to bed.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mandella1099


Do you mean "what if" games like this:

"What if it HAD been a shooter?" (your third post)

You are big boy, so put your money where your mouth is or shut-up. An answer to my question please (would you still stand by all of your arguments if your child was accidently killed by the indvidual pointing the weapon in the photo during this action in Boston) - yes or no?

edit on 28-4-2013 by mandella1099 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2013 by mandella1099 because: (no reason given)

And thank you for proving you missed the point. That 'what if' just like the one posed to you, was in response to someone else asking 'what if it was a 10 year old boy'. The point being, we can play 'what if' from all sides. Its moot, and pointless.


Again, you know, and i know, that there is no way for that question to be answered. I cannot tell you how I would feel in this situation that is literally impossible.

Shut up? Come on now, kiddo, you can do better than that. If all you have is 'what if' and 'shut up', it may be time for you to go to bed.

Well then, we have learned two things about you:

1. You are a hypocrite. No one is allowed to play "what ifs" except for you. You began the "what if" scenarios on page one, but no one else is allowed to use your own method of debate.
2. You are unable to man-up and stand beside your beliefs. Your unwillingness to answer the question proves that your gung-ho attitude is good right up to the point where it impacts you and your family.

This is a discussion thread carried-on by men and women. Its time for YOU to go to bed, you little child.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

They could have put an Amber Alert type of warning on every local radio and TV station running continuously until he was caught, broadcasting all the details on him without locking the city down. Somebody will see something and call the police. It would be more effective having every person in the whole city on active alert for this guy rather than making everybody hide at home.

When somebody points a gun at you, you only have the rights that person gives you, and you have to give them whatever they want. Or your dead. You can arrogantly assume that person is sane and is just bluffing, but THAT is foolish because a sane, stable person wouldn't be pointing a gun at you in the first place. Don't even think about sneezing...

I have no tactical training for these types of situations, but I should not lose my rights because one guy is on the loose. The tactics used might be more understandable and effective in war, but we are not at WAR here. Not everything that moves is a potential terrorist.

What do you expect would happen to me if I was sitting in my house with a gun ready in case the terrorist tried to break in when the SWAT showed up? Would that be a foolish idea? It defenitely increases the odds I get wrongfully killed by SWAT. It's real easy to find many reasons wrong with the house searching.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You are just going to keep harping on about how it was ok to threaten people with guns in their face, and act as if this was not violating their rights, they didnt have a choice, if they did, guns wouldnt have been in their faces when they were being asked.

My scenario with gangmembers and car thieves are the exact same thing, it is to show that there was no choice in the matter, as a gun in the face tends to force compliance, as the threat of lethal force for noncompliance was implied, by the gun in the face.

Military training for check points and searches of persons has ingrained in me the meaning of a weapon pointed at you.

Check point, soldiers on guard duty, person starts walking up towards the check point, soldier must give 3 warnings before lethal force is authorized, warning one, a verbal warning to halt, warning two, another verbal warning an weapon positioned at the ready position ( held in both hands, down towards the ground in no particular direction), warning 3 weapon pointed at the individual.

Notice the 3rd warning being pointing the weapon at the person, no verbal warning on the 3rd and final warning?

It is because it is a universal warning to point a weapon at someone, it always means comply right now or else.

So why point weapons at regular folks when asking to search their homes?

To make it clear that they are not asking, they are telling you politely, while at gun point.

The same way a carjacker would ask you if you would mind them "borrowing" your car, while holding a gun in your face.

That is the entire point of pointing a gun at someone, and letting them see it, so they know they have no choice in the matter, and your asking is not really asking permission, it is to imply the threat of lethal force for noncompliance.

Either you can recognize the clear fact these people were not asked, in the sense that they felt like they had a choice in the matter, or you may save your fingers the work of typing a reply I will ignore, as I am quite exhausted with your double speak.

reply to post by mandella1099


1)again, thanks for proving that it went right over your head. I am not playing 'what if'. I was proving that any side of any argument can pose 'what if' questions. Apparently you dont get that.

2)What gung ho attitude is that? That I refuse to judge a situation without context? That I understand the difference between a bad situation and violations of rights?

3)Again, its not an unwillingness to answer. It is impossible to answer. What if aliens flew out of your rear end and told you that your stance was wrong? Would you still stand by your statements? See how that works?

So now you've got 'what if'; 'shut up'; and 'you little child'....anything else to back up your stance? Again, if this is all you've got, it may be time for bed....

reply to post by inverslyproportional

You're right about the trigger discipline here. It's not simply unprofessional. It's scary.

Don't get me wrong..I'm not necessarily assuming they were given accurate intelligence or perhaps, in the scary version, intelligence passed along in Good Faith. What if they were deliberately amp'ed up and scared ..as cops ... by intelligence that was overblown and worst case that wasn't necessarily justified?

We talk every day here on the forums about news and media reports fed by DHS and higher ups that are very much spun to scare the stuffing out of people and an event just happened where cops themselves wouldn't be in the most skeptical and normally critical mindset. Could they have been led by the nose and only by sheer luck, didn't result in accidental shootings by whatever seems to have had them outright scared?

-------

I can certainly attest to the "finger never EVER EVER on trigger' training unless prepared to shoot, that second, and with every intention of doing just that ...or expecting it may become necessary in LESS than the second or less it takes to move the finger off the frame. My father raised me that way as a direct extension of his police training and I got it all but pounded into me, despite knowing it, in further training I've paid for over the years.

Here is a question and it should be a stupid question, but assumptions are the mother of all screw ups. I won't assume. Is Military trained and drilled equally hard on that concept for never having fingers on triggers when almost immediate shooting isn't anticipated? I.E..... Whether these guys were cops, Guard or (That Hummer says Military Police on the rear) troops of some kind ..wouldn't they ALL have that same ingrained training?

How could this have happened when that kind of thing isn't a trained behavior to remember ...but deeply ingrained?? Could they have been THAT scared? (honest, open question...as I'm getting more and more baffled by the little details)

You folks act like these guys have no fear. They are ruthless mercenaries out to kill you. How ridiculous.

They were in the neighborhood they were almost certain the suspect, who was armed with guns and bombs, was located. Someone is pointing something at you through a window. What's funny is that some of these guys are probably as scared as the civies. Did he shoot? No.. he probably saw there was no threat, and lowered his weapon. The photographer was not arrested. NO ONE (including the person taking the picture) was shot.

Overreaction by the police? Probably. Overreaction by conspiracy theorists? Oh yea. YOU were not standing on a street where you thought someone might start unloading a gun at you. It's easy to criticize from the comfy chair behind your computer screen. I'm not saying everything they did was right. I'm just saying you folks give no leniency for the scope of events. The state of mind of these folks the morning after a major firefight that included explosives.

reply to post by fleabit

We're talking about far more than that ONE picture with ONE cop making ONE stupid mistake with trigger control.

The videos do actually show them with fingers on triggers during some of the walk outs from people's homes.

The devil is in the details and I guess I just hadn't keyed on that ..but now that I have? I can't NOT see it. It's the first thing I always look for in overseas shots of armed "troops" to see if it's really trained personnel or rag tag rebel fighters. The goobers always have fingers on triggers and in some Syria shots, you even see them running with loaded RPG launchers and fingers on THOSE triggers (Good Lord...I'd fear my own side more than Assad among that crowd at times).

It hadn't hit me to even be looking for that in American responders ..but damned if it isn't right there. The most obvious sign of bad or nonexistent training ....or a level of anxiety just blowing the curve.

If you truly wanted to end things like this then you would not be repeating posts that have been published here over and over, you would identify the people in the picture and expose them. Nothing like getting a few free stars for recycled material just to up your......um............ego?

At least they didn't go Dorner manhunt on his ass and shoot him because he was in a house that looked like a house the "terrorist" was seen in/near...


USA! USA! USA!

Originally posted by Danbones
Funny, he can point a gun at you, but you can NOT point a gun at him...

I would of been screaming out the window for him to point his rifle somewhere else.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

You're right about the trigger discipline here. It's not simply unprofessional. It's scary.

Don't get me wrong..I'm not necessarily assuming they were given accurate intelligence or perhaps, in the scary version, intelligence passed along in Good Faith. What if they were deliberately amp'ed up and scared ..as cops ... by intelligence that was overblown and worst case that wasn't necessarily justified?

We talk every day here on the forums about news and media reports fed by DHS and higher ups that are very much spun to scare the stuffing out of people and an event just happened where cops themselves wouldn't be in the most skeptical and normally critical mindset. Could they have been led by the nose and only by sheer luck, didn't result in accidental shootings by whatever seems to have had them outright scared?

-------

I can certainly attest to the "finger never EVER EVER on trigger' training unless prepared to shoot, that second, and with every intention of doing just that ...or expecting it may become necessary in LESS than the second or less it takes to move the finger off the frame. My father raised me that way as a direct extension of his police training and I got it all but pounded into me, despite knowing it, in further training I've paid for over the years.

Here is a question and it should be a stupid question, but assumptions are the mother of all screw ups. I won't assume. Is Military trained and drilled equally hard on that concept for never having fingers on triggers when almost immediate shooting isn't anticipated? I.E..... Whether these guys were cops, Guard or (That Hummer says Military Police on the rear) troops of some kind ..wouldn't they ALL have that same ingrained training?

How could this have happened when that kind of thing isn't a trained behavior to remember ...but deeply ingrained?? Could they have been THAT scared? (honest, open question...as I'm getting more and more baffled by the little details)

I couldnt honestly comment on their thoughts or mindset at the time, as I wasnt there, and havent spoken with any of them.

It has to be admitted at the onset though, by anyone at least trying to be objective, that it does seem there is something amiss with this whole thing.

Intel would be the most likely source, as that is what all tactical deployments are usually (supposed) to be based off of.

It could be that they were told by ( insert abc agency here) that this was the most extreme danger the public has ever been in, and that extreme measures were necessary to ensure their safety.

This is in error though, as the path to the dark side is paved with the best intentions, IMHO. It also seems to be supported by historical and imperical evidence, but that subject is still debated to this day.

Some ( my self included in this group) would argue that there is never under any threat, a need to trample the rights of the people, as sometimes tragedy is the outcome of a free society.

Others would say, public safety as a whole, is way more important than any supposed rights an individual has.


Yes trigger finger discipline is something that isnt so much a thought in ones head, as it is a reflex, like breathing or your heart beating. It is by the time basic is over a part of you, not something that one even thinks about.

One time, at the end of basic, in our FTX ( field training exercise) called victory forge for the ARMY, or the crucible for the marines. Our DIs only allowed us to sleep for 4 hours in 3 days of extreme stress and physical fatigue, made us go on a patrol with full combat load, about 100 lbs of gear total( LBE ( load bearing equipment, shoulder harness connected to utilitybelt, with canteens ammo and grenade pouches(full), rucksack E-tool( foldable mini shovel), a couple days of clothing and MREs(meals ready to eat) a shelter half with polls( who gives a guy half a shelter anyways? lol) sleeping bag, wet weather gear, top and bottoms, extra boots and socks, poncho and poncho liner( poncho liner is slang for blanket, otherwise known as a wooby) etc..) without our weapons, we had to hold our hands like we were carrying it, anyone caught with a ' trigger finger" got some " extra physical recreational" time.

They also made us do drills in the barracks and out at the ranges, on road marches etc..

I feel bad for the soldier that has a "trigger finger" problem, because they give you ample opportunities to show how great of shape the ARMY has made you without the need request extra credit.

For my part, it was never an issue, my father and grand father always taught me that from the start, so it was never an issue for me, but some folks without prior firearms experience, or poor teachers. They get you squared away though, no problems. Its easy to train in.