Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I CANT LOOK AT VIDEOS HERE!!!!
Is this reasonable??????????????????
again, if the search was consented to it doens't matter. Is one of those people now claiming they were coerced to give consent at the point of a gun?
Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
again, if the search was consented to it doens't matter. Is one of those people now claiming they were coerced to give consent at the point of a gun?
PsyOps
Pixelated
I don’t think that at all. What is unreasonable is how we move forward with these things.
Our government feels we are okay that abortion on demand is okay, so let’s have late-term and partial birth abortions. Those abortions are okay so let’s go to the next extreme and have post-birth abortions (Obama approved this when he was in the IL senate).
Our government feels we are okay with cameras on the dashes of cop cars. Let’s put speed cameras up. We’re okay with that, let’s have cameras at every intersection. We’re okay with that, let’s have drones and GPS devices in cars.
Our government has determined smoking is bad for us. We’re down with that. Let’s raise taxes on tobacco in order to discourage smoking. We’re okay with that. Let’s have the government tell us it’s unsafe to smoke around others, so ban smoking in public places. We’re okay with that, so let’s have the government tell us it’s bad for our kids to be around so let’s ban smoking in our own cars. It’s bad to be anywhere near smoke so let’s ban it in our backyards, or in apartment buildings.
Our government feels we are okay with them telling us what’s good food and bad food. So we put labels on our food. We’re okay with that, let’s have the government determine which foods are good for us and bad for us and ban the ones that are bad. We’re okay with that, so let’s have government tell us what we can and can’t buy.
We know we need healthcare. So let’s have the government dictate that we must buy health insurance. We’re okay with that. Let’s have them tell us which insurance we can and can’t buy. We’re okay with that. It’s very expensive and can only afford to pay for people that are worth saving so let’s have death panels.
Because bad people will get hold of guns we have to limit how people obtain guns. We’re okay with that. Certain guns are just inherently evil and dangerous we have to ban them. We’re okay with that. Because we – the people – can’t be trusted to just go and buy a gun ALL guns must require background checks and be registered. We’re okay with that, we must establish gun-free zones.
So, we watch this Boston event unfold. In the name of safety and our security we’re okay with LE locking down an entire city, going house-to-house searching and forcing people out of their homes at the point of automatic weapons. We know they are doing what’s for the better good. Knowing all that we know about government becoming increasingly larger and more intrusive in our lives, what next event will we be okay with the government pushing aside the constitution in the name of ‘the greater good’?
How much more reasonable should we be?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
that
is
a
pretty
retarded
thing
to
think
As Vrai asked previously
why
would
the
police
believe
you
were
not
harbouring
the
fugitive
or
being
held
captive?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
They were not consented to. One guy says he answered the door, two guns were pointed at him and we was told, TOLD to get out, now. He asked if he could get his shoes and they said GET OUT. NOW.
MMDad
Lem Putt
First, you are living in a dream world. Second, do you have any evidence that the situation you describe did not happen? Third, how do they know that you are not doing this under duress - that the guy has a gun to your kids head?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Did you both watch the videos?
Would you all be ok if police shut down an aprtment complex, and forcibly searched every residence to search for a suspected murderer?
Hank, I mean Midnightrider, since the citizens obviously wanted the cops to find the guy (as we all did), why did they use the dominance technique of screaming commands? Most citizens would have voluntarily complied with the officers.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
and he got out, wasn't dragged out, thats consentThey were not consented to. One guy says he answered the door, two guns were pointed at him and we was told, TOLD to get out, now. He asked if he could get his shoes and they said GET OUT. NOW.
he could have made a stand, he chose not to
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Why couldn't that same situation pan out for ANYONE they are looking for? Not just this guy, but any suspected person on the loose.
Should they be allowed to go door to door, demanding homeowners get out.....just in case.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's a good point! After breaking and entering my home, after allowing me the freedom to move, this kid is going to, upon hearing a knock at the door, hand me my shotgun and tell me to go tell them everything is cool. Nothing to see here. Go away.
I honestly hadn't considered that.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
ETC, I mean Grups, I mean Lynnipoopoo, you obviously cant read.
I have posted numerous times that i do not have acess to videos here. What you have failed to provide is anyone who claims they didn't consent to the searches
MMDad
Lem Putt
As long as the circumstances make that reasonable, of course. If they knew the suspect to be armed and dangerous, then not only would it be reasonable, it would be their responsibility to conduct the search until the threat was abated.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
he might hand you an empty gun or at least let you talk to police if he has your wife or child at gun point in the other room......
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I am living in a dream world.
19 year old bomber on the run is going to break in to my home, take control, then, when the cops come knocking, hand me my shot gun and tell me to tell the cops to go away or he'll shoot my kids.
I'm living in a dream world.
Gotcha.
MMDad
Lem Putt
When the circumstances warrant it , then yes. When the person is an imminent threat, is known to be armed and dangerous, and has killed people jsut that morning, then yes that would be reasonable.
We aren't talking about the gestapo going door to door looking for red light runners. We're talking about abating a specific imminent threat.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Of course he would! Why, he'd probably make me rehearse my lines a few times "OK, I am the cop, you are Larry, convince me to go away", give me a shot of Jack to calm my nerves, pat me on the back and tell me "You can do it!"
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I have posted numerous times that i do not have acess to videos here. What you have failed to provide is anyone who claims they didn't consent to the searches
I look forward to your opinion after you get a chance to see the vids.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
And I, of course, would be dead calm, relaxed, and the cops would be clueless.
"He seemed sincere to me, chief..."
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Then why has it never been done before?