Ammunition control?

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Absolutely ridiculous. The administration that orchestrated this should be fired. Every officer participating should be reprimanded and counselled on Constitutional rights. The vindictive ex-wife should be made to pay the costs all the way around. Total you know what.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Something tells me with 30 officers showing up in full tactical mode that they where coming in anyways..Its just wrong but so many ppl just havent woke up yet.

The second time they showed up in tactical gear but the first time when his ex lied about him having a gun they asked to come in and search.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

Slo-Ride

Veteran Expediter
Yep..I think I picked up on that in the article.
Maybe they needed more officers to chase down a pheasant hunter. :D
 

zorry

Veteran Expediter
How do you get the OK to get 30 tactical officers to go after this guy ?
Got to be some intel that there was something there.
 

Slo-Ride

Veteran Expediter
How do you get the OK to get 30 tactical officers to go after this guy ?
Got to be some intel that there was something there.

In the big picture it just maybe practice for things to come. I don't get it either.. Even after a bad event I can't understand how we get that many officers with that much equipment to respond in short order. Heck there are times it takes me a half hour to get dressed.
It makes me wonder how many city's have policemen sitting around in nearly full combat gear waiting to respond to something. To get that much gear on and then travel across town isn't that easy of a task.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Absolutely ridiculous. The administration that orchestrated this should be fired. Every officer participating should be reprimanded and counselled on Constitutional rights. The vindictive ex-wife should be made to pay the costs all the way around. Total you know what.

I have to chuckle every time someone brings up training on constitutional rights. Who's interpretation would you like them trained by, yours or Nancy polosi's? I agree the whole thing is wrong but until DC laws hit the supreme court and are struck down the cops there are swore to enforce it.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
 

Slo-Ride

Veteran Expediter
How have we gotten to a place where there is more then one interpretation of something that was set in stone so to speak.
Article isn't really clear as to who invaded this mans home. I'm wondering if it was Feds,,or local enforcement.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
How do you get the OK to get 30 tactical officers to go after this guy ?
Got to be some intel that there was something there.
You'd think that, but no.

SWAT raids began as rarely used methods of dealing with violent situations, like hostage-takings.

But government always grows.

In the 1970s, there were about 300 SWAT raids per year. Now it's about 150 per day, give or take.

From the Rise of the Warrior Cop - Wall Street Journal
In the 1970s, there were just a few hundred a year; by the early 1980s, there were some 3,000 a year. In 2005 (the last year for which Dr. Kraska collected data), there were approximately 50,000 raids. Some federal agencies also now have their own SWAT teams, including NASA and the Department of the Interior.

Texas Police Hit Organic Farm With Massive SWAT Raid

John W. Whitehead: SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen


As for constitutional issues and interpretations, here's one that should give everyone pause.

Audrey Hudson, an investigative journalist (currently a syndicated columnist with The Colorado Observer) who uncovered problems and corruption with the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Air Marshals Service, had her Maryland home raided by the US Coast Guard, Maryland Police, Homeland Security and other federal agents under the guise of a search warrant for illegally registered guns and a potato launcher. They walked out of there with her personal investigative notes, including her list of protected sources, documents which are unambiguously protected under the Constitution. One of the first questions they asked was not about the toy novelty potato gun, but rather, "Are you the same Audrey Hudson who wrote the stories about the Air Marshals?"

The newspaper for which she wrote the stories that embarrassed Homeland Security, the Washington Times, is livid.

Here's the Fox News story of that, along with an interview with Audrey Hudson.
 

zorry

Veteran Expediter
The more I read about my gummint, the less I like them.

Maybe I ought to stop reading.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The more I read about my gummint, the less I like them.

Maybe I ought to stop reading.
Based on what they did to Audry Hudson (and Michael Hastings), that's their goal.

Read about Michael Hastings from the conservative angle of WorldNet Daily here: Mystery grows: Journalist died prepping Obama exposé

and from the angry 99 percent liberal angle of Occupy.com here:
Investigation: Who Killed Michael Hastings?

Disturbingly, they both say the same thing.

The mainstream media jumped on Hastings with an immediate character assassination, the reasons for which are abundantly clear in the second article. “When Michael embarrassed [the media] by writing a story about what the military is actually up to [rather than reporting what is spoon-fed to them by the Pentagon and other official sources], the universal refrain [from the media (and the government)] was, ‘How dare you!"

“Anytime someone sticks their head up and doesn’t go along, they’re universally despised by the establishment. They were jealous of him, too. The media was not a fan of Michael, at all.”

As one of the articles notes, one of Hastings’s most remembered lines is, “When writing for a mass audience, put a fact in every sentence.” And as facts go, the truth behind Michael Hastings’s death, whether he was intentionally killed and by whom, may be opening a much bigger, broader and more dangerous story than the Americans he was writing for are prepared to face.

Some will just stop reading.
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Based on what they did to Audry Hudson (and Michael Hastings), that's their goal.

Read about Michael Hastings from the conservative angle of WorldNet Daily here: Mystery grows: Journalist died prepping Obama exposé

and from the angry 99 percent liberal angle of Occupy.com here:
Investigation: Who Killed Michael Hastings?

Disturbingly, they both say the same thing.

The mainstream media jumped on Hastings with an immediate character assassination, the reasons for which are abundantly clear in the second article. “When Michael embarrassed [the media] by writing a story about what the military is actually up to [rather than reporting what is spoon-fed to them by the Pentagon and other official sources], the universal refrain [from the media (and the government)] was, ‘How dare you!"

“Anytime someone sticks their head up and doesn’t go along, they’re universally despised by the establishment. They were jealous of him, too. The media was not a fan of Michael, at all.”

As one of the articles notes, one of Hastings’s most remembered lines is, “When writing for a mass audience, put a fact in every sentence.” And as facts go, the truth behind Michael Hastings’s death, whether he was intentionally killed and by whom, may be opening a much bigger, broader and more dangerous story than the Americans he was writing for are prepared to face.

Some will just stop reading.

I would like any one reading this to know that I did not click the links or read one word of this post, just so everyone knows.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I have to chuckle every time someone brings up training on constitutional rights. Who's interpretation would you like them trained by, yours or Nancy polosi's? I agree the whole thing is wrong but until DC laws hit the supreme court and are struck down the cops there are swore to enforce it.
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
"I was only following orders." When and where in the past have we heard that defense? Hint: Nuremberg, Viet Nam.
 
Top