Baltimore PD decorated for killing civilians - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

fhqwhgads · 11-25-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I can't help wondering how I would react if someone crashed through my bedroom door in the middle of the night waking me up from a deep sleep. Even if the attackers were yelling "police" I'm not sure if in my alarmed state my natural reaction wouldn't be to protect my family instead of submitting to the intruders. After all, anyone can yell "police".

This is certainly a dangerous activity for our SWAT guys to do with a well armed civilian population and even moreso since they have a warrant and suspect criminal activity. These warrants should probably only be approved in life threatening situations and not for drug busts.

I understand the SWAT team protecting themselves but they have been put in the position of being attackers and I find it difficult to think of those defending themselves to be wrong for reacting in "survival mode". Surely SWAT teams realize that even law abiding citizens will react in self defense when being terrified in the middle of the night.

Perhaps they should phone ahead and make an appointment? What alternative do you suggest?

dksuddeth · 11-25-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhqwhgads

Perhaps they should phone ahead and make an appointment? What alternative do you suggest?

armed raids should only be used in circumstances where NO OTHER OPTION exists. We're seeing SWAT teams used more and more, for simple things like just serving a warrant.....every warrant. It's not necessary and only endangers all involved.

analog · 11-26-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

So those two instances alone invalidates the others? Does one single misstep or mistake completely invalidate the premise or opinion of a research topic? If so, then every single one of us, including you, are full of shit and we should be completely disregarded in everything we ever say.

Those are two examples out of the whole site- those "examples" represent the majority of the items found there. I invite anyone to read them and make an intelligent decision based on its entire contents- which I did finish reading. They also listed the death of a woman who died from a heart attack when a flash grenade went off in her home. These are all labeled as people who died as "casualties" of the police's "war on drugs". They're all told as a slant, not as a "news piece", and reek of the bias with which they were written. THAT makes it trash, and useless, and "full of shit".

Quote:

do you disregard all of the statements given by government officials as well, since they are also slanted with emotionally driven retelling?

I don't disregard anyone automatically. I have a brain in my head, and therefore am capable of reading multiple things from the same author and reasoning out whether or not I believe them to be imbalanced (both in storytelling fairness, and mentally). I did read multiple articles from the same person, and I do believe that person to be a disreputable "news reporter". Government officials are not crazy militia freaks sitting in their basement pounding out anti-police and anti-"war on drugs" rants on the internet, in a bid to mobilize "the public" in favor of their "cause" to topple the government, because the big bad government won't let them own a tank or nuclear bomb- no matter how much they claim its for "home protection" or "hunting". Again, I like guns. What I don't care for is nutjobs who pass off their opinions as facts, and ignore actual facts to sustain their delusions.

Quote:

First off, I'm not questioning the idea that the police shouldn't be allowed to fire back in their own defense. What I AM pissed off about is that this woman is dead, and the only reason for it is that the police who barged in to her home MOST LIKELY terrified her to the point of her shooting at what she thought were home invaders bent on robbing of killing her. We'll NEVER know what she was truly thinking, because SHE IS DEAD!!!! And she didn't have to be if the police weren't so gung ho on armed drug raids.

If you're not questioning the policy of return-fire, then where's the beef? Once again, the warrants are approved by a third party (judge)- and like I said before, if you have a problem with armed drug raids, you take it up with judges, not the police. I don't understand your comment of, "if the police weren't so gung ho". Where the hell are you getting that? Are you saying that the police should knock politely and not use guns? Yeah, that would work just fine.

Quote:

You are stipulating that everybody should do whatever they are told to do when armed men break down the door and yell police, simply because we should assume that criminals would NEVER yell police, is that right?

No, it's not. All I said is that when the police encounter a person pointing a gun at them, let alone a person who's already firing upon them, they are justified in returning fire. As I said before, and you well know, any time you point a gun at someone, you are indicating you're going to shoot at them. The rest of your rant about fake police invasions is pointless; my point is, and always has been, it is not the fault of the police that she is dead. It doesn't matter who she thought was invading her home- burglars, the police, Big Bird, the Easter Bunny, it doesn't matter- she pointed a gun at them. Done.

I also have to assume, since i'm sure you'd never do this knowingly, that you weren't aware that saying "news flash" to people is considered rudely condescending. So... now you know.

Quote:

By YOU advocating the use of armed raids by police and villifying civilians who would shoot at them out of fear, YOU place everyone in the position of having to make split second decisions of are these police or criminals. That may be a comfortable position for you right now, but if YOU are ever put in that same position, I hope you make the right decision.

I never advocated them above saying that knocking and going unarmed (maybe they'll be invited in for tea before they make their arrests) is a bad and ineffective idea- and that's not advocation, it's common sense. As for vilifying civilians, you're either "putting words in my mouth", or you don't understand what "vilifying" means. Saying that a person is going to be shot for aiming a gun at a cop (much less opening fire on a cop), regardless of the circumstances, is not making vicious and defamatory statements about them.

flstf · 11-26-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhqwhgads

Perhaps they should phone ahead and make an appointment? What alternative do you suggest?

I don't know, except maybe to stop these sneak attacks unless absolutely necessary to save lives or prevent someone from bodily harm.

Perhaps the criminal element is used to being under scrutiny and maybe even expects a raid once in a while. My life is rather boring and I am engaged in no criminal activity so if some people came crashing into my house yelling "police", I would not immediately believe them. The last thing on my mind would be that the police find it necessary to break in.

It is ironic that the people most likely to doubt that the intruders are really the police are law abiding citizens who have nothing to hide. I guess from the attackers' point of view it makes little difference when they come crashing in since a gun is a gun.

Edit: I will have to modify my statement above about never engaging in criminal activity. After reading the reference to the Sal Culosi case where he was accidently killed by a SWAT team member while being served a warrant for gambling activity, I realize that several times in the past I have bet on Ohio State football games. Also I am guilty of sometimes buying a square on tavern Super Bowl pools.

fhqwhgads · 11-26-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

armed raids should only be used in circumstances where NO OTHER OPTION exists. We're seeing SWAT teams used more and more, for simple things like just serving a warrant.....every warrant. It's not necessary and only endangers all involved.

I'd love to know where you're getting your information that the police use tactical SWAT teams to serve every warrant. I serve warrants on a daily basis, and I've never been part of a SWAT team. The fact that I have my gun with me does not endanger anyone else's life, unless of course they threaten my life with a weapon.

I'd still like to know what method you would use to serve search warrants. (And please don't respond by again telling me that you don't think that these warrants should be issued in the first place... I'm talking about a valid, court ordered warrant... how else should it be served?)

TexanAvenger · 11-26-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Roach, I found it difficult to take in the point(s) you might have been trying to make because of the length of your post and, what I considered, the rambling nature of it. That may simply be because I've been up too long, who knows.

Regardless, the point I'M trying to make is that innocent people are being killed by a war on drugs that is given a high priority and needs less probable cause because it's considered a 'war'.
How many more victims do we need?

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stori...arVictims.html

I believe this post is the summing point of both your acceptance of contrary viewpoints and method of argument. Let me give you a feel for how this argument reads to somebody else:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Roach, I found it difficult to take in the point(s) you might have been trying to make because of the length of your post and, what I considered, the rambling nature of it. That may simply be because I've been up too long, who knows.

I couldn't be bothered to read a three-page response in spite of throwing up articles (some seeming rants) that I expect to be read as evidence. Furthermore, I don't like the way you expressed your arguments, so I just kind of passed over it. I'm going to add a small qualifier here in case anybody calls me on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Regardless, the point I'M trying to make is that innocent people are being killed by a war on drugs that is given a high priority and needs less probable cause because it's considered a 'war'.
How many more victims do we need?

Regardless. Literally without regard to the contrary argument. I'm now going to move on to MY point, having disposed of yours, mine being more important anyway.

-----

Clearly, I'm paraphrasing and exaggerating... but not as much as I should be. Your view on these subjects seems to stem from a general distrust of authority figures, especially ones that have the ability to enforce. I don't know for sure because I'm not in your head, but your posts point in that direction.

As was said before, fhq isn't a member of a SWAT team and every officer is different so it isn't fair to lump them all into one category. However, he is giving field information: Knowledge gained by experience. Your facts, to which I'm loosely refering to them based on the amount of bias and spin, are largely, if not entirely, third-party accounts by desk-workers who're neither police nor wronged victims themselves.

dksuddeth · 11-27-2006, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhqwhgads

I'd love to know where you're getting your information that the police use tactical SWAT teams to serve every warrant. I serve warrants on a daily basis, and I've never been part of a SWAT team. The fact that I have my gun with me does not endanger anyone else's life, unless of course they threaten my life with a weapon.

All you have to do is google 'Sal Culosi' and fairfax county. You'll see that they freely admit that they use swat to server all warrants. I'm pretty sure that they are not the 'test case' for swat serving warrants. Just because your particular department does not, does not mean that it's national policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhqwhgads

I'd still like to know what method you would use to serve search warrants. (And please don't respond by again telling me that you don't think that these warrants should be issued in the first place... I'm talking about a valid, court ordered warrant... how else should it be served?)

How were warrants served BEFORE swat teams? Unless there is solid intelligence that the suspects are armed and dangerous, law enforcement should not be needlessly risking the lives of citizens.

fhqwhgads · 11-27-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

All you have to do is google 'Sal Culosi' and fairfax county. You'll see that they freely admit that they use swat to server all warrants. I'm pretty sure that they are not the 'test case' for swat serving warrants. Just because your particular department does not, does not mean that it's national policy.

How were warrants served BEFORE swat teams? Unless there is solid intelligence that the suspects are armed and dangerous, law enforcement should not be needlessly risking the lives of citizens.

I couldn't start to tell you how warrants were served before SWAT teams. I know there was a day when the police rode horseback and were greeted at the door with open arms, but we don't live in those days anymore. I didn't do police work "back in the day", but I am all to aware of what we are dealing with on a day to day basis... I am trained to deal with the threats of today, not those of yesteryear.

This will be my last post in this topic, as the debate is growing old. SWAT is no more apt to shoot a subject than a beat cop is. The difference between SWAT and a beat cop is the training, and the type of weapon that they carry. Regardless if eight beat cops serve a search warrant, or if a SWAT team serves a warrant, if someone opens fire, whether they be 8 or 80 years old, the police will return fire. I carry my gun when I respond to domestics, car accidents, missing people, and lost puppies. Regardless of where I am or what I am doing while in uniform, if someone opens fire at me, I will return fire with the intent to kill them.

I understand the value of human life probably better than most of my peers. The reason that I joined our Hostage Negotiation Team many years back is because I value being able to resolve a situation without putting lives at risk needlessly. I also understand that every time that I put on the uniform, there is a chance that it will be the last time I put on the uniform. The cemeteries are filled with police who underestimated the threat they they are up against every day... police that let their guard down.

You want the police to wait until there is "solid intelligence" that the people are armed before using a tactical team to serve a warrant? So what happens when we get into a situation where we didn't have solid intelligence, and we run into a heavily armed suspect? What do we do then... yell "do over" and slowly back out the door?

The case of Sal Culosi, while tragic, is certainly not the norm. Using your own argument, just because Fairfax County uses their SWAT team to serve all warrants, it does not mean that it is national policy.

Here's a suggestion... if you want to "Monday Morning Quarterback" me, the police, or our policies, strap on a vest, lace up your boots, kiss your wife goodbye while wondering if it will be the last time, and stand the line right along side me. Do a year or so in the communities that I walk in, and if you still have your same views and opinions, then we'll debate some more. If you're not willing, be thankful that some of us are.

*****EDIT*****

Regarding the case of the 92 year old woman in Georgia that shot three officers when they served their warrant, I just found this quote: "Dreher said the three drug officers "were well-trained" and had "served hundreds of warrants" over the years. Even though the officers were not required to knock before entering the house, they did, Dreher said."

They were not SWAT officers, but narcotics officers. They knocked, even though they were not required to. You can read the full article here: http://www.officer.com/article/artic...&siteSection=1

jorgelito · 11-27-2006, 11:34 AM

Hmmm...it certainly does seem that police these days have an itchy trigger finger, especially on unarmed people. Here you go DK...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/...ce_shooting_46

dksuddeth · 11-27-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Hmmm...it certainly does seem that police these days have an itchy trigger finger, especially on unarmed people. Here you go DK...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/...ce_shooting_46

3 black men, coming out of a night club possibly drunk, hit a plain clothed cop and unmarked car, plain clothed cops 'thought' they saw a gun....yeah, I see how this one is going down.

jorgelito · 11-27-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

3 black men, coming out of a night club possibly drunk, hit a plain clothed cop and unmarked car, plain clothed cops 'thought' they saw a gun....yeah, I see how this one is going down.

Actually, DK, I found this to be an interesting case as it is developing. There are interesting circumstances to the story. It seems like the victims "appeared" to be a threat, but the response seems so excessive. I also wonder if the victims made a really poor choice in their club for a bachelor party (or if they even knew). As he story develops, we are finding out new information. Apparently, the victims thought the undercover cops who did not identify themselves were out to rob them which is why they reacted the way they did.

I think this point is the critical part of all these cases. Police clearly identifying themselves or not and the effect it has.

I'm trying to imagine how I would react of a bunch of people started shooting without saying they were cops. I would probably crap my pants.

More developments:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?i...C-RSSFeeds0312

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/27/nyc...ion=cnn_latest

dksuddeth · 11-27-2006, 12:35 PM

I also found this little bit of new info for the atlanta issue.....enlightening.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...7metshoot.html

Quote:

Earlier that day, a man named 'Sam' had sold drugs from inside the house to an informant, police said, prompting officers to seek a "no-knock" warrant. Such warrants are frequently issued so police can get inside a home before suspects can destroy or flush drugs.

Interesting, to say the least, for a woman that lived alone and was frightened of nearly everyone in her neighborhood.

uncle phil · 11-27-2006, 04:39 PM

"Here's a suggestion... if you want to "Monday Morning Quarterback" me, the police, or our policies, strap on a vest, lace up your boots, kiss your wife goodbye while wondering if it will be the last time, and stand the line right along side me. Do a year or so in the communities that I walk in, and if you still have your same views and opinions, then we'll debate some more. If you're not willing, be thankful that some of us are.

*****EDIT*****

Regarding the case of the 92 year old woman in Georgia that shot three officers when they served their warrant, I just found this quote: "Dreher said the three drug officers "were well-trained" and had "served hundreds of warrants" over the years. Even though the officers were not required to knock before entering the house, they did, Dreher said.""

_______________________________________________________________________

brings it all into perspective for me...

dksuddeth · 11-28-2006, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I also found this little bit of new info for the atlanta issue.....enlightening.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...7metshoot.html

Interesting, to say the least, for a woman that lived alone and was frightened of nearly everyone in her neighborhood.

Even more intersting is having that 'informant' come forward saying the police told him to lie. The cops called him AFTER the shooting and told him what to say. One now has to wonder, why did these cops LIE to the judge to get a warrant, and why did they want the warrant in the first place?

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...hoot_html.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

*****EDIT*****

Regarding the case of the 92 year old woman in Georgia that shot three officers when they served their warrant, I just found this quote: "Dreher said the three drug officers "were well-trained" and had "served hundreds of warrants" over the years. Even though the officers were not required to knock before entering the house, they did, Dreher said.""

_______________________________________________________________________

brings it all into perspective for me...

how about now?

And now?
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...YT02/611280302

Quote:

But in an interview broadcast Monday by the local Fox affiliate, the informant, whose identity was concealed, said he had never been to the house in question and had not bought drugs there. Ms. Johnston’s family has said that she lived alone.

“They were going to pay me just to cover it up,” he said in the interview, arranged after he placed a call to one of the station’s reporters on Thursday. “They called me immediately after the shooting to ask me, I mean to tell me, ‘This is what you need to do.’ ” He added that the officers told him explicitly that he was needed to protect their story.

In asking a judge for the no-knock warrant before the raid, the narcotics investigator named in the warrant, Jason R. Smith, had said it was needed because a drug dealer inside had several surveillance cameras and monitored them closely.

But Chief Pennington said it was not clear if that was true, either.

Once the search warrant was signed, three officers appeared at Ms. Johnston’s door with bulletproof vests and raid shields emblazoned with the word “police.” Department officials have insisted that the officers went to the correct address. They announced themselves as the police after cutting through the burglar bars and forcing down the door.

dksuddeth · 01-11-2007, 11:24 AM

Well Well Well, anyone here think they should charge these cops with first degree murder yet?

Lies involved in no-knock warrant

Quote:

An Atlanta police narcotics officer has told federal investigators at least one member of his unit lied about making a drug buy at the home of an elderly woman killed in a subsequent raid, according to a person close to the investigation.

In an affidavit to get a search warrant at the home Nov. 21, narcotics officer Jason R. Smith told a magistrate he and Officer Arthur Tesler had a confidential informant buy $50 worth of crack at 933 Neal St. from a man named "Sam."

But narcotics officer Gregg Junnier, who was wounded in the shootout, has since told federal investigators that did not happen, according to the person close to the investigation.

Ourcrazymodern? · 01-12-2007, 01:25 PM

I trust and value the police in St. Paul. "To protect and serve" is a heckuva
slogan. The job must be one of the most challenging available, and i know I couldn't do it. Law enforcement may make mistakes, but they are our fellow human beings...ergo?

Willy · 01-13-2007, 10:02 AM

What are the chances that the cops didn't yell "Police" as they were coming into the house? I find it pretty unlikely that they thought it was a home invasion robbery. Chances are if the officer hadn't fired, it could have been his corpse they were pinning medals on. Asking someone to stop and ask questions when confronted with a loaded gun in these circumstances is asking a lot when their life is on the line.

Ourcrazymodern? · 01-13-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willy

What are the chances that the cops didn't yell "Police" as they were coming into the house? I find it pretty unlikely that they thought it was a home invasion robbery. Chances are if the officer hadn't fired, it could have been his corpse they were pinning medals on. Asking someone to stop and ask questions when confronted with a loaded gun in these circumstances is asking a lot when their life is on the line.

wholeheartedly

dksuddeth · 01-13-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willy

What are the chances that the cops didn't yell "Police" as they were coming into the house? I find it pretty unlikely that they thought it was a home invasion robbery. Chances are if the officer hadn't fired, it could have been his corpse they were pinning medals on.

If you were sitting in your home, late at night, and heard somebody screaming POLICE as they were ripping your door off of your hinges, what would you do?

Quote:

Asking someone to stop and ask questions when confronted with a loaded gun in these circumstances is asking a lot when their life is on the line.

think about the total hypocrisy with this statement!

Rudel73 · 01-13-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

If you were sitting in your home, late at night, and heard somebody screaming POLICE as they were ripping your door off of your hinges, what would you do?

put my hands in plain site and make no sudden movements obey their orders... Do you really imagine a crook would break into a house wearing full police gear etc etc etc shouting police? Highly unlikely.

dksuddeth · 01-13-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudel73

put my hands in plain site and make no sudden movements obey their orders... Do you really imagine a crook would break into a house wearing full police gear etc etc etc shouting police? Highly unlikely.

first off, if they are currently trying to get in yelling police, you won't know if they are wearing full gear. In spite of that, in the adrenaline rush, you won't notice it anyway. You're asking to be a victim by the following news stories because criminals KNOW that alot of people will do exactly as you said you would do with someone yelling 'POLICE'.

criminals, while not highly intelligent, are not stupid. They already know that there are places where people will not be armed and they know that most people will readily surrender upon hearing people yell police as they break in to peoples homes.

I hear of at least one a week in the news pages I read.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressR...060203-04.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...gle&id=4860911

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/c...?storyid=53943

http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.ns...2571790061BEE4

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/...tysonsupd3.htm

flstf · 01-13-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudel73

put my hands in plain site and make no sudden movements obey their orders... Do you really imagine a crook would break into a house wearing full police gear etc etc etc shouting police? Highly unlikely.

Yes, I believe it happens a lot. Why do you think the police would find it necessary to break down your door if you are doing nothing illegal? Isn't this something a criminal is more likely to do?

Ourcrazymodern? · 01-14-2007, 06:18 PM

Sitting in my home late at night...sleeping, maybe dreaming...
Common thugs don't wear a lot of modern self-protection, do they?
If you hear "police" you should throw the gun away.

Rudel73 · 01-14-2007, 07:23 PM

Posting a few links that show that criminals have shouted Police or whatever as they broke into is far from proving your point. There are only a handful of cases in what has to be thousands of robberys. I can tell you not to go swimming in the ocean because of a few people dying from shark attacks, or don't go outside in thunderstorms because a few people died from lighting. The list goes on and on, really a few cases of this happening does not prove your point.

dksuddeth · 01-15-2007, 06:03 AM

The point was is that it happens and criminals know that people like you will let their guard down thinking they are cops. Once you're disarmed, then their fun begins. why would anyone willingly take that chance?

dc_dux · 01-15-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The point was is that it happens and criminals know that people like you will let their guard down thinking they are cops. Once you're disarmed, then their fun begins. why would anyone willingly take that chance?

Free Hollis Wayne Fincher

Why would anyone willingly want to allow other citizens to call themselves a militia and stockpile illegal weapons?

In the case of US v Fincher, a federal jury of Hollis Wayne Fincher's peers found him guilty last week of owning illegal machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

According to police, Fincher had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and a sawed-off shotgun - not registered as required by federal law.

Fincher is a member of the Militia of Washington County, a private militia established in 1994 to “to defend the liberty of the citizens of the state of Arkansas, and these United States, through education, participation, and action.” Fincher maintains possession of the guns, which he does not deny, was "reasonably related to a well regulated militia," based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Through the jury's wisdom, the citizens of Arkansas are safer with having these self-proclamined militias (ie vigiliantees) reigned in through the appropropriate application of the 2nd Amendment. Good thing, or every street gang in the country would be calling themselves "the Militia of (insert city name here).

/end threadjack

fhqwhgads · 01-15-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The point was is that it happens and criminals know that people like you will let their guard down thinking they are cops. Once you're disarmed, then their fun begins. why would anyone willingly take that chance?

I swore that I'd stay out of this thread, but you picture actually made me laugh.
Can I change the caption to "Quick, pull a gun... he might not be a cop!"?

If someone is that close to you, with an automatic rifle trained at your face, and you try to grab for a gun, YOU WILL GET SHOT... regardless if the guy is a cop or a criminal.

dksuddeth · 01-15-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Why would anyone willingly want to allow other citizens to call themselves a militia and stockpile illegal weapons?

Because it's supposed to be nobody elses damn business what weapons a private person, or group of people, have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In the case of US v Fincher, a federal jury of Hollis Wayne Fincher's peers found him guilty last week of owning illegal machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

According to police, Fincher had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and a sawed-off shotgun - not registered as required by federal law.

Fincher is a member of the Militia of Washington County, a private militia established in 1994 to “to defend the liberty of the citizens of the state of Arkansas, and these United States, through education, participation, and action.” Fincher maintains possession of the guns, which he does not deny, was "reasonably related to a well regulated militia," based on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

However, Fincher was not even allowed to present a defense arguing the validity of said laws, not allowed to claim unconstitutionality, only allowed to argue the fact of whether the guns were illegally owned by him or not. A complete usurpation of his constitutional rights by a federal bench.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Through the jury's wisdom,

ignorance is a more appropriate word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

the citizens of Arkansas are safer with having these self-proclamined militias (ie vigiliantees) reigned in through the appropropriate application of the 2nd Amendment.

The citizens are less safe now because they will have to wait 4-7 days for any national guard presence to make themselves available in the event of an emergency, instead of having a concerned group of their own, who have never committed a violent act or threatened anyone with their privately owned weapons, available at a moments notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Good thing, or every street gang in the country would be calling themselves "the Militia of (insert city name here).

and the second they did something unlawful and violent, they could be arrested or exterminated. For 70 years you gun grabbers exclaimed that it had to be a 'well-regulated' militia, now you were shown one and still won't accept that people CAN be trusted with automatic weapons and would rather make yourselves slaves to the government. Pathetic

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhqwhgads

I swore that I'd stay out of this thread, but you picture actually made me laugh.
Can I change the caption to "Quick, pull a gun... he might not be a cop!"?

If someone is that close to you, with an automatic rifle trained at your face, and you try to grab for a gun, YOU WILL GET SHOT... regardless if the guy is a cop or a criminal.

Unlike most cowards, I'd rather be shot (at) fighting back then whining pitifully for my life, or my families lives, to be spared by someone who's most likely going to kill them anyway. and how would a criminal have an automatic weapon? aren't they 'prohibited'???

Ourcrazymodern? · 01-15-2007, 06:08 PM

& thus we see the violence inherent in the system.

I like the picture, too.

dksuddeth · 01-15-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

& thus we see the violence inherent in the system.

It is the nature of man.

dc_dux · 01-15-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

For 70 years you gun grabbers exclaimed that it had to be a 'well-regulated' militia, now you were shown one and still won't accept that people CAN be trusted with automatic weapons and would rather make yourselves slaves to the government. Pathetic

A gang of overaged boys wanting to play weekend warrior and who proclaim themselves the Militia of Washington County, Arkansas, accountable to no one or nothing but their own interpretation of the Constitution, is not a "well regulated" militia, nor a group that I believe CAN be trusted. If they are serious about wanting to protect the people, let them join the legitimate citizen militia, Arkansas National Guard.

Looking at their website, it appears their real goal is simply to challenge federal gun laws. Fine, one of their members challenged and lost.

dksuddeth · 01-15-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

A gang of overaged boys wanting to play weekend warrior and who proclaim themselves the Militia of Washington County, Arkansas, accountable to no one or nothing but their own interpretation of the Constitution, is not a "well regulated" militia, nor a group that I believe CAN be trusted. If they are serious about wanting to protect the people, let them join the legitimate citizen militia, Arkansas National Guard.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

The NG is NOT the militia of the 2nd Amendment and 'well-regulated' never meant 'government ruled' until 1903, when the courts started their acts of judicial tyranny and activism in rewriting the constitution.

-....."The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon....If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need NO PERMISSION or REGULATION of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.".....- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898].(Mr. Cooley was Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, Michigan Supreme Court justice, and a nationally recognized scholar).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Looking at their website, it appears their real goal is simply to challenge federal gun laws. Fine, one of their members challenged and lost.

The tyranny of the federal gov. who'd of thunk.

Ourcrazymodern? · 01-15-2007, 11:20 PM

I am suddenly wishing I had a gun of some sort...
...just trying to interject a little humor, people!

fhqwhgads · 01-16-2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and how would a criminal have an automatic weapon? aren't they 'prohibited'???

Well, we called ahead and told the criminal that we were going to show up and take his automatic weapon from him, but for some reason he wasn't there when we arrived...

Ah well, we'll call again tomorrow...

Bill O'Rights · 01-16-2007, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhqwhgads

Ah well, we'll call again tomorrow...

And when you do...make sure that you say pretty please. Wouldn't want to have anybody's feelings get hurt.

smooth · 01-24-2007, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

If you were sitting in your home, late at night, and heard somebody screaming POLICE as they were ripping your door off of your hinges, what would you do?

the first time it happened to me, I ran out the back sliding glass door.
I wasn't shot, but I was thrown on the ground, hogtied, and asked how it felt to have an assault weapon at my temple. I told them to fuck off, but they just picked me up, one officer by the cuff chains and another by my ankle chains, and carried me to the front of the house and tossed me in the middle of the living room.

the second time it happened to me, I stayed seated on the couch watching my sitcoms while two officers calmly pointed their rifles at my head.

both times I was seething pissed, but neither time was I stupid enough to move for my guns or rifles.

the only time a gang invaded my friend's house, they didn't yell they were cops, they shouted a couple of our names and for everyone else to stay the fuck out of the way. couldn't be in two places at once, I still have my spleen, my friend...not so lucky.

so fuck an internet nutjob coming on here and spouting illogical nonsense ONCE AGAIN and particularly for saying anyone who's ACTUALLY been in either of the home 'invasions' you're spouting bullshit about is a slave to the government, not intelligent, or isn't tough enough to deal with the realities of life and violence.

fuck that noise...and any bullshit that falls out of your mouth from this point forward in this thread.

I usually try to engage you, sometimes I end up blowing you off, but this time you went to far with your overgeneralizations.

dksuddeth · 01-24-2007, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

the first time it happened to me, I ran out the back sliding glass door.
I wasn't shot, but I was thrown on the ground, hogtied, and asked how it felt to have an assault weapon at my temple. I told them to fuck off, but they just picked me up, one officer by the cuff chains and another by my ankle chains, and carried me to the front of the house and tossed me in the middle of the living room.

but, by all means, lets trust in our benevolent police officers for they are 'the only ones'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

the second time it happened to me, I stayed seated on the couch watching my sitcoms while two officers calmly pointed their rifles at my head.

both times I was seething pissed, but neither time was I stupid enough to move for my guns or rifles.

Lucky you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

the only time a gang invaded my friend's house, they didn't yell they were cops, they shouted a couple of our names and for everyone else to stay the fuck out of the way. couldn't be in two places at once, I still have my spleen, my friend...not so lucky.

maybe you should be a bit more selective of who you hang out with and call 'friends'. It seems to attract a lot of unwanted attention your way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

so fuck an internet nutjob coming on here and spouting illogical nonsense ONCE AGAIN and particularly for saying anyone who's ACTUALLY been in either of the home 'invasions' you're spouting bullshit about is a slave to the government, not intelligent, or isn't tough enough to deal with the realities of life and violence.

fuck that noise...and any bullshit that falls out of your mouth from this point forward in this thread.

shut up and continue bowing down to your masters. You've obviously lost the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be your own man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I usually try to engage you, sometimes I end up blowing you off, but this time you went to far with your overgeneralizations.

do us all a favor then and don't do it anymore. you've rarely ever presented a cogent argument or a cognitive point, instead relying on your emotional ideology to represent what YOU believe is shangri-la.

smooth · 01-24-2007, 06:28 AM

yeah, 15 years ago I had trouble selecting friends...now, not so much.

I'm done reading your bullshit
from the looks of this thread, a lot of other respected members are as well.

you're the first person I've put on ignore in all my years on tfp.

Bill O'Rights · 01-24-2007, 08:44 AM

And...with that...I'm closing the door on what has been an awfully fun discussion.

11-27-2006, 04:39 PM	#53 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	"Here's a suggestion... if you want to "Monday Morning Quarterback" me, the police, or our policies, strap on a vest, lace up your boots, kiss your wife goodbye while wondering if it will be the last time, and stand the line right along side me. Do a year or so in the communities that I walk in, and if you still have your same views and opinions, then we'll debate some more. If you're not willing, be thankful that some of us are. ***EDIT*** Regarding the case of the 92 year old woman in Georgia that shot three officers when they served their warrant, I just found this quote: "Dreher said the three drug officers "were well-trained" and had "served hundreds of warrants" over the years. Even though the officers were not required to knock before entering the house, they did, Dreher said."" _______________________________________________________________________ brings it all into perspective for me... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

01-12-2007, 01:25 PM	#56 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	I trust and value the police in St. Paul. "To protect and serve" is a heckuva slogan. The job must be one of the most challenging available, and i know I couldn't do it. Law enforcement may make mistakes, but they are our fellow human beings...ergo? __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

01-14-2007, 06:18 PM	#63 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Sitting in my home late at night...sleeping, maybe dreaming... Common thugs don't wear a lot of modern self-protection, do they? If you hear "police" you should throw the gun away. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

01-15-2007, 06:03 AM	#65 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	The point was is that it happens and criminals know that people like you will let their guard down thinking they are cops. Once you're disarmed, then their fun begins. why would anyone willingly take that chance? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-15-2007, 06:08 PM	#69 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	& thus we see the violence inherent in the system. I like the picture, too. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

11-27-2006, 11:34 AM	#49 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Hmmm...it certainly does seem that police these days have an itchy trigger finger, especially on unarmed people. Here you go DK... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/...ce_shooting_46

01-13-2007, 10:02 AM	#57 (permalink)
Willy Insane	What are the chances that the cops didn't yell "Police" as they were coming into the house? I find it pretty unlikely that they thought it was a home invasion robbery. Chances are if the officer hadn't fired, it could have been his corpse they were pinning medals on. Asking someone to stop and ask questions when confronted with a loaded gun in these circumstances is asking a lot when their life is on the line.

01-14-2007, 07:23 PM	#64 (permalink)
Rudel73 Psycho	Posting a few links that show that criminals have shouted Police or whatever as they broke into is far from proving your point. There are only a handful of cases in what has to be thousands of robberys. I can tell you not to go swimming in the ocean because of a few people dying from shark attacks, or don't go outside in thunderstorms because a few people died from lighting. The list goes on and on, really a few cases of this happening does not prove your point.

01-15-2007, 11:20 PM	#73 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	I am suddenly wishing I had a gun of some sort... ...just trying to interject a little humor, people! __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

01-24-2007, 06:28 AM	#78 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	yeah, 15 years ago I had trouble selecting friends...now, not so much. I'm done reading your bullshit from the looks of this thread, a lot of other respected members are as well. you're the first person I've put on ignore in all my years on tfp. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

01-24-2007, 08:44 AM	#79 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	And...with that...I'm closing the door on what has been an awfully fun discussion. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.