I have several things that I want to say about this case but, before I do, I want everyone to know (for the record) where I stand on LEO's and whatnot.

First of all, I am not anti-cop or anti-LEO. Several times, in the past, I tried to gain employment as a police officer or deputy sheriff at several agencies that are located close to where I live. The point is, it would be very hard to accuse me of being anti-cop considering the fact that I have tried to become a cop myself.

On the same token, I also don't hold cops on any kind of pedistal and I won't buy any arguement that suggest I shouldn't question what an officer or a department does just because someone is a cop.


I haven't read every post in this thread so my first question may be considered a little redundant. If it is then so be it.

Anyway, does anyone know why the police took out a warrant on this Nassar guy in the first place? I think the answer to this question needs to be addressed because it would help put this whole debate into context. Did the police have good information that the suspect was about to commit some kind of crime (particularly a violent crime such as robbery, rape or kidnapping) or that he had already committed some kind of crime? Or was the warrant taken out simply because some informant claimed he had an AR-15 and a bunch of ammo? If the police went after this guy simply because he had an AR-15 and some ammo then, the way I see it is, is that the suspect has a clear case a having his (2nd amendment) Constitutional and due process rights violated by the tac team.

If having a so-called assault rifle and a bunch of ammo is all it takes for the police to have probable cause to get a search warrant then I might as well expect to have my house raided one day by some LEOs. Just last week, I was pulled over on a traffic stop because I ran a stop sign. I was late for work, came to a stop sign, slowed down, looked both ways and preceded through the stop sign. A state trooper saw me do this and pulled me over. Lo and behold, when he walked up to my truck to retrieve my licence and registration what did his eyes see in my front seat?

A bushmaster 5.56 rifle, a remington .308 semi-auto deer rifle, four 30 round AR mags and two 20 round boxes of 308 winchester hunting ammo. Do the math. That comes out to 2 rifles and 160 rounds of ammo all in the front seat of 1 vehicle. I had no bad intentions nor any ill will then nor do I have any now. The weapons and ammo were all aquired and used legally. I'll give the trooper credit because he didn't freak out or try to arrest me or anything. All he did was make me step behind the truck while he wrote me a warning ticket for running the stop sign and a citation for not having any proof of insurance (I couldn't find an up to date insurance card). He asked why I had so many weapons with me and I told him that I was on a summer deer shooting permit with my boss who is a peanut farmer. In Georgia, people can kill deer during the growing season for peanuts if they have first aquired a permit from the GA Dept of Natural Resources.

The reason I mentioned all of this is that, like I said earlier, if all it takes to have a search warrant made out on a particular residence is to have alot of guns and ammo then I''m pretty much screwed because, last week, I was loaded for bear. Law abiding citizens are supposed to have 2nd Amendment rights but, these days, it seems like those rights are fading away more and more each day.

Another thing that I noticed about the Michigan case is that the cops took this (supposedly) heavily armed and dangerous guy down while he was inside his home close by to all of his weapons. To me, this makes absolutely no sense. The police could have staked out this guys home and overwhelmed him (with a large number of cops) while he was walking outside to take out his garbage or pick up his mail or something. Sometimes I get the feeling that some of the tac teams think with their balls more than their brains. I can see a need for no knock warrants at certain times and under certain conditions (such as when a violent crime is being committed at that exact moment) but not as a general operating procedure. A dynamic entry is risky even under the best of circumstances. IMO, no (dynamic entry) situation is ever totally perfect so that imperfection just magnifies the risk that is already there. And it magnifies the risk for everyone not just the cops who participate in the raid.

Let me relate one example of what I'm talkin' about. The folowing incident occurred in the county adjacent to where I live.

Several years ago, a black girl broke up with her (apparently) possessive boyfriend. This couple gets into an argument, the girl leaves the guy, goes to a local nightclub and finds another guy to hang out with. The ex-boyfriend shows up at the club, shoots the girl and her new guy and then flees the scene. At least one of the victims died from their wounds. The county deputies show up on the scene, they tend to the victims and a manhunt begins for the shooter. Now, the sheriff department calls out their recently formed up tac team for the manhunt. Meanwhile, a local police detective(who knows the suspect) finds out where the suspect was hiding . The detective learns that the shooter had barricaded himself in his home or in the home of one of his relatives (I don't remember exactly which it was because this case occurred several years ago). By this time, the shooters house is surrounded by all of the appropriate authorities. This includes the sheriffs tac team which was placed on standby outside the suspects home. The police detective shows up and negotiates a surrender with the shooter. The shooter is arrested, charged, convicted in a court of law and was eventually sent to prison. So this case ended pretty successfully except for one thing. The local sheriff, and some members of his tac team, was mad at the police detective because he had successfully negotiated a surrender without firing a shot. The sheriffs tac team didn't want anyone negotiating anything. All they wanted was to go balls to the wall and do (I guess) a dynamic entry on the suspects house. I know this because one of my friends was a member of the tac team at the time the incident occurred. When the story was relayed to me, I got the impression that the team just wanted some hot action and that solving the case itself was just secondary to the teams goal of kickin in some doors and poppin off a few flashbangs and 9mm MP5 rounds. This is a prime example of why I get a little worried when towns try to put together a swat team inside their agencies. It seems that at least a small minority of the cops just want to spend their time kickin in doors just for the sheer joy of it. And it's attitudes like that that gives us raids at the wrong locations, innocent people getting killed and cities and towns getting the beejeesus sued out of them because of few local LEO hotrods want to kick tires and light fires. IMO, some of these cops would be better off in the military rather than in law enforcement. They are a liability to their agencies and the citizens of their community. Plus, because of the actions of these hotheads, most other cops (who are straight and really care about doing the right thing on the job) are labeled "JBTs" by alot of average citizens (paricularly gun owners) who see the American Government becoming a threat to their civil liberties more and more each day. And that leads to debates such as the one that we have had on this thread today. It creates a dangerous cycle that I fear will come to a head one of these days, and when that day comes, alot of good people (on both sides) will get hurt simply because a few LEOs wanted to play supercop.

Eleven0, that was a good post.

In the situation you described, the proper action was to take a surrender. Those guys sound like they were poorly trained and very green; anyone who has ever had to go into a house after an armed nut would much prefer to have them surrender peacefully than to have to go in after them again. Failing that, if there are no hostages, gas often does wonders.

No, the warrant was not issued just because he had legal weapons. According to the brief decision posted on the [url=http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/opinions/final/coa/20020806_c231738(33)_231738.opn.pdf] Michigan Court of Appeal's [/url]website, the officers were serving a search warrant because Nassar had a "cache of automatic weapons" which would be a violation of Federal and state laws if they were not registered, legally-owned machine guns (and the feds could check easily enough). The decision does not detail what facts the officers possessed, although it does say that the information included information from an informant. That does not mean that the warrant was based solely on the informant's information, and legally could not be based solely upon those facts. The context makes it clear that information was part of what the warrant was based on.

As far as "how do I know its the police and not a home invasion?" which seems to be a frequent concern, the police will loudly announce who they are and what their purpose is once they have made entry, and they should be readily identifiable by their uniforms. We make it a policy to always have at least one uniformed officer present for all warrant service attempts, and all no knock warrants are served by uniformed personnel, and would not be opposed to legislation mandating that, either. Any agency that does otherwise is asking for a lawsuit, and defying common sense and good judgement.

Again if they aren't in their homes where are they?? OUT IN PUBLIC. So if John Q Suspect goes to the Kwik-E-Mart, and the cops got to arrest him there, and other people are in the store while all the armed cops are bearing down on a possibly armed suspect............. I just hope you, your wife, kids, friends, or anyone else you know isn't in that store if that arrest goes bad.

But then again I guess you guys thought that out and ciphered that it was better than having the cops go into the suspect's house where the public is less likely to get involved in the arrest.  

The preffered method of search warrant service, is to have a person that has legal standing to the property to be present when the warrant is served.

Mighty tough to argue with a lot of that. Of course some of you have the privilege of living in States with a multitude of laws dealing with possesion and not reckless/negligent/etc. use of the weapons.

The next question of all those characters should be.......... How do you know what type of weapon it was?




Home invasions aren't random. If you aren't selling drugs, fencing stolen goods, gambling illegally etc. the chance of a home invasion is pretty darn low.



Again true, but most warrants get served on people who know what they are doing, and what the consequences might be. In most case getting a warrant issued is a drawn out process. Which has it's pluses and minuses.

Of course most of the time before the police go and get a warrant they show up, call, etc. and try talking to possible suspects, witnesses what have you before they "get all judicial".

We "subjects" are guilty until proven innocent.  IMHO, the cops are guilty of being Nazi stormtroopers until proven innocent.  All of them.  I accept that they are real liberty minded individuals on a case-by-case basis.

The standard for and warrant (search or arrest) is "probable cause," (PC) which means that a reasonable person would have "good reason to believe" that an offense against the law had occurred. Not a reasonable officer, and not a reasonable judge, but a reasonable person. Additionally for search warrants, one also has to show why there is a good reason to believe that the place or property in question  contains the contraband or evidence that the officer seeks. Warrants can not be granted for "fishing expeditions," and the officer has to have specific facts that would lead any reasonable person to believe that the property sought is present.

A good example would be that Joe Felon has been convicted of selling drugs. Joe Felon's neighbors reported that there is a lot of traffic at Joe's house, and that visitors usually only stay for a few minutes and leave. Officers set up surveillance, and determine that the initial reports are true. Officers stop several folks leaving Joe's house on legal stops for traffic violations, and find drugs, all packaged in the same manner. After questioning, the arrested individuals admit that they bought the drugs from Joe Felon. The officers now have reasonable suspicion, but probably haven't gotten quite to PC, because the persons they stopped are not yet "reliable" in the eyes of the court. The officers do a lot of research, and find that Joe Felon only makes $1500 a month at his job, but that Joe's rent is 1K a month, he puts about 3K in the bank, and Joe recently paid 4K in cash for his car. Joe is obviously getting income from another source. This still isn't PC, yet. Armed with all of this knowledge, the officers send the infamous "confidential informant" to Joe's house to make a "buy." The CI buys the drugs, and they are packaged the same as the ones found on the earlier traffic stops. We are close, but probably still not quite there yet. Next up, we so the CI meets with Joe to make another another buy. We also send an officer, who buys as well. We have first hand knowledge from an officer, who is much more reliable in the eyes of the court than any CI, that Joe Felon is selling drugs. But Joe was cagey-he didn't want to sell to someone he did not know from his house, so they met in a parking lot. We have enough to get arrests warrants for Joe Felon for selling drugs, but not enough to get a search warrant for Joe's house (some judges might grant a warrant at this point, though. It really depends, and on this kind of stuff, it is always better to err on the side of more PC). So, we either make more buys from Joe's house with the CI, or we work the officer in to make one. Finally, the officer types up a warrant application, usually several pages long. The warrant must describe in exacting detail, the place to be searched ( 101 East Scumbag Street is a single story residence. It has a tan composition roof. It has an attached two car garage with a single door, painted white. It has brown aluminum siding with white brick facing and the back yard is enclosed by a rusty chain link fence. It is located on the northwest corner of the 100 block of East Scumbag street and the 500 block of North Dirtbag Lane. It is identified as 101 East Scumbag Street by numbers of the main entrance door on the south side of the residence, and the numbers "101" on the mailbox...and so on). You also generally have to show that the contraband or evidence you are looking for was present within about 48 hours of when you submitted the warrant application; any longer, and there is not a "good reason to believe" that the bad stuff is still there. Then, the judge has to agree with everything you wrote. Many times (maybe about 1/3) the judge disagrees, and it is back to square one. Now after all of that prep work, we have a search warrant. A lot of work just for some guy selling drugs? This is the typical process for just about any search warrant.

In this or similar instances, merely seeing weapons that might be automatic weapons doesn't cut it. Heck, my Glock could be full auto, but just because it COULD be, doesn't give anyone "good reason to believe" that it MIGHT be. There had to additional facts, and this scant decision states that the persons obtaining the warrant had good reason to believe that Nassar had a "cache of automatic weapons" and that the information was corroborated by an informant, heightening the initial probable cause. To get to that, the officers getting the warrant probably (and this is just guesswork on my part) had information from some reliable source that the guy had illegal machine guns, and the used an informant to confirm this. Anything less, and a warrant should not have been issued and most likely would not be.

Warrants, contrary to the opinion of some here, are not easy to obtain (nor should they be). There are many, many ways to get the necessary elements to build PC, and I have not yet obtained a search warrant based on one set of facts alone. There always have to be lots of mutually supporting reasons to get a search warrant issued. That was the intent of the Founding Fathers, because they understood that law enforcement could easily be a tool of an oppressive government.

We do not have an oppressive government. There are many, many checks and balances on police power to obtain warrants, which is as it should be. There should always be a healthy debate about these activities in the interests of liberty, but when officers obtain these warrants, they are going through a detailed and complicated process designed to PROTECT the rights of the accused from unreasonable searches. Once these legal, constitutional warrants are obtained, then the officers are in no way acting as "JBTs" or "nazis" or anything else, and they are not following "illegal orders." They are performing a lawful, necessary duty foreseen in and allowed by the Constitution.

Appx 1/3 of the people I work with are ex-military, be it full time, Guard, or reserves. Also since many depts. are buying AR-15's you might have to convince some lunk heads that AR-15 full auto even exsists.



Yes, I said low, not impossible. Most are gang, drug, criminal, or domestic related. That doesn't rule out other types. Burglary to what the BG thought was an empty building can turn bad fast if a bldg occupant stumbles across the BG. But then again burglary is classified as a property crime............yeah right.



Yeah, remember "confidential informants" can be anybody from the middle school teacher that doesn't want her identity made public to some low life that is "stooling" to get less time for their crimes or trying to "work" the police to their advantage.

Places that are worried about doing thier duties properly usually send in a detective, officer etc. with SWAT, someone who has first hand info of who, where, etc. the target location is. Most SWAT teams like to recon and have a formal plan, which requires knowing approach routes, floor plans etc.

But what that requires is making the standards for police officers, hiring, training etc more stringent. But that often means that more qualified officers want higher pay.

I think that some of these problems are exactly money related. If you want to pay the minumum for training, wages, etc. You will wind up with a slip-shod operation. If you increase standards it is often more costly, initially, because you don't have tp deal with some of the "oopsies" if you run a quality operation.

But it's governement work, and low bid is good enough.

Thanks for the link. I didn't think of linking to the C of A site.
I would like to point out for my own credibility on the site that the 'automatic weapons' reference came from the paragraph that I copied, the rest of the opinion is legal references.

Note to self:  Congratulate Grin & Anti for having the BRC in IL & not Michigan.

If it meant not having to hear about no-knock warrants ending up in the death of people who have commited no crime for which death is a reasonable punishment (drug crimes for instance), I'd gladly live with the risk of someone getting in a shoot out with the cops in a public place.

How does the saying go? Those that would give up liberty for a little security, deserve neither liberty or security.

I wonder if anyone has the statistics handy to compare how many people not guilty of a death penalty punishable crime (this includes "perps" and innocent bystanders) are killed in public shootouts between "perps" and cops vs. the same stat for no knock warrant situations. I have no idea what these numbers would look like, anyone know?

well don't that beat all?


shot for excercizing his 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

at least he's alive to sue the bastards.


it's going to be a bumpy ride if an all out confiscation is ever attempted, things don't look good

i guess that would be more exciting than this incrementalism

oh well

anti-gun drug warriors = nazis
[img]http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/graphics/he05n15e_500x391.jpg[/img]

I have a three word reply to the above.
[b]Ruby Ridge, Waco.[/b]

[img]http://image.pathfinder.com/time/daily/newsfiles/waco/images/waco.jpg[/img]




[img]http://rainbowfarmcamp.com/tomandrollie2.jpg[/img]



[red]not guilty:[/red]
[img]http://www.ruby-ridge.com/horiuchi2.jpg[/img]


[img]http://www.shadow.net/~bobt/annex/aldiaz.jpg[/img]





[img]http://www.carolmoore.net/tanksline.gif[/img]

And I wonder how many cops get killed FOR NO REASON other than they are trying to serve a warrant or arrest someone?  Again the Constitution goes into a lot of detail about what a person has Rights to have during a Court proceeding. I as a citizen should also expect that if another citizen attacks me the govt. will do their bit and bring the offender to a fair trial.

The Constitution doesn't give the a list of Rights that can be used in order to keep a warrant from being served, or from appearing in Court. If you are accused the proper place to fight the accusation is Court, not in the street. If you decide to fight it out in the street you shouldn't be surprised with the consequences.

I also like how in these arguements people trot out Elian, and Waco.

Elian has a father, and there was no evidence to suggest his father was not a fit parent. Who does Elian belong with. Before you answer that think about it, really think, if Elian can be taken away from his dad under that standard waht does it say about how we value faimilies??

I seem to remember film of the ATF going into thae Waco compound, and holes being blown through the siding, from the inside out. I guess all that gunfire was just misunderstood. That doesn't justitify how it ended, but when you fight with the government, they tend to fight back.

Too bad it didn't say anything about this no-knock warrant thing, huh?



And if YOU [edit] up?  Which is more likely?



Unless YOU [edit] UP and got the wrong house, in which case you scared a homeowner and he got his gun.  I guess you are justified in gunning him down, huh?  Reasonable fear and protecting the innocent and all right?



Actually, I'm ticked that some of the guys that get shot or killed because shitbag cops seeking a rush fucked up didn't kill some of the dirtbags.  If more of YOU died, maybe you'd get that you can't trample on people without there being consequences.

Or are you too much of a [edit] to knock on the [edit] door?

Hey, if you don't [edit] up, he won't get away.  Since you've already admitted that you can (and apparently do) [edit] up with the above statement, I really don't think you can be trusted to get an address right.



There are more options than that and you know it.  There is something called a brain, grow one.  After growing aforementioned brain, you might be able to come up with a plan that won't kill any innocents, but will allow you to make sure you have the right guy before going into "I'm a tough cop" kill mode.



Or, what if you [edit] up the address and shot somebody because you were a gutless [edit] who couldn't knock on a [edit] door to serve a warrant?



Sure you can serve a warrant at the home.  I don't have a problem with that, but why don't you make sure you got the right house by knocking first?  Is it that hard?  If he goes into "I don't want to get caught mode" then you have ample reason to shoot, and you've proved you got the right guy instead of some innocent guy living in an address that is simply similar.




Edited both posts so GB won't have a heart attack

Well way to make it about me. I have served exactly 1 search warrant in 9 years at my current job.

I have served several hundred arrest warrants. Over half of those were due to "street contacts", ie driver/passenger of a stopped vehicle has a warrant, check on a hitchiker who has a warrant. Others have been served because the subject was contacted due to other activity, ie domestic incident, and has a warrant, neighbor trouble and has a warrant.

Then every once in a while I go looking for people that have warrants. I knock on the door and ask if they are home, if they come out they are arrested. If not I leave a business card.

I have "kicked" 1 door in that 9 years, it was a steel door and didn't move. So I broke out the window. Of course the wanted(2 warrants), suicidal guy, that was threatening his ex-wife, was on the other side of the door pushing against it, yelling at me, refusing to come out at the time.

I have probably "forced entry" into someone else's property less than 5 times, most of that is through unlocked doors. I have never got the wrong address.

Of course I guess if a murder suspect, or some other person that represents a serious threat to others, is hiding in a house it like being on a "safe zone".

Then why do you defend a dangerous practice every time it comes up?  Why do you take any attack on blatant police abuse of power as an attack on police in general (that seems to be taking it personally)?  

I don't have a problem with the police, in fact, I'm starting an internship with a local police department next week, after having just finished one with the VSP.  I want to be a peace officer, but I don't in anyway support the increasing use of SWAT/tactical teams, the increasing presence of SWAT/tactical teams, or the increased and dangerous use of "no-knock" warrants.  The police and feds are at the forefront of liberty destruction, they use shady tactics routinely that constantly undermine our freedoms.  Very soon (like the next 5-10 years), Posse Comitatus will be meaningless, not because it will be repealed, but because the police will be armed and trained just like the military.  I for one find that eventuality terrifying.

natez gave a great description of how the search warrant process is supposed to proceed. It probably still does in some places. From what I've read over the last few years, however, it is often much different, especially when drugs are alleged to be involved. Warrants are given on anonymous tips.

And then there's the habit nowadays of SWAT teams to break down doors at 3am. If you're after a known mass murderer, known to be heavily armed, this MIGHT be justified. As it is done today, against people who break political laws with no right to exist (every drug law, every gun law, every tax law, every licensing and registration law), it amounts to murder by SWAT team.

As I see it, if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, no matter who they say they are, and no matter what fancy uniforms or funny hats they're wearing, I have two choices: give up without a fight or kill as many of them as I can before they get me. I don't think too clearly at 3am. And I don't like people breaking into my house. Guess what I'm likely to do.

I defend the tactic, because in general because it can be useful under the right circumstances. But you went and edited my comments, and made the debate about me, shich it isn't.

As far as going to the wrong address, that is different issue than whether or not it is a no-knock warrant. Getting warrants on the say so of one "confidential informant" is also fraught with peril.

As far as I know neither one of the local teams has ever gone to a wrong address. I believe that locally, CI's aren't used that often, and their word is legally less believably than the "good citizen". In other words there has to be corrorating independent evidence, to support a warrant.

But when the idiots that go to the wrong house based on CI's shoot the wrong person it gets potrayed as the "police". It ain't the "police" because there are thousands of police depts. Some are bad, some are good, some are great, but when we get into the evils of "no-knock warrants" here it is close to the same conversation that the anti's have over flash supressors and bayonet lugs. Do you get it?

No knock warrants, under the right circumstance can be effective in keeping evidence from being destroyed, or giving the subject of the warrant time to arm himself.

When you intern for VSP, why don't you let us know how often the tac team gets called up. I think you will find it is far less than you've been led to believe.

I don't know about other places, but our tac-team hasn't shot anyone in over 20 years, since it was formed. They work very closely with the hostage negoitiators, who have never failed to talk the barricade person out. That takes, skill, patience, and discipline, unfortunately not every place has that commitment.

Of course that last paragraph is also why a situation like Columbine happened. Because they were trained perimeter, negotiate. Unfortunatley life is more complicated than that and one tactic won't always work.

I only know of one time when the Tac guys got called in this area; that was about two years ago, long before my internship.  The problem is that with the increased prevalence of Tac teams and the huge amount of money they eat up they will need to get used more to be justifiable to the city/county boards.  When my local department (Waynesboro) decided to change pistols about 6 years ago, they didn't get their new guns for another 18 months because of the costs involved (poltical-types wanted to know why they were needed, etc.).  They don't have a "SWAT" team.  They have a few officers who received training through their own time and using their own money, and payed for their gear using their own money.  They have never in 12 years been needed for anything.  If they were funded, imagine how long they would last before the board started asking about their "need."  Then they would be used, on situations that didn't warrant their use if need be, to prove that they are needed and funding is justified.  Combine that with "no-knock" warrants and some guys who maybe aren't too professional (like they joined the team because they wanted to shoot cool guns) and you have a dangerous mix.  Frankly though, I don't think any judge around here would give a no-knock regardless of the circumstances.  That could change though.


I didn't "edit" your posts BTW.  I responded to the statements individually.

[red][b]Comments made by LEO's or Military[/b][/red]:

[b]Hollywood and paranoid fringe subculture belief systems[/b]

(You forgot the religious right [the most dangerous because they believe in truth] - or are they a fringe subculture)

[b]I'm beginning to think that Condon was correct when he said that the [red]Extreme Right[/red] was really a tool of the Extreme Left.[/b]

(just an excuse to legislate - they create the problem so they can create a solution)

[b]In your better agencies, tactical officers are carefully vetted, psychologically screened and trained before ever partaking in operational activities.[/b]

(Lon Horiuchi comes to mind)

[b]Military operations are becoming more constrained and more precise, and are borrowing tactics, operational modes and technology from the law enforcement community[/b]

(Of course, you don't need a nuke to take out a small band of armed resistors, or individuals with banned arms.)

[b]We do not have an oppressive government.[/b]

just keep saying that to yourself

 Then why are there:

- bans on weapons
- bans on ammunition
- laws that make you a criminal for defending your family and your home
- traffic cameras
- internet surveillance
- trigger lock laws
- gun storage laws
- ammunition type and quantity laws
- handgun registration
- laws that ban rifle stocks that are adjustable
- laws that ban weapons with certain types of handles
- Legislation to ban pump action shotguns
- Legislation to ban semi-automatic rifles
- Laws that make it a crime to carry a knife of a certain type
- Legislation to ban certain high power rifles
- Laws that regulate magazine capacity
- Legislation to ban mail order ammunition.
- Laws that ban bayonet lugs
- Laws that make it a crime to transport legally owned firearms across state lines - or too close to a school
- Laws that make it a crime to announce a candidates voting record 30 or 60 (can't remember) days before an election
- Seat Belt laws
- Cell phone laws
- Headlight laws (have to have them on when using wipers in NYS)
- Tinted car window laws
- Laws that take away your right to keep and bear arms if you've had a divorce
- Laws that take away your right to keep and bear arms if you got into a scuffle 20 years ago
- Laws that allow anyone to look into your medical records
- laws that allow the government to look at your bank account
- Illegal searches & confiscation of personal property
- Federal programs that deprive people of their livelihoods
- No knock warrants
- Informer programs
- Taxes, Fees, Licensing, Registration or Permits required for just about everything under the sun
- Judges that runs roughshod over the supreme law of the land

I could go on

And why is the government destroying their surplus ammunition and firearms instead of selling them? Topic for another thread.

You cannot turn around today without breaking a law.

That is why most people today have no faith in their government or it's agencies and post anti-LEO. It's not personal. Let them gain back the peoples faith and trust by their actions.

Sorry, I'm just a member of the paranoid fringe.

edited for a couple of spelling errors and to add:

BTW. I vote in EVERY election. I write my Congressman and Senators regarding legislation that affects our freedom at every chance.
although with Chuckie Boy Schumer and Hillary it probably doesn't do much good.

I'm a member of the NRA and Gun Owners of America.

I am involved.

O.K. Switching to decaf now.

Bingo!

then who the hell is it? sorry sir, you should have made sure the 6 on your house number stayed taked up and didn't look like a nine when we came a kicking and killing

My point was, I'll type slower if it will help, that blaming ALL POLICE DEPT/OFFICERS for the mistakes of a few is like blaming "gun crime" on ALL GUN OWNERS.

Do you understand now?

The same stupid reasoning that gets flash supressors banned get no-knock warrant service banned.

It does nothing to address the base cause and effects a lot of people that have nothing to do with the stupidity.

Another point that is tough to argue

[b]Sounds like storm troopers to me.

If they were told he was armed and dangerous, with a cache of automatic weapons, why not wait until he was clear of the house, and take him down when he clearly isn't carrying an assault rifle, then search the house.

Sorry, but I am a law abiding citizen, and if someone storms into my house in the middle of the night, they are going to get shot. My kids are little and my wife sleeps beside me, I know where everyone is, and intruders will be shot. I am not going to hesitate because someone yells police.

These kind of tactics is what gives them the title of JBT's[/b]

dave

I realize that most cops, and most police departments, are good guys. The problem is that cops seem to always rally around their bad-guy fellows when they do wrong. So you have cops supporting the uniformed perps responsible for 42 bullets for a cell phone, killing for holding a basketball with a bad attitude, shooting an 11-year-old boy in the back with a shotgun while he was laying on the floor, murdering a landowner because he came down the stairs with a gun in his hand, and the list goes on. Most of these are war on some drugs stories, but it all starts to merge together. War on drugs. War on "illegal" guns. War on terror. All just excuses to destroy my rights.

If you guys would do the right thing when one of you does wrong, do your best to make sure he goes to jail just like I would if I shot somebody, by mistake or not, it would be a lot easier for me to support you. As it is, I have to assume that I'm going to get screwed any time I have anything to do with a cop. And enough of the courts are corrupt these days that I can't expect justice from them, either. Bottom line: it has become a world where you have to treat a man in uniform just like any other agressor. I wish it weren't so. I'd really like to have you guys on my side.

If this poster will read my comments with an open mind, maybe I can show him what is causing LEO's to be held in increasing disrespect.



Your overly defensive in the above comment. LEO's are increasingly distainful and abusive in their verbal utterances.



Is it jumping to conclusions when the citizens do not like it when NINJA clad officers, smash through doors, screaming their fool heads off. Sometimes at the wrong door?



Police are acting as if they are an occupying army. Their in control, and the public, had better damned well know it.[/b] The public, the citizens, are your superiors.



This is what LEO said about the Branch Dividians at Waco. Sure the Dividians had guns, all legal.



Look at the attitude exhibited here -- "Boo Hoo." What a derisive, self rightous (Self-Raunchous), attitude



Would it be fair to say that the purported bad guy was afraid? Just screaming "Police" and pointing guns, does not make your real identity known.



Remember, until criminal conduct it is a proven fact -- the purported bad guy is still a citizen.

If the house were surrounded, other citizens evacuated, contacted made with the purported bad guy, why then would there be a need for a NO-KNOCK  warrent service. Smashing down doors, and scream your silly head off, isn't very good PR with the general public.



Usually considered? Why not always considered?



If you can't handle the stress, and the requirements of the position, no on is holding you on the job. Am I flaming you there? NO



A man, known as FALSARGE, on other forums, was taken down, away from home, with the use of subterfuge, without endangering any citizen. The operating phrase here is [b]"Good tactics," [/b] were used.



FALSARGE, was handled very successfully that way. And if the story I heard was right, FALSARGE had two machine guns and a bomb, when he was arrested.



Am I reading here that you need to establish probable cause [b]AFTER[/b] the arrest? Are you sure that you wouldn't rather [b]reread and edit[/b] that sentence?

If there is no probable cause, then [b]why in the hell[/b] would you stop a citizen?



Self rightous (self-raunchous) elitism rising to the surface by the bucketful.



Another window into your frame of reference. You deride a person because he regards his home as sacroscant? You deride a person because they would resent you busting into their domocile?

There is one poster here, whose signature line says,"I'm glad you changed your mind." "Your other one wasn't working." Think about that.

Many posters here are veterans with extensive combat experience. Wouldn't you rather call them on the phone, and say, "Mr. Citizen, we have a warrent for your arrest." "Come out and submit to arrest."

In Southern California, serious "Home invasion" robberies are in vogue. My home is secure, but not impregnable. My eighty pound PIT Bull is my, regretably expendable, first line of defense. He would give me time to get my always loaded firearms into action.

Am I afraid of you? in a word yes.



Yes, please spare us your macho police chest thumping, and crotch scratching impressiveness.

Your statement is opening a window into your frame of reference. I am afraid I don't like what I see.



How do those bumblers stay on a police force?



There are a thousands of unsung heros in Law Enforcement. It is just to damned bad that the [b]Adam Henries[/b] that cause the term [b]Jack Booted Thug[/b], are attracted to, and retain their positions in Law Enforcement. It is a crying damned shame that police will cover up for a bad cop until hell freezes over.



Police mistakes have caused widows and orphans.

I would like to be a friend, and a supporter to every Law Enforcement officer.

Bill