n2ipsc Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 “What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.” — Ronald Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Metal Only Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 wow, I'm really going to have to hold my tounge on this one ,so I will keep it short. I suppose your friends should feel lucky that they didn't do what they did to poor Randy Weaver and his family. One day we'll all answer for the wrongs we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam38 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 now the tax agents even carry guns (BATF, IRS) . . . . http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequen...6039&sr=8-1 anyone who hasn't read this book should. frye I agree!! But when people see how big the book is a lot of them have problems with it. There are even a couple of forum participants that I couldn't convince to try to read it. I even offered to tell them where they could get a PDF version to test read before buying the book. No luck. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
996fan2007 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 now the tax agents even carry guns (BATF, IRS) . . . . http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequen...6039&sr=8-1 anyone who hasn't read this book should. frye I agree!! But when people see how big the book is a lot of them have problems with it. There are even a couple of forum participants that I couldn't convince to try to read it. I even offered to tell them where they could get a PDF version to test read before buying the book. No luck. -Sam Great book, but I think whoever dreamed up the cover art was a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyinBlue Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I am quite disappointed in the fact that eBay will do nothing to help the seller in a case like this. Been there done that! Their security sucks as bad as Paypal. I don't know if eBay cooperates with the FEDs in this type of situation. Maybe if they found these same fine armored and armed folks knocking at their corporate front door they might be more inclined to do something to curtail rip-offs and criminal behavior in their client population. JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Putting the "F" back in Freedom... "coming to save the M.F. day, yeah!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotwings2001 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Anybody have a towel to soak up the blood from my tounge? The land of the free????but for how long??? I just need to bite the rest off cause I would probably be shown the door outta here, so I'll just keep quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Why couldn't the LE simply wait till the guy leaves for the office, the kids for schools and Mom for shooping.--- That’s easy, it’s because the raid was scheduled for 7:00am. If they scheduled it later then there could be morning traffic problems. Can you imagine what its like for a couple of SUV loads of fully combat decked out high speed government types carrying sub guns getting caught behind a school bus that stops every hundred yards or so, with some Darth Vader masked 8 year old firing his phaser pistol at them. It’s very embarrassing! Respectfully, jkelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryeg7 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I agree!! But when people see how big the book is a lot of them have problems with it. There are even a couple of forum participants that I couldn't convince to try to read it. I even offered to tell them where they could get a PDF version to test read before buying the book. No luck.-Sam i have a pdf of the book i downloaded, as i don't really want to order the book (no one stocks it locally it seems). i'm sure i'm already on enough 'lists' i do plan on sending john ross some money for his intellectual property, though . . . . IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THIS BOOK, YOU SHOULD! (sorry to yell, but it's important in my eyes).' frye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmanCdp Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 After hearing about this, if they ever drop by to ask me a few questions and they don't bring an armoured personnel carrier and a helo gunship, I'm gonna feel kinda slighted. Actually, I think that's a much safer way to approach my place. Home invaders usually don't have and APC and a Helo gunship. So, I'd probably give them the benefit of the doubt. seems like everybody has forgotten about the years 1993 thru 1996......[a Helo gunship] pretty common around my place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b.s._nm Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Why couldn't the LE simply wait till the guy leaves for the office, the kids for schools and Mom for shooping.--- That’s easy, it’s because the raid was scheduled for 7:00am. If they scheduled it later then there could be morning traffic problems. Can you imagine what its like for a couple of SUV loads of fully combat decked out high speed government types carrying sub guns getting caught behind a school bus that stops every hundred yards or so, with some Darth Vader masked 8 year old firing his phaser pistol at them. It’s very embarrassing! Respectfully, jkelly Thanks jkelly for that one. I sorely needed a good laugh today to brighten things up. After reading all the posts on this subject I find myself reflecting upon a document that I seen to find myself reading at least 2 or 3 times a year anymore, and the hair still stands up on the back of my neck everytime that I read it. It also seems the the further we go down this road, the more relevant it seems to become. That document would be The Declaration of Independence. Am I the only one who gets that tingly sensation?????? Respectfully, b.s._nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I left this thread and had to come back to it. The more I think about it, the more it burns me up. The investigation was probably a legitimate one. I won't fault them for that. But there is no reason in the world for the tactics used. A couple of agents in suits could have knocked on the door with backups waiting in the wings and probably gotten a whole lot more information faster and not made such asses of themselves...... I better shut up before I mess up. dj The old FBI would have done just that. But this is the new improved, and tactically outfitted FBI. All that BS about talk to the FBI for info and turn around and the FBI says talk to the police. Think about this, the FBI cant do anything in the county that warrant is served under without the permission of the sherriff( or at least in this state they cant) only a US marshall can perform duties without any other LE permission, so in 1 way or another they all are in cooperation. Going up to Suburbia, a half million dollar house who they already know everything in the world about before they planned the raid is just overkill, but it is par for the course in a country run by worthless reject from the effen 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scirocco38s Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Welcome to the Peoples Republic of California.I could say much about this from the cops side but I wont, all I can say is at least it wasent a no knock. Iff they were going in with that much firepower, why did they knock in the first place. They could see nerdly mcmuffin was no threat why continue the ninja act? If they had done their homework, they would have known he wasnt a problem in the first place. But they dont do the research they should anymore before they fly tactical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 (edited) "The old FBI would have done just that. But this is the new improved, and tactically outfitted FBI. All that BS about talk to the FBI for info and turn around and the FBI says talk to the police. Think about this, the FBI cant do anything in the county that warrant is served under without the permission of the sherriff( or at least in this state they cant) only a US marshall can perform duties without any other LE permission, so in 1 way or another they all are in cooperation. Going up to Suburbia, a half million dollar house who they already know everything in the world about before they planned the raid is just overkill, but it is par for the course in a country run by worthless reject from the effen 60's. " Please don't take this as being argumentative or any kind of insult as my only intent is to make sure nobody gets bad information as I'm sure that wasn't your intent. Also, I normally wouldn't reply to this, but someone might read and believe it which might cause them trouble at some point in the future (hope not, but you never know). Obviously, I have no idea where you were told that the FBI (or other federal law enforcement save the U.S.M.S.) can't do do anything in the county etc....without the permission of the sheriff, but it's not true anywhere, including N.C. I've talked with some retired agents that say they used to hear that frequently and there's a reason why that rumor has stuck around. There was a short period of time back in the 20s when the FBI was the "Bureau of Investigation" where the above was true, but it hasn't been that way for at least 75 years. There is nowhere in the U.S. short of a foreign embassy where the Bu can't serve a warrant, make an arrest etc. There is no requirement to inform or consult with local, county, or state law enforcement. Sometimes it's convenient and polite, but never necessary. The same is true for DEA, ICE etc. "But this is the new improved, and tactically outfitted FBI." The same can be said for virtually all law enforcement in this country. One thing to consider is that today's bad guys are not the bad guys of old who would normally put their hands up and surrender when challenged by law enforcement. Some of the most dangerous criminals are of the white collar kind....they haven't been in prison before, they have the most to lose, and it's "the end of the world" to them as opposed to the gang banger/drug dealer who's been arrested before, and will likely be arrested again. "Iff they were going in with that much firepower, why did they knock in the first place. They could see nerdly mcmuffin was no threat why continue the ninja act? If they had done their homework, they would have known he wasnt a problem in the first place. But they dont do the research they should anymore before they fly tactical. " Before anything like this happens they have to prove to their boss it's the next logical step, they have to prove to an Assistant United States Attorney that it's the next logical step and then they have to do the same with a judge. The affidavit in support of the application was probably 20-40 pages worth of supporting homework to show the research done. It's generally a heck of a lot of work and not something where they can just "fly tactical". P.S. I have a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on my desk next to my phone and read it pretty frequently as it's never a bad idea to be reminded of what's really important Edit for poor spelling. Edited October 22, 2007 by G-ManBart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I ran across this old document and thought it fit here. This is just a portion of it but you get the idea: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Ho Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Why do so many SWAT and other tacticool units wear digital urban camo? Is law enforment trying to hide? Shouldn't they be wearing bright orange and announcing their presence? We had an 'incident' a few years ago. Make a long story shot, wife leaves the house after a fight. Husband is throwing stuff out of the house on to the lawn. Wife tells cops that there are guns in the house. More likely cops ask wife if there are guns in the house. SWAT gets called out. APC and all. Apparently whenever guns are in a home SWAT is supposed to get called. This is medium sized town Texas. How many homes do NOT have guns? (this policy was changed immidiatly after the incident) SWAT surronds the house. Guy inside is on the phone with police when they start a break and rake. That is smash the window and pull down the blinds so they can see. Well here's where it goes bad. Police "sniper" fire a shot (AD?) grazing one officer and killing another. At this point everyone opens up on the house. over 300 rounds were fired. Guy inside gets hits with 2 richocets. Not only is there no fire discipline but they were horrible marksmen as well. Copious amounts of tear gas was also used. The guy ends up suing. But like a decent human being he doesn't go for the jugular. He sues for a what even I (even though I'm paying taxes to pay for it) consider to small an amount. One officer wounded, one killed, one civilian wounded. one house destroyed. The guns were antiques and still in the closet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom D. Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 The militarization of the police scares the snot out of me. Most jurisdictions dont need a SWAT team but it's the cool thing to do & I suspect heavily subsidized by the Feds. Have you ever considered how many armed Federal officers there are? Would be interesting to know, me thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 From the Bureau of Justice Statistics web site; http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fedle.htm: As of September 2004, Federal agencies employed about 106,000 full-time personnel authorized to make arrests and carry firearms. Function Number of full-time Federal officers* Total 106,354 Criminal investigation/enforcement 40,408 Police response and patrol 22,278 Inspections 17,280 Corrections/detention 16,530 Court operations 5,158 Security/protection 4,524 Other 176 *Nonmilitary Federal officers authorized to carry firearms and make arrests. Excludes officers in foreign countries. Of all Federal officers, 16.1% were women and 33.2% were members of a racial or ethnic minority. The largest employers of Federal officers, accounting for 63% of the total, were the: - U.S. Customs and Border Protection (28,200) - Federal Bureau of Prisons (15,361) - FBI (12,414) - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (10,691) About half of all Federal officers were employed in - Texas (14,633) - California (13,365) - the District of Columbia (9,201) - New York (8,159) - Florida (6,627) Nationwide, there were 36 Federal officers per 100,000 U.S. residents, including 1,662 per 100,000 residents in the District of Columbia. There were more than 60 per 100,000 residents in Arizona, North Dakota, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, and Alaska. There were fewer than 10 per 100,000 in Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Iowa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 If your friend had any luck at all, it was probably that the agency sent was the one sent.......as opposed to another that sometimes goes on uh, factually interesting, raids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 If we the people can bear arms. Why do the police have to be armed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 The militarization of the police scares the snot out of me. Most jurisdictions dont need a SWAT team but it's the cool thing to do & I suspect heavily subsidized by the Feds. Have you ever considered how many armed Federal officers there are? Would be interesting to know, me thinks. local swat teams crack me up-dudes running around with valaclava on to disguise themselves. lots of black garb. no wonder their budgets are hurting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Too bad that he did not have the house set up with video survalance equipment; 60 Minutes, 20/20 or YouTube could have worked wonders with such footage. If the raid-team members did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from such footage. As for the raid, if this was a mistake (we all make mistakes - that's human) he should sue them in civil court for damages. So the police made a mistake; that's fine, everyone makes mistakes, just pay the damages or the settlement & call it a day. Besides, shouldn't a judge should decide who is right here? If the raid-team members did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from such a law-suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chp5 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 The militarization of the police scares the snot out of me. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 The militarization of the police scares the snot out of me. Most jurisdictions dont need a SWAT team but it's the cool thing to do & I suspect heavily subsidized by the Feds. Have you ever considered how many armed Federal officers there are? Would be interesting to know, me thinks. I'm wondering how you decide what towns do and what towns don't need highly trained officers capable of dealing with high risk scenarios? It's kind of like saying "most people don't need guns...only people who carry large amounts of cash or go into bad areas need a gun". Doesn't that ring a bell? They probably thought they didn't need such a capability in Nickel Mines, PA before Charles Carl Roberts IV decided to take over the Amish school and kill kids. They probably thought they didn't need that capability in Columbine, CO, which is a very "good" area...but then Klebold and Harris spoiled the fairy tale. Virginia Tech probably didn't think they needed that capability either.... So really, how do you chose? The problem (well, one of several) is that the only time you ever hear about a SWAT hit or raid is if something goes wrong, or isn't as it was thought to be. If someone exercises extreme caution, uses their team, and it turns out to be a wasted effort everyone gets mad at them for trying to militaristic and going overboard. The second something bad happens those same people want to know "how the police could let something like this happen"....it's a lose-lose situation. If nothing happens you're going overboard. If something happens you didn't take enough measures to prevent it. No, I'm NOT on a SWAT team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 If we the people can bear arms. Why do the police have to be armed ? Because they actively go looking for the people we carry guns to protect ourselves against just in case we run into them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts