Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: A safely executed SW of Nazir Al-Mujaahid armed rights actist's home with children.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    A safely executed SW of Nazir Al-Mujaahid armed rights actist's home with children.

    Before law enforcement executed a search warrant at Al-Mujaahid's home on Oct. 30, 2012, agents took him into custody for safety reasons, knowing up to a half-dozen children could be in the house, Barnes said. Barnes sent Al-Mujaahid a letter asking him to appear at the State Office Building in downtown Milwaukee on that date. Al-Mujaahid went to the building, was taken into custody and released after the search was completed.

    "We knew that he had weapons, surveillance cameras," Barnes testified. "There's a concern that if the officers had stormed the place or otherwise crashed in the door, there may have been a gunfight and children or himself or the officers might have been injured."

    When Susan M. Roth, Al-Mujaahid's attorney, asked for more information on the rationale, Barnes referenced the Aldi shooting.

    "He's been known to shoot an individual during an attempted robbery and he's got a history ... of arrests for weapons," Barnes said.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/t...299107141.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    "In custody for safety reasons."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    And folks have been wondering all along why the cops don't pick the person up at work or somewhere else so they do not have to crash the doors in and the homeowner/resident wonder if it is a legal home invasion or one of those criminal ones.

    Now the cops do exactly that, and the whining and whinging flows.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    I see no whining here or at MJS, but proper respect for Mr. Al Mujahiid and his rights and safety of children. You are whinging (persistently complaining) unnecessarily.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 04-09-2015 at 08:37 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I see no whining here or at MJS, but proper respect for Mr. Al Mujahiid and his rights and safety of children. You are whinging (persistently complaining) unnecessarily.
    Proper respect? Did you read the story you linked to?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    UPDATE!! Added paragraphs since the original posting.

    As grounds for the motion, attorney Steven Kohn referenced a conversation he had with a state Department of Justice agent who said Al-Mujaahid needed to be convicted of a felony so he could not have a firearm. Kohn wrote that the agent said in her opinion, based on information from Homeland Security and other sources, Al-Mujaahid was a dangerous man and she also expressed interest in having Al-Mujaahid provide information from the Muslim community.

    Kohn highlighted that conversation because he said his client believed a motivating factor for the tax fraud prosecution was his refusal to become a government informant within the Muslim community.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/t...299107141.html

    Elsewhere at MJS, "If Nazir Al-Mujaahid, 38, is convicted of any of the six felonies he faces he would no longer be able to legally possess a firearm or obtain a Wisconsin concealed-carry permit." IIRC, Mr. Al Mujaahid used his legally concealed gun in the Aldi's incident.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 04-09-2015 at 11:47 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    popple butte
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    As grounds for the motion, attorney Steven Kohn referenced a conversation he had with a state Department of Justice agent who said Al-Mujaahid needed to be convicted of a felony so he could not have a firearm. Kohn wrote that the agent said in her opinion, based on information from Homeland Security and other sources, Al-Mujaahid was a dangerous man and she also expressed interest in having Al-Mujaahid provide information from the Muslim community.

    Kohn highlighted that conversation because he said his client believed a motivating factor for the tax fraud prosecution was his refusal to become a government informant within the Muslim community.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/t...299107141.html

    Elsewhere at MJS, "If Nazir Al-Mujaahid, 38, is convicted of any of the six felonies he faces he would no longer be able to legally possess a firearm or obtain a Wisconsin concealed-carry permit." IIRC, Mr. Al Mujaahid used his legally concealed gun in the Aldi's incident.
    The judge denied the motion. Outstanding.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And folks have been wondering all along why the cops don't pick the person up at work or somewhere else so they do not have to crash the doors in and the homeowner/resident wonder if it is a legal home invasion or one of those criminal ones.

    Now the cops do exactly that, and the whining and whinging flows.
    Seriously? You're being exactly like those you claim to be criticizing. Nothing's ever good enough, is it?

    I for one am pleased the police didn't storm his house. I feel their caution was eminently reasonable, and it immediately caught my attention as being so far outside the present norm.

    That said, I'm not going to celebrate the arrest of any person for tax "fraud", given that tax itself (under a government putatively formed with our consent) is a prior act of fraud.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    SNIP That said, I'm not going to celebrate the arrest of any person for tax "fraud", given that tax itself (under a government putatively formed with our consent) is a prior act of fraud.
    Double-especially when the accusing entity enables, supports, and uses the massive fraud of fractional-reserve* banking. And, insult-heaped-on-insult, forces that fraud on us with fiat currency, giving us no way to avoid being victims of that fraud. Huge massive fraudsters accusing someone else of fraud? Puh-leez. If it wasn't so serious, I'd suffocate from laughter.



    *The words fractional-reserve refers to banks having on hand only a fraction of what they owe depositors. Recall the explanation you heard in junior high about how banks work: you deposit $10 into your savings account; the bank loans out $9 to somebody else, keeping $1. That $1 is the fractional-reserve. It is one dollar reserved, just like a home cook might reserve some browned onions to make gravy, while serving the rest over smothered steak. Because the $1 is a fraction of what the bank owes you, it is called a fractional-reserve.

    Fractional-reserve banking is a fraud because in any other business in the world, if you gave two different people title to the same property, you'd go to prison for fraud. Yet, with the active support and blessing of government, bankers do not. The double-title occurs because the money you deposited would be rightfully still yours, and yet, when the borrower pays it to someone else--say HomeDepot to pay for the lumber for his new addition--that recipient also has title to the same money. Government and supporters of fractional reserve banking come up with some of the most fantastically strained explanations of why this is not fraud--so be ready for it. But, they all boil down to claiming you somehow do not actually own the money you put in the bank; its no longer yours.

    Now, that would all be that way, except its actually worse. The junior high school explanation contains a grain of truth--receive $10 deposit/loan $9. But, its an explanation for a child. An explanation the government schools conveniently forget to enlarge and make more accurate when the student gets older, or publicly broadcast when he becomes an adult. The actual mechanism is to receive ten dollars in deposit and invent nine out of thin air. The ratio is the same--9/1. But, now the bankster gets to earn interest in ten times as much.

    And, having created $9 out of thin air, the bankster actually increases the volume of money in the marketplace. Here is the fraud: the bankster presents that thin-air money to the borrower as though it has the same value as the money already in existence. And, for a time, it does. But, because it dilutes the value of the money already in the system, neither that new money nor the existing money will keep their value. You know the result of this mechanism as price inflation. The more there is of something, the less its worth. When you get more dollars chasing the same amount of goods in the economy, prices go up. The new money being created out of thin air by the banking system and the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank steals its value from the value of already-existing money, which includes your savings.

    And, you're locked-in to this by that little phrase printed on every piece of currency in your wallet: This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private. You cannot escape this fraud unless you go on a barter-only basis. No alternate currencies allowed--courts won't enforce the contract. Gold was destroyed as an operable money years ago. Nope. You're locked-in to "dollars", and the privately-owned Federal Reserve is happy to print them (as digits in a computer) as fast as the fedgov can borrow them.

    And, the biggest shackle of all in this is capital gains tax on gold, silver, etc. If, in trying to escape the fractional-reserve banking fraud, you regularly buy, for example, gold, when you go to cash in that gold, you are taxed on the increase in value. That's just another way of saying, if the banksters and government reduce the value of the dollar through inflation, making your gold worth more--which was your whole reason for buying the gold in the first place--you have to pay taxes on it. You cannot even factor in the lower value of the dollar in calculating the increase in dollar value of your gold--you get socked for the whole increase.

    I would need to string together every cuss word known to Mark Twain and my drill instructors to convey my sentiments on that. And, that is before the perpetrators of that system accuse someone else of tax fraud.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-09-2015 at 09:49 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Setting aside the alleged past actions details of the accused, I find this safely executed search warrant to be a good example to other departments of how non-violent these searches can be. No need to barge into a home eliciting a home defense reaction from the residents who likely don't know it is police and not common thugs invading their home (in certain cases, I would be accused of repeating myself, but this is not one such case, I hope).

    That said, I get the sensation some shady proceedings took place here.

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And folks have been wondering all along why the cops don't pick the person up at work or somewhere else so they do not have to crash the doors in and the homeowner/resident wonder if it is a legal home invasion or one of those criminal ones.

    Now the cops do exactly that, and the whining and whinging flows.

    stay safe.
    I didn't see this thread (fairly busy as of late), else I would have commented sooner. Marshaul and Citizen have already given several reasons as to why this arrest and search warrant could be considered to be hypocritical (putting it mildly).

    Just because the search warrant wasn't executed in such a way as to result in him being executed doesn't mean the search warrant and arrest ("in custody" is a euphemism) should have been needed/issued in the first place. I'd hardly consider such an observation to be whining or whinging.

    Parable time:
    If you have a neighbor who regularly slaps you across the face and breaks whatever you are carrying, you have a valid reason to complain. Am I correct so far?
    If the neighbor one day slaps you, but doesn't break your belongings, you should suddenly praise the neighbor and stop your complaining because this new routine is not "as bad" as the former treatment of you. Have I understood correctly?
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 04-09-2015 at 11:13 PM. Reason: Format
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Ignoring any grossly off-topic questions of whether tax laws are just, or even marginally off-topic questions of whether any government official is trying to railroad this guy for one reason or another....

    Let me just join Skidmark and Marshaul in agreeing that if a search warrant has been duly issued and is to be executed, this appears to be a far better way to go about it than kicking in doors at 2:00 am.

    There is another lesson we might learn here. It seems that if you are known to be well armed and known to have security cameras and other security equipment in place, the powers-that-be might be more prone to executing warrants in a civilized, rather than brute force kind of manner. I'm guessing cameras and other equipment that would create objective evidence of how a raid was conducted might be the larger motivating factor in such decisions.

    But whatever the motivation, we should be pleased that this warrant was executed in a manner least likely to result in anyone being hurt.

    I personally think two guys knocking on the door during the day, presenting the warrant, and giving the subject of the warrant a chance to peacefully comply would be even better. But I recognize there are those who wouldn't comply, and arresting them outside the home would be safer. But methinks anyone who will voluntarily show up at a courthouse is likely to comply peacefully if a couple of uniformed cops show up with duly signed warrant in hand.

    Charles
    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. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Good point about the cameras. There are certainly ample cases of cops storming houses with guns, kids, but no cameras.

    Maybe an investment in security cameras is a good idea.

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Good point about the cameras. There are certainly ample cases of cops storming houses with guns, kids, but no cameras.

    Maybe an investment in security cameras is a good idea.
    +1
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  14. #14
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,877
    so LE's should save the kicking in the door, guns drawn, middle of the night theatrics for welfare checks on elderly folk?

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/news...are_check.html

    nada, zip, zero, accountability accepted by the Gastonia NC savants who at 2330 kicked in the BACK door to check on the 74 year olde Vet.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Before law enforcement executed a search warrant at Al-Mujaahid's home on Oct. 30, 2012, agents took him into custody for safety reasons, knowing up to a half-dozen children could be in the house, Barnes said.


    Barnes sent Al-Mujaahid a letter asking him to appear at the State Office Building in downtown Milwaukee on that date. Al-Mujaahid went to the building, was taken into custody and released after the search was completed.
    It is a sad day when some esteemed members here do not grasp the severity of the rights violations heaped upon the perp...sad indeed.

    Anyway, I guess it really is OK for the state to deny you your freedoms...for safety reasons...especially when the state proclaims to be the only arbiter of what is, or is not, safe for you and I. Reasonable, no?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Better isn't always good. Sometimes it is just that, better.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Regular Member 1FASTC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tomahawk
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    And folks have been wondering all along why the cops don't pick the person up at work or somewhere else so they do not have to crash the doors in and the homeowner/resident wonder if it is a legal home invasion or one of those criminal ones.

    Now the cops do exactly that, and the whining and whinging flows.

    stay safe.
    You've missed the point. It wasn't an arrest warrant.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 1FASTC4 View Post
    You've missed the point. It wasn't an arrest warrant.
    It does raise an interesting point, though.

    As I understand it, if you are home when a search is performed, the police can control your person--make you sit on the couch, handcuff you if needed, etc.--the rationale being to 1) prevent you destroying evidence, and 2) prevent you hurting the cops.

    So, if you are not home at the time of the search, can police legally seize and control you? Under what circumstances? How far from home must you be before it is an unreasonable seizure? What about fedgov so-called sneak-and-peek secret searches? If safety of officers is so paramount, how can a sneek-and-peek be justified? Meaning, you might come home in the middle of the peeking and start hurting officers/agents just like you might come home if the police didn't seize and control you for typical home searches.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by 1FASTC4 View Post
    You've missed the point. It wasn't an arrest warrant.
    Which is interesting because in my conversations with local police officers I've learned that they can often get an arrest warrant easier than they can get a search warrant for the suspect's home.

    In many cases, they are quite deliberately choosing to execute an arrest warrant at the home in hopes of seeing enough evidence of criminal activity "in plain sight" that they can then justify a search warrant for the full home. And quite often their hopes bear out as they do find illicit drugs, guns (under the control of prohibited persons), "excessive" and unexplained cash, or other evidence of criminal activity in plain sight. They easily get the search warrant and find evidence of additional crimes.

    Lest anyone accuse me wrongly, I do not support this conduct on the part of cops, nor judges who issue "no knock" arrest warrants rather than telling the cops to either make the arrest away from the home, or to get sufficient evidence for a search warrant. I'm simply explaining what I've had explained to me.

    Detaining the suspect while the arrest warrant is executed at his home is troubling. Obviously, while the warrant is being executed the police can and should maintain control of the premises. So it seems all they needed to do was get him out long enough to secure the premises, and then not let him back in until they were done. He should have been free to stand on the sidewalk and watch, or go to the bar, or go connect with his attorney, or whatever until such time as they had sufficient evidence for an arrest warrant. That said, getting him out the home peacefully rather than kicking in doors under cover of darkness is a step in the right direction. Seems there are a couple of more steps needed.


    Charles
    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. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    It does raise an interesting point, though.

    As I understand it, if you are home when a search is performed, the police can control your person--make you sit on the couch, handcuff you if needed, etc.--the rationale being to 1) prevent you destroying evidence, and 2) prevent you hurting the cops.
    While this is typical, I was under the impression that in most cases, if a search warrant is executed in the absence of an arrest warrant, officers may not detail occupants of the home unless there are grounds for an arrest discovered in the initial stages of executing the search warrant. If the occupants are not arrested, they should be free to leave while the police execute the search.

    Are there statutes or court rulings to the contrary?

    Charles
    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. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    SNIP If the occupants are not arrested, they should be free to leave while the police execute the search.

    Are there statutes or court rulings to the contrary?

    Charles
    Good question. I don't know. Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever read a case about it. Lots of cases about minutia like whether police can search the bag of a visitor who just happens to be present at the time of the search. But, I can't recall any cases where someone was prevented from leaving and then sued about it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by 1FASTC4 View Post
    You've missed the point. It wasn't an arrest warrant.
    skid did not miss the point, he ignores the point. The op has the "point" right in it...the state determined that a justified use of a firearm in the perp's past justified the violations that the perp suffered at the hands of the state. Again, the state is the only arbiter of the "point."

    "We knew that he had weapons, surveillance cameras," Barnes testified. "There's a concern that if the officers had stormed the place or otherwise crashed in the door, there may have been a gunfight and children or himself or the officers might have been injured."

    When Susan M. Roth, Al-Mujaahid's attorney, asked for more information on the rationale, Barnes referenced the Aldi shooting.

    "He's been known to shoot an individual during an attempted robbery and he's got a history ... of arrests for weapons," Barnes said.
    The point is that lawful behavior/acts will be viewed as a threat to the state, and their agents, as the state sees fit...on a whim.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    skid did not miss the point, he ignores the point. The op has the "point" right in it...the state determined that a justified use of a firearm in the perp's past justified the violations that the perp suffered at the hands of the state. Again, the state is the only arbiter of the "point."

    The point is that lawful behavior/acts will be viewed as a threat to the state, and their agents, as the state sees fit...on a whim.
    Ah yes, that evil state. To anarchists, their apologists, and other simpletons everything starts looking like a hammer.

    At some point could we get this board back to being pro-OC/RKBA rather than anti-cop/anti-government. It is like I'm in a high school literature class that has just discovered Ayn Rand for the first time.

    How about this, the guys executing the warrant are supposed to evaluate how to do so safely. I expect a 300 pound body building professional fighter is going to be deemed a higher risk than the bed ridden grandmother.

    The cops know the guy owns guns, has shown a willingness and ability to effectively use the guns for self-defense in the past, and has security systems to capture objective evidence of how the warrant is executed. So they decide not to kick in doors at 2 am but to do something peaceful, less likely to get themselves or anyone else killed.

    Sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Would that the cops would show such deference to everyone, rather than just those they fear might present a threat of meaningful resistance if they wake up thinking maybe a gang of criminals is busting in.

    Whether the warrant and charges are bogus or not remains to be seen. Assuming there is any validity to them, then I'm glad to see something other than doors kicked in under cover of darkness. I will trust a jury of regular citizens to determine guilt or innocence of any charges.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 04-17-2015 at 12:45 AM.
    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. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    popple butte
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Ah yes, that evil state. To anarchists, their apologists, and other simpletons everything starts looking like a hammer.

    At some point could we get this board back to being pro-OC/RKBA rather than anti-cop/anti-government. It is like I'm in a high school literature class that has just discovered Ayn Rand for the first time.

    How about this, the guys executing the warrant are supposed to evaluate how to do so safely. I expect a 300 pound body building professional fighter is going to be deemed a higher risk than the bed ridden grandmother.

    The cops know the guy owns guns, has shown a willingness and ability to effectively use the guns for self-defense in the past, and has security systems to capture objective evidence of how the warrant is executed. So they decide not to kick in doors at 2 am but to do something peaceful, less likely to get themselves or anyone else killed.

    Sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Would that the cops would show such deference to everyone, rather than just those they fear might present a threat of meaningful resistance if they wake up thinking maybe a gang of criminals is busting in.

    Whether the warrant and charges are bogus or not remains to be seen. Assuming there is any validity to them, then I'm glad to see something other than doors kicked in under cover of darkness. I will trust a jury of regular citizens to determine guilt or innocence of any charges.

    Charles
    Outstanding logic. As for the charges the trial begins April 29.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Ah yes, that evil state. To anarchists, their apologists, and other simpletons everything starts looking like a hammer.
    Non sequitur.

    The state's own words are re-posted, please see Post #22, to focus readers/members on my concerns with this incident. The rights violations perpetrated upon the perp are clearly evident.

    Your insult(s) are noted.

    At some point could we get this board back to being pro-OC/RKBA rather than anti-cop/anti-government. It is like I'm in a high school literature class that has just discovered Ayn Rand for the first time.
    You certainly have the prerogative to not post a comment in this thread.

    How about this, the guys executing the warrant are supposed to evaluate how to do so safely. I expect a 300 pound body building professional fighter is going to be deemed a higher risk than the bed ridden grandmother.
    Execution of the warrant is not my focus, it is the detainment that is my focus, please see Post #2.

    The cops know the guy owns guns, has shown a willingness and ability to effectively use the guns for self-defense in the past, and has security systems to capture objective evidence of how the warrant is executed. So they decide not to kick in doors at 2 am but to do something peaceful, less likely to get themselves or anyone else killed.
    Please see Post #2.

    Sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Would that the cops would show such deference to everyone, rather than just those they fear might present a threat of meaningful resistance if they wake up thinking maybe a gang of criminals is busting in.
    A unlawful detainment for "safety reasons" is not a "step in the right direction" in my view. Please see Post #2 and #22.

    Whether the warrant and charges are bogus or not remains to be seen. Assuming there is any validity to them, then I'm glad to see something other than doors kicked in under cover of darkness. I will trust a jury of regular citizens to determine guilt or innocence of any charges.

    Charles
    My concern/focus is not the warrant, but the unlawful detainment, please see Post #2.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •