SWAT officers invade home, Police demand boy go to doctor because of fall during horseplay. WorldND

imported post

irfner wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

vmathis12019 wrote:

So now being "rude and confrontational" and being a "constitutionalist" makes you enough of a threat to send in the SWAT team? I am a constitutionalist and have found myself needing to be rude and confrontational before! I hope a SWAT team doesn't kick down my door! This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm going to hold any more comments until I cool down a bit. This kind of stuff just boils my blood.

Click to expand...

ANYONE who makes threats or comments aboutdoing harm toPolice are damaging their reputation, and these comments will be noted.

Click to expand...

Translation; So you had better be watching over your shoulder even when talking to your friends because if we hear you making comments we don't like you will be dealt with. We have ears everywhere. And we will keep secretfiles on you. We don't care if they contain hearsay or rumor. We don't carewhat the source. It had just better not be something we don't like.

And we are supposed to be ok with that because you are the good guys right?Oh yea I almost forgot you are doing this to protect us. Yea ok thats better.

Click to expand...

What the hell is wrong with all of you? He didn't enter the guy into the system because he saw him buy and evil black rifle, he entered him in there because he overheard him threaten to kill police officers. There's a big BIG difference. I don't like big brother keeping an eye on me either, but this guy obviously has a problem, and Johnny Law is doing us all a service by taking note of it.

He's not going arround taking notes on potential gun owners, but if I got on this board and said "you know the next time I get pulled over and I don't think I've done anything wrong, I'm not waiting for the cop to explain himself, I'm just going to blow his head off when he gets to my window", you are damn right that he should enter that into the system, because some cop's going to get killed if he doesn't. He can't arrest me for saying that, but he sure as hell can warn his fellow officers, and I would say that it was his duty to do so.

Jesus, people! What is wrong with you?!

imported post

expvideo wrote:

...he entered him in there because he overheard him threaten to kill police officers. There's a big BIG difference. I don't like big brother keeping an eye on me either, but this guy obviously has a problem, and Johnny Law is doing us all a service by taking note of it.

He's not going arround taking notes on potential gun owners, but if I got on this board and said "you know the next time I get pulled over and I don't think I've done anything wrong, I'm not waiting for the cop to explain himself, I'm just going to blow his head off when he gets to my window", you are damn right that he should enter that into the system, because some cop's going to get killed if he doesn't. He can't arrest me for saying that, but he sure as hell can warn his fellow officers, and I would say that it was his duty to do so.

Jesus, people! What is wrong with you?!

Click to expand...

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

expvideo wrote:

...he entered him in there because he overheard him threaten to kill police officers. There's a big BIG difference. I don't like big brother keeping an eye on me either, but this guy obviously has a problem, and Johnny Law is doing us all a service by taking note of it.

He's not going arround taking notes on potential gun owners, but if I got on this board and said "you know the next time I get pulled over and I don't think I've done anything wrong, I'm not waiting for the cop to explain himself, I'm just going to blow his head off when he gets to my window", you are damn right that he should enter that into the system, because some cop's going to get killed if he doesn't. He can't arrest me for saying that, but he sure as hell can warn his fellow officers, and I would say that it was his duty to do so.

Jesus, people! What is wrong with you?!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You have mastered the skill of using a person's words against them, young brave.

imported post

And another one bites the dust! Bump bump bump, bites the dust.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

expvideo wrote:

...he entered him in there because he overheard him threaten to kill police officers. There's a big BIG difference. I don't like big brother keeping an eye on me either, but this guy obviously has a problem, and Johnny Law is doing us all a service by taking note of it.

He's not going arround taking notes on potential gun owners, but if I got on this board and said "you know the next time I get pulled over and I don't think I've done anything wrong, I'm not waiting for the cop to explain himself, I'm just going to blow his head off when he gets to my window", you are damn right that he should enter that into the system, because some cop's going to get killed if he doesn't. He can't arrest me for saying that, but he sure as hell can warn his fellow officers, and I would say that it was his duty to do so.

Jesus, people! What is wrong with you?!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

However eloquently put, I still failed to get your point.

imported post

Gonna need a drink for this nonsense!

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

expvideo wrote:

...he entered him in there because he overheard him threaten to kill police officers. There's a big BIG difference. I don't like big brother keeping an eye on me either, but this guy obviously has a problem, and Johnny Law is doing us all a service by taking note of it.

He's not going arround taking notes on potential gun owners, but if I got on this board and said "you know the next time I get pulled over and I don't think I've done anything wrong, I'm not waiting for the cop to explain himself, I'm just going to blow his head off when he gets to my window", you are damn right that he should enter that into the system, because some cop's going to get killed if he doesn't. He can't arrest me for saying that, but he sure as hell can warn his fellow officers, and I would say that it was his duty to do so.

Jesus, people! What is wrong with you?!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

However eloquently put, I still failed to get your point.

Click to expand...

The point is that Johnny Law placed information into a databank about a person that was based on an overheard conversation without knowing the context of the conversation. A person now has a black mark against him. And since LEOs are known to overreact based on bad info someone will get hurt. And we will be reading this in the papers about how the swat team busted down someones door that that in the end was based on bad information.

Does this explain the problem with Johnny's actions.

We are in Iraq because of bad info. Is that a better reason?

imported post

color of law wrote:

Ohio Revised Code
5503.10 Law enforcement automated data system.
<snip>

Click to expand...

So Google for this fully typed out acronym says Washington, Ohio, Illinois.. SO not YET nationwide? Only in some states?

Not that it makes me feel any better about it to not find this in my state. (I am sure there is another cute lil alphabet title for how they do it here.)

Erus

imported post

color of law wrote:

expvideo wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

expvideo wrote:

...he entered him in there because he overheard him threaten to kill police officers. There's a big BIG difference. I don't like big brother keeping an eye on me either, but this guy obviously has a problem, and Johnny Law is doing us all a service by taking note of it.

He's not going arround taking notes on potential gun owners, but if I got on this board and said "you know the next time I get pulled over and I don't think I've done anything wrong, I'm not waiting for the cop to explain himself, I'm just going to blow his head off when he gets to my window", you are damn right that he should enter that into the system, because some cop's going to get killed if he doesn't. He can't arrest me for saying that, but he sure as hell can warn his fellow officers, and I would say that it was his duty to do so.

Jesus, people! What is wrong with you?!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

However eloquently put, I still failed to get your point.

Click to expand...

The point is that Johnny Law placed information into a databank about a person that was based on an overheard conversation without knowing the context of the conversation. A person now has a black mark against him. And since LEOs are known to overreact based on bad info someone will get hurt. And we will be reading this in the papers about how the swat team busted down someones door that that in the end was based on bad information.

Does this explain the problem with Johnny's actions.

We are in Iraq because of bad info. Is that a better reason?

Click to expand...

JL didn't put information into a system based on a misunderstood fragment of a sentence or based on something somebody else told him that they overheard. He witnessed first-hand a man saying that he would kill police officers if they stepped onto his property. This is EXACTLY the same thing as if I said I would kill a cop if he pulled me over rather than take a ticket. His reaction was not to arrest the man or tap his phone, it was to put a red flag on his profile in their system, to warn officers to approach his house with the level of caution that this man has just advertized to the world is needed.

He was 100% justified and did exactly as he should have.

imported post

Would things be clear - clearer - if I found a little yellow star 'smilie' to put after my name? I'd rather that than be confused with 'statists,' for lack of a PC term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Would things be clear - clearer - if I found a little yellow star 'smilie' to put after my name? I'd rather that than be confused with 'statists,' for lack of a PC term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statist

Click to expand...

How does the man's public statement that he was planning to kill any police officers that came down his driveway in any way a "personal, social or economic matter" that doesn't warrant government to put a note in a non-public file? And how is a note in a non-public file (put there purely for officer safety) in any way "significant state intervention"? I know you like to show off your vocabulary, but you are stretching that word to mean something that it doesn't.

imported post

Let me get one thing straight:

I do NOT condone infringing on civil liberties in the name of officer safety.

But I DO support JL's decision to warn other officers of a possible violent person, so that they can approach him with caution. He didn't enter them into a system because he overheard that he owned an AK47. He didn't enter him into the system because he overheard him ranting about hating cops. He entered him into the system because he threatened to kill police officers, and that is a BIG difference.

This isn't a system that is used in NICS checks. This isn't public information, or something that goes on his record in a court room. This is a note on his name that officers can see so that they know he is planning to kill them.

imported post

"Only the guilty dog barks while no man pursueth."

imported post

expvideo wrote:

But I DO support JL's decision to warn other officers of a possible violent person, so that they can approach him with caution. He didn't enter them into a system because he overheard that he owned an AK47. He didn't enter him into the system because he overheard him ranting about hating cops. He entered him into the system because he threatened to kill police officers, and that is a BIG difference.

This isn't a system that is used in NICS checks. This isn't public information, or something that goes on his record in a court room. This is a note on his name that officers can see so that they know he is planning to kill them.

Click to expand...

Johnny law's original comment:

I personally once overheard a gentleman talking at a local gun show to another man. He said that if he ever saw the Police coming up his driveway, he would shoot them all. I was able to discern his identity and address, and logged this info into a database for future reference.

As you can imagine,a response to his house would be far different than a typical one.What some may consider "loose talk", may betaken very seriously by others.

EXP, you are an intelligent individual. Can you tell me which is the person who would talk about his plans to shoot any police that come up his driveway? The one who is all talk and has an inflated sense of machismo because he is standing at pinnacle of manliness, IE: a gun show; or the man who truly poses a threat to other humans? Would he have been considered such a threat had he said at that moment Islamists instead of police? What about all the times that someone said they could "kill" their boss, friends, rivals, competition or spouses? How about arresting comedians every time they bomb on stage?

imported post

expvideo wrote:

color of law wrote:

The point is that Johnny Law placed information into a databank about a person that was based on an overheard conversation without knowing the context of the conversation. A person now has a black mark against him. And since LEOs are known to overreact based on bad info someone will get hurt. And we will be reading this in the papers about how the swat team busted down someones door that that in the end was based on bad information.

Does this explain the problem with Johnny's actions.

We are in Iraq because of bad info. Is that a better reason?

Click to expand...

JL didn't put information into a system based on a misunderstood fragment of a sentence or based on something somebody else told him that they overheard. He witnessed first-hand a man saying that he would kill police officers if they stepped onto his property. This is EXACTLY the same thing as if I said I would kill a cop if he pulled me over rather than take a ticket. His reaction was not to arrest the man or tap his phone, it was to put a red flag on his profile in their system, to warn officers to approach his house with the level of caution that this man has just advertized to the world is needed.

He was 100% justified and did exactly as he should have.

Click to expand...

Thank you Expvideo,

I am certainly glad to see that there are some who see the logic in this. What some fail to realize is that this info may someday save a life. This is not a "black mark" against the person in question, but merely a caution that he may be a threat.

It is placed in a local system only, and it is not leads. The only time this info is even seen is when the person's name is ran, or his address is being dispatched to. There are many of these warnings in the system, and they are entered by administrators who have read a formalreport or FIR. (field info report) which is a more informal version of a report. The reports are of course Officer generated, and based on a contact with person(s). This is why it isNOT "bad information".

It is no different than someone's name being flagged because they have fought with Police in the past. It doesn't mean that they will fight next time, but it is important to the next Officer (who may contact this person) to be aware, as it may save his life.

Dispatch (911) will ask people reporting something if there are weapons in the home, and if the person in question has made any comments about fighting or wanting to kill Officers. That info is then relayed to the responding Officers, so that they may take extra precautions when contacting. This is not only smart, but it helps keep you alive. There are many out there who want to harm Officers, and I have certainly encountered several. Having this info ahead of time can, and hassaved lives.

Many times a person has said that if the Police show up they would shoot at them. If you think I don't that seriously, you are mistaken.

It is no different than whena personis going to asketchy part of town. You want to know that first so you can be extra vigilant. Take Hilltop (Tacoma) for example. You have all heard about the problems there. It doesn't mean anything bad is going to happen if you go there, but a smart person would certainly be a little more alert while there.

imported post

Would that be like the note in the file of the guy who had the swat team break down his door throw his wife and kids to the floor at gun point. Because he was a constitutionalist and had made statements in the past. Statements unable to be recalled at the moment. Is that the kind of mark in the file? Or if the man overheard talking called 911 the next month,what then?

We are talking about a conversation with at least three participants. The two or more people talking and the one eavesdropping. The eavesdropper then putting unsubstantiated allegations in a file. That is a system ripe for abuse. Not that a LEO would ever lie or try to force a point buthe doesn'teven know the full context of the conversation. He doesn't know the history of this man or his friend. The man did not threaten a cop. He did not point a gun at a cop. He did not raise his voice to a cop. He wasn't even talking to a cop. Perhaps he was the man who had his door kicked in that morning and was still pissed about it, venting to his friend. What he did do was have a conversation that was eavesdropped on.The eavesdropper then took part of what he overheardand made sure he could use this secret file thing to stick it up the guys butt. Thatbecause he didn't like what he thought this guy was saying.

I am not completely ambivalent to the needs of law enforcement. Such as what to do if a LEO overhears someone planning a robbery or such. What I am completely against is long term secret files that can be filled with unsubstantiated crap that will seriously affect someones life. It is easy to use the officer safety or public safety line to justify abuses of power. Secret files areamong those abuses. The power of law enforcement is so great it is easily abused weather intentionally or not. Often those who have the power don't even know they are abusing it. Seems perfectly justified to them.

imported post

.40 Cal wrote:

expvideo wrote:

But I DO support JL's decision to warn other officers of a possible violent person, so that they can approach him with caution. He didn't enter them into a system because he overheard that he owned an AK47. He didn't enter him into the system because he overheard him ranting about hating cops. He entered him into the system because he threatened to kill police officers, and that is a BIG difference.

This isn't a system that is used in NICS checks. This isn't public information, or something that goes on his record in a court room. This is a note on his name that officers can see so that they know he is planning to kill them.

Click to expand...

Johnny law's original comment:

I personally once overheard a gentleman talking at a local gun show to another man. He said that if he ever saw the Police coming up his driveway, he would shoot them all. I was able to discern his identity and address, and logged this info into a database for future reference.

As you can imagine,a response to his house would be far different than a typical one.What some may consider "loose talk", may betaken very seriously by others.

EXP, you are an intelligent individual. Can you tell me which is the person who would talk about his plans to shoot any police that come up his driveway? The one who is all talk and has an inflated sense of machismo because he is standing at pinnacle of manliness, IE: a gun show; or the man who truly poses a threat to other humans? Would he have been considered such a threat had he said at that moment Islamists instead of police? What about all the times that someone said they could "kill" their boss, friends, rivals, competition or spouses? How about arresting comedians every time they bomb on stage?

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether the guy was just blowing smoke, the fact of the matter is that he said in a very public place, loud enough for JL to hear him, that he had the intention of shooting police officers. This is not a hypothetical "man I wish somebody would just shoot my boss" comment. This is also not a private comment via telephone, this was said in public and expressed loudly enough for JL to hear it.

I don't care if the guy was serious or not, I don't want to read in the paper about some poor officer being gunned down in this guy's driveway, when it could have been prevented by a little warning note on a local police computer. JL didn't arrest him or take him in for questioning, he just entered the guy into a local system so that officers are aware that this man is a potential danger. And yes, this may mean that a simple warrant turns into a SWAT team, but maybe this guy should have thought about the consequences of going around spouting off about how he plans to shoot cops.

This guy is a bad apple, and you are defending a ridiculous point. I would never sacrifice personal liberty for safety, and that is not what JL has done. He has entered a red flag for officers that will be entering this man's property.

It is not up to me or you or even JL to determine whether this man meant what he was saying or if it was just macho bravado. The fact of the matter is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And that wheel was squealing.

If I said to someone that I was planning to go shoot up a school, and you overheard it, would you let somebody know, or would you respect the fact that I was probably just trying to sound macho? Talking about killing people, no matter how idle the conversation may be, is something that should be reported. You are not going to convince me otherwise.


edit: crappy spelling

imported post

irfner wrote:

Would that be like the note in the file of the guy who had the swat team break down his door throw his wife and kids to the floor at gun point. Because he was a constitutionalist and had made statements in the past. Statements unable to be recalled at the moment. Is that the kind of mark in the file? Or if the man overheard talking called 911 the next month,what then?

We are talking about a conversation with at least three participants. The two or more people talking and the one eavesdropping. The eavesdropper then putting unsubstantiated allegations in a file. That is a system ripe for abuse. Not that a LEO would ever lie or try to force a point buthe doesn'teven know the full context of the conversation. He doesn't know the history of this man or his friend. The man did not threaten a cop. He did not point a gun at a cop. He did not raise his voice to a cop. He wasn't even talking to a cop. Perhaps he was the man who had his door kicked in that morning and was still pissed about it, venting to his friend. What he did do was have a conversation that was eavesdropped on.The eavesdropper then took part of what he overheardand made sure he could use this secret file thing to stick it up the guys butt. Thatbecause he didn't like what he thought this guy was saying.

I am not completely ambivalent to the needs of law enforcement. Such as what to do if a LEO overhears someone planning a robbery or such. What I am completely against is long term secret files that can be filled with unsubstantiated crap that will seriously affect someones life. It is easy to use the officer safety or public safety line to justify abuses of power. Secret files areamong those abuses. The power of law enforcement is so great it is easily abused weather intentionally or not. Often those who have the power don't even know they are abusing it. Seems perfectly justified to them.

Click to expand...

If this guy is spouting off publicly about his plans to murder police officers, he deserves to have a swat team respond if the cops ever get called on him. These are the consequences of sayingthings like that. He has made his stance very public, and if he thinks that he can go around professing his murderous plans without anyone taking note of it, then he is an idiot.

I'll go back to my school shooting example. If you overheard your son's friend say "I can get my dad's SKS, and I'll use it to kill all of thosegoddamn teachers if I fail this quarter", would you think that it is rediculous for the police to take note of this? Because if you think that that deserves a note in a police system, and threatening to do the same to police officers doesn't, then this is just a bitter us-vs-them arguement, not an arguement about "secret systems".

imported post

The question that comes to my mind is "if JL, or any other LEO, thought this was a REAL threat, why wasn't the man arrested?....a threat to anyones life IS a crime, is it not?
IIRC, a threat doesn't have to be against a "named target" for said threat to be a crime.

imported post

Whether you think the cops are out to get you or not, you're right.