• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Whimper Heard 'round the World!

CDT COX

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
277
Location
NC
The courts have repeatedly ruled that a seizure occurs when circumstances exist that make a reasonable person believe that a seizure has occurred. When a group of armed police show up at your door, as they were ordered to do, the encounter is NOT consensual. Whatever you saw or heard about that appeared to be consensual (it couldn't possibly be under the circumstances) was the result of fear and/or ignorance on the part of sheepish people.

Shame on the people of Boston for tolerating the Patriot's Day Militarization of Boston, and shame on anyone defending it!

It is past time for the People to get MAD AS HELL at this CRIME!

I think you are the one pretending. Watch the video over and over until you understand the truth.

Police knock at my door, I tell them "sorry guys, you aren't coming in, no terrorist here" and it is over. Because someone sees the police and immediately puts there hands up and lets them in doesn't constitute a crime.

Eye admits the police were ordered to show up at the door. This is true. They were not, however, ordered to forcefully enter.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Police knock at my door, I tell them "sorry guys, you aren't coming in, no terrorist here" and it is over. Because someone sees the police and immediately puts there hands up and lets them in doesn't constitute a crime.

Eye admits the police were ordered to show up at the door. This is true. They were not, however, ordered to forcefully enter.

Do you really think they wouldn't??? Do you really think that the encounter was already NOT CONSENSUAL, even before any door was or was not opened???

*hears echoes of that whimper on OCDO*
 
Last edited:

Resto Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
223
Location
right here
Maybe this will help.
 

Attachments

  • denial.png
    denial.png
    45.8 KB · Views: 85
  • denial explained.jpg
    denial explained.jpg
    9.4 KB · Views: 85
  • denial_tshirt-p235029674643965672bahkm_400.jpg
    denial_tshirt-p235029674643965672bahkm_400.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 84

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
"The Whimper heard round the world"


THE perfect analysis.

Thank you!

Thank you. Please keep that phrase going.

Cant recall who said this?

" When we Sacrifice Liberty for Security, WE have neither.'

TIA

CCJ

The full and correct quote from Franklin is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Watch out for the adjectives. They are often ignored.

The people of the Boston area gave up the most Essential of Liberties to obtain a tiny portion of Temporary Safety. They deserve neither.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Look, I didnt like what happened either. But lets not pretend that the police were told to forcefully enter when that was not the case, as confirmed by someone that was there. Did some forcefully enter?
One "someone that was there" somehow establishes that it never happened anywhere in the city? Especially when we have video to the contrary?


That could very well be true, but that was that particular cop/team and not a directive from higher.
As if it matters when the gun is in your face and the troops swarm your home.
 
Last edited:

Peacekeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
171
Location
Fond du Lac Wisconsin
I wonder how many of the searched homeowners were also gun owners? With restrictive gun laws in Mass. I would guess many defenseless homeowners were very willing to rely upon the government forces to search their homes and protect them....
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Lets not overlook the posse commitatus violation in activating the National Guard to help both the civilian law enforcement (who, judging by the photo above, are kinda hard to tell from military anyway.)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
(Humvee advertising photo for North Korean market)

Hahhahhahhahahaa!! Look at that cluster of ten near the foot of that driveway. Lemme see if I got this straight. They are looking for a bad guy known to have explosives, and they don't bother to maintain tactical spacing? One hand-sized IED with a five yard casualty radius from an upstairs window would...

Keep in mind, there was hysteria about possible confederates, so these armored rights-violators rightfully should have been well spaced out and ready for a possible shower of IEDs.

Of course, the lax approach to tactics proves they expected to find mostly little old ladies in night-gowns and curlers.

Don't you just love the threat of grave bodily injury or death from the Humvee hatch?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
18 USC 1385 "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Not justifying the horrific violations of rights in Boston, but the National Guard are not part of the Army or Air Force until they are federalized. A legal scholar may prove me wrong, but under my understanding, the use of the guard in this way does not violate posse comitatus.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Seeing that picture and the guy with the backwards hat (which really makes him seem like a punk/thug with a gun and not part of a "professional" organization) makes me feel like I'm about to get shot when I put myself into the position of the picture-taker. It really is just sickening.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The NG has been federalized since post 9-11, AND the troops were acting under the command of a FEDERAL agency(FBI). That puts them square in violation of the act.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Not justifying the horrific violations of rights in Boston, but the National Guard are not part of the Army or Air Force until they are federalized. A legal scholar may prove me wrong, but under my understanding, the use of the guard in this way does not violate posse comitatus.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

You may have a point there.

But, lets not be hoodwinked by crafty semantics from the government. Military was used for law enforcement.

Lets say Eye is correct. All the government has to do is detach active duty military units, say officially demobilize them, and then send them with all their equipment to whichever location. And, shazam, no posse comitatus violation. "Oh, we ended all their enlistments early and retroactively, so they were not military." Or, "Oh, we just transfered them all to National Guard status before sending them to Boston."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Not Categorized as Enemy Combatant

Just heard it on the ABC radio network--the surviving suspected bomber is being charged on civilian channels, not as an enemy combatant.

Despite the lack of political connection or motive, the media is still portraying the accused as a terrorist.
 

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
The NG has been federalized since post 9-11, AND the troops were acting under the command of a FEDERAL agency(FBI). That puts them square in violation of the act.

The National Guard was Federalized long before 9/11 with the Militia Act of 1903, making it a reserve component of the US Government/ Military subject to usage under Title 10 and Title 32 of the US Code. Same point you are making, just saying that it happened almost 100 years before 9/11 :)

What I'm not sure of so far is if the MA NG was called up under Title 10 or 32 for this action or not, or if it was activated under State orders for this use. I'm still digging. If it was under Title 10 or Title 32 (Federal orders), then they would have been acting under Federal Jurisdiction which then would have made their actions a clear violation of Fed law (using military for civilian law enforcement duties). If it was under State control, then I'm not sure of the legalities, but it probably would be a similar violation.

Governors do have a certain leeway under certain situations in which they can call out the Guard, usually under situations where natural disasters are present, but it's not limited to that. Officially, this (these) Guard unit(s) could have been on State orders assisting the State Police or other such agency, but working *with* the FBI (but not directly under their control). I'm still trying to find those answers, though.
 
Top