Kennedy

Why the American public isn’t mad as hell about the failure of the gun bill (in numbers) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Ban Fireworks! http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-boston-bombings-20130424,0,5013075.story So, now that it looks like they got the boom from fireworks (and we've explained why taggants are a horrible idea), would you care to revise your attack on the NRA? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

They didn't have to kill him. They caught him, with the help of the public. Where have you been? They already do; they just don't fly. What do you think speed cameras and red light cameras are, if not drones? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I'd prefer they not do either. Both would seem to be clear violations of the fourth amendment. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Some of the most astute observations I've ever heard were from patients at a secure mental health facility. Point if view doesn't make statement wrong. Being wrong makes them wrong. Would you care to refute the content, or is today another "ad hominem and avoid the issue" day for you? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

An officer can get in deep shit for critiquing other officers, even if e is correct and tries to maintain a professional bearing. Also, most cops won't pass judgment on other cops without having the whole picture, because so much of what cops do is based on immediate reaction to "the totality of the circumstances". Without having been there, or at least heard both sides' full account, it's rare that a video can give you the entire story. Be tht as it may, something's are so insanely wron that its hard to imagine any reasonable explanation, even for the creative. I'm still waiting to find out if this was just one or two houses immediately adjacent to the path #2 took from the ditched car, or if this was done to every house in and around the perimeter. It seems wrong regardless, but the first would be a lot less wrong and a lot more easily explained than the second. edit: spelling witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Did you watch the video in the OP? It's pretty clear they were a lot closer to the latter. I didn't see any asking. I saw clear, loud, "command presence" voice being used to give orders, not to make requests. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Absolutely. That why we need to have the conversation about drone use now, rather than waiting for the problems to come and trying to address it afterwards. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Honestly I'm not a fan of the idea of anyone in the US, including all levels of LEOs, having armed drones. It's up there with armed aircraft. Limit it to the military. If things are so bad that our military is fighting on US soil, then them using drones is not a stretch. The case could be made either way for all other non-DOJ feds (read CIA et al), but that is really scary. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I put this in a reply to bill, but it was really aimed at you. So, tell me, what is so bad that everything changes and you're ok with shredding the bill of rights just a little bit more? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Um, actually the current admin, including POTUS and AG Holder do support targeted killings of folks on a secret list, and have done so, and claim the right to continuing to do so. Not sure that's entirely accurate. Holder said no, but trust him as far as you like. Rand, however, only said he supported drones being able to do what LEOs can do. I don't think it was well said, or if it was I don't agree because LEOs have to be on site and make the decision. Drone operators not so much. Suspects often surrender when uniforms show up. Drones don't offer that option. I'm not saying any action that clearly threatens deadly force against and innocent could never be stopped by applying deadly force to the suspect, just that it's a lot more complicated than a patrol putting a uniform on the spot. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yep. Don't know why some folks have such an issue with that. Do you really think it'd take long to get a warrant for this one? I'm sure there'd be a magistrate just waiting to sign off on it. There's nothing wrong with the rules and regs that were in place before they detonated the IEDs at the finish. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Why is it ironic, that a law enforcement officer's union is opposed to their superiors in the executive branch failing to enforce the law after the LEOs do the dangerous grunt work? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=no-rand-paul-didnt-just-switch-his-position-on-drones You shouldn't let the media frame the discussion for you. Rand filibustered for an answer, and it was in relation to targeted killings of folks on a secret list with no trial. I don't recall him ever saying he was opposed to drones being able to do anything an officer could do. He's opposed to murder by the state without due process and a complete surveillance society, from what I understand. There's no "I was for it before I was against it" issue here. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh, I understand, and I agree that they screwed up. However, I don't understand why you are, or agree with anyone else, calling residents assholes if they call the cops on it while the screw up is in progress. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Should this country be based on the rule of law or not? I say yes. I also am not completely opposed to Rubio's proposed immigration law. I'm all for them changing the law to make it better, if they can. I am not for ignoring the law that is in place just because you don't like it. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Exactly! And you can be assured that it was not as well thought out as the others were since they had to come up with new procedures on the fly. I'm still looking for someone to explain a clear line where suddenly it's ok to throw out all the rules and trying something/anything. We can and have dealt with robbers, murders, cop killers, bombers, and worse in the past. Where do you draw the line that suddenly, THIS is so bad that the old rules don't apply and we need to make up new ones. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You do realize that not every site makes it as easy as dz.com, right? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

another source witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well written. I was going to write up a similar post and you saved me the effort. In this case, I'd invite them in as long as they let me stay, didn't break anything, and promised no possible future action against me for anything observed during the search. I, like most, am much more likely to say yes when asked, than when told. Just ask anyone who's had to sit through verbal judo. This case is also different because I know I'm not the target of the investigation. Don't expect any freebies in a roadside stop or any other nonconsensual interaction. However, if, like in Boston, there were swat teams banging on my door and pointing guns at my family, you can be damn sure I'd say "no" (if I were dumb enough to answer). I'd then move everyone into one room with no weapons and have them sit on the floor until swat either forced entry or left. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Bloomberg has been spouting off like a fucking idiot since long before he got elected mayor. He's just gotten a bigger audience since then. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/ (Go ahead and skip the text on infowars, they're freaking insane, but it's a good set of pics) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313249/Boston-bomber-search-Moment-SWAT-teams-ordered-innocent-neighbors-houses-GUNPOINT.html witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What do you mean by "not helping?" Does "not helping" include letting them search my property when I am not required to? Because if so, I'm an asshole. Warrant or get off my porch. Yes. Doing that would be, in my opinion, assholishness because the person doing it is slowing down the process of capturing the terrorist and cop killer. Every second a person stands at their door, locks it, requires the cops to kick it down anyway . . . that person is helping the terrorist and cop killer . . . by tying up forces which could be moving forward to the next location. A person may, in fact, be completely within their rights to do so, but it also makes them assholes. So according to you, expecting those who enforce the law to follow it is being an asshole? Shoot Paul, I thought you were a fan of civil liberty. Where do you draw the line? Should we give up constitutional protection for everyone who kills two or more? All murderers? Felons? All criminals? You want to allow raids. That is undoing the fourth. Why? What do you think you're gaining that's more valuable than the rule of law? What'll it take to convince you we should shred the rest of the fourth. Maybe we should allow excessive force during emergencies. Maybe you want to stop the spread of false or sensitive info. Should we shred the first? (I should say the rest of the first, since the "shelter in place" order already crushed the right to peacably assemble) Just how much would you give up? And why call folks assholes who wouldn't do it? Plenty of folks would think you're being an asshole for offering up their rights at the altar of a false sense of security. "False security"?!? So, you're saying this entire thing was staged so cops could just search homes without warrants? "False Security"?!? What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about anything being staged. I said you're offering to shred the constitution for a false sense of security. I don't think we'll be safer or feel better if we have no rights and allow police to be militarized and walk all over the population. Apparently you do. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What do you mean by "not helping?" Does "not helping" include letting them search my property when I am not required to? Because if so, I'm an asshole. Warrant or get off my porch. Yes. Doing that would be, in my opinion, assholishness because the person doing it is slowing down the process of capturing the terrorist and cop killer. Every second a person stands at their door, locks it, requires the cops to kick it down anyway . . . that person is helping the terrorist and cop killer . . . by tying up forces which could be moving forward to the next location. A person may, in fact, be completely within their rights to do so, but it also makes them assholes. So according to you, expecting those who enforce the law to follow it is being an asshole? Shoot Paul, I thought you were a fan of civil liberty. Where do you draw the line? Should we give up constitutional protection for everyone who kills two or more? All murderers? Felons? All criminals? You want to allow raids. That is undoing the fourth. Why? What do you think you're gaining that's more valuable than the rule of law? What'll it take to convince you we should shred the rest of the fourth. Maybe we should allow excessive force during emergencies. Maybe you want to stop the spread of false or sensitive info. Should we shred the first? (I should say the rest of the first, since the "shelter in place" order already crushed the right to peacably assemble) Just how much would you give up? And why call folks assholes who wouldn't do it? Plenty of folks would think you're being an asshole for offering up their rights at the altar of a false sense of security. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

At the moment I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were operating in a fog or war environment. If it comes to pass that this response becomes the norm for any unusual situation, then I'd be quite concerned. It's not a %^&*(! war. It's a suspect on the run. I'm sick to damn death of people calling it a homefront, and acting like every crime by a Muslim is a war. Tell that to the people who had guns pointed at their face and were told to get off the street "or else". It may ahve been more of a request in most of Boston, but that's not what is was anywhere within miles of Watertown. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*