fixed your post and please not that the way the bad guy was found was when the questionable martial law like atmosphere was abandoned and people were free to go about their business unimpeded by storm trooper like cops and army personnel on their streets and on their property
I strongly thank you for "fixing" my post!!!!!!!!!! Comment however you wish, but ALWAYS CHANGE MY POSTS
"There's a reason you separate the Military and the Police. One fights the enemy of the State and the other serves and protects the People. When the Military becomes both, then the enemies of the State tend to become the People." - Admiral William Adama, Battlestar Gallactica
Link Removed
Martial law is usually imposed on a temporary basis when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively e.g., extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.
So,you imprision the many to capture the one... Or was this an excuse to run a drill disguised as a man hunt?
It was a difficult task to set out from Boston in search of illegal weaponry and the conditions weren't always favorable. The situation was complicated by the fact that those searching didn't know the extent of the weaponry that they might find or that might even be used against them. They also couldn't be sure if others besides those already identified were the only threat to consider. Theoretically, the occupant of any house could be a potential opponent. And once initial contact had been made, they had no way of knowing if the two days of gun battles really were the end of it all. In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure they didn't see it as the end at all. So I'm sure I can see how they felt that performing a difficult, dangerous task well where no one was hurt, other than possibly their feelings hurt, could be seen as a good thing, and an honorable thing to boot. I can also see how many viewing things in the heat of the moment or in the initial days after might consider criticisms of their conduct to be somewhat paranoid. But history has shown that not to be the case at all. You see, the two day search out of Boston I'm referring to happened 238 years ago, almost to the day. The people searching for illegal weapons were British soldiers out of Boston. One of the people spreading the word was Paul Revere. You may have heard of him. Those soldiers were just as convinced of the legality and righteousness of their searches then as you are of the searches last week. But does being convinced of it make it right? Does being convinced make it legal? Ethical? Moral? No, not really. Certainly not necessarily. It didn't then and it doesn't now.
.
The colonists weren't paranoid because they thought the heavy handed tactics of the British were wrong. Opposing those same heavy handed tactics by modern day law enforcement would not in any way make a person paranoid. On the contrary, it would make them far more sane than someone willing to simply overlook such activity, particularly if that activity was illegal. And anyone suggesting that illegal or unethical activity by law enforcement should be ignored as long as no one got hurt, is a doormat, and really shouldn't be slinging mental health terms at others.
IGNORANCE is the answer.I can't help but ask. Why was the family convinced that they didn't have the freedom to go get their own milk?
They weren't in "pursuit". They were on a wild goose chase. The cops didn't find the guy. A neighbor called in that they saw the guy go into the boat and then the cops "found" him. Slippery slope to a loss of liberty (and security). Bloomberg even came out and said it.I never saw muzzles pointed at civilians. In fact they lowered their weapons to allow safe exit from the dwelling. They were in PURSUIT. This is not necessarily a new precedent. This precedent has always existed by law for these extenuating circumstances with a culmination of public safety and pursuit designation. So many experts out there on the internet today...who would have a better suggestion on how they would have apprehended this individual? Someone who hours before assassinated a cop in his patrol car, threw explosives at cops, kicked his dying brother out of a hijacked car and subsequently ran him over and dragged his body down the road etc etc.
What in the heck is happening in my country?
A mayor or police chief making a statement that people are to stay at home and not go anywhere does not carry the force of law with me. Period. I don't look anything like a 19 year old curly headed kid. And contrary to the PC crowd, or the "liberal czaristas", or any political hack, I still believe in the Constitution. They can take their power-pushing and their fear-mongering and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
I am still a free man, and until a revolution begins or a court says otherwise, I will go to the store if I need something, and I'll go when I want to go. If someone steps up on my porch and orders me out of my house, or points a gun at me without a darned good reason, the revolution will begin. It may not last long, but it will darned sure begin.
"I hope they catch him", the same as I would with anyone else they're looking for without turning part of the country into a police state. You're saying we should suspend the Constitution and surrender our rights because we're searching for a terrorist. The end justifies the means and our rights are negotiable as far as you're concerned. As soon as we accept that concept as legitimate, who decides what is justified tomorrow, and under what circumstances? If you really want to live in a country where rights are so negotiable, I can suggest several of them. You wouldn't be there very long before discovering how good we have it here, and how passionately we need to protect it.So what would you be saying if they had not done what they did and the terrorist was in one of those houses?
All this talk about how it is "reasonable" to shut down businesses and public transport and to have a police presence that is a very reasonable facsimile of an armed invasion force ....... because "they got their man!!!!"
Horse hockey!!!! What they got was a regular citizen noticed something amiss with his boat and called it in.
Got that? A citizen found the horrible terrorist bomber... not all those cops equipped with what Obama calls... weapons of war that don't belong on our streets.
And then they shot up the boat... A BOAT that has the bullet proof properties of used toilet paper... and only manage to hit the guy twice. Sad....
All that sounds like I'm anti cop... yet because of events in my own life involving officers going above and beyond for me there is no way I'll ever be anti cop. What I am is intelligent enough to see that something is wrong when the police hammer down with a militaristic presence and effectively "occupy" an entire section of town.
So what would you be saying if they had not done what they did and the terrorist was in one of those houses?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?