Liberal Protests

[Alaska Darin]

24 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

No knocks are bollocks for sure. But breonna wasn't killed during one, so it's irrelevant to this situation.

I don't think knocking on a door, screaming "police", and then immediately taking the door with guns drawn in the middle of the night is much different.  Liberty versus the state.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Nope. Not at all. I’m saying that when police serve a just warrant and get shot at it, they’re well within their rights to shoot back and if someone dies in the crossfire, it’s the fault of whoever fired the first shot. I will grant that there’s clearly ambiguity if the shooter doesn’t know it’s police, but as has been established, that’s not the case here. 

Are you equating just with law?

 

If so, you just sided with the British during the afore mentioned Boston Massacre.

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Yup, sure Jan.

Sometimes I follow your logic and even if I do not agree, I find it has a logical explanation. In this case? I think your take is nuts.

Well, I can explain why:  it’s because you’re wrong, and are protecting a bias.

 

If you’d like, I can dissect it.

[IDBillzFan]

52 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

I just can't get behind any of this.  I don't see the reason for this particular "take down".  There are very few reasons to go through someone's door when they're sleeping that make sense to the libertarian in me.

 

If you don't see the government overreach here, you need to take a step back.  If they didn't know he had a gun, they're fools.  If they knew he had a gun and went through his door in the middle of the night when they thought he'd be sleeping, they're even bigger fools.

 

I heard Rand earlier today commenting on the 'middle of the night' part of this. He was essentially asking "Was there not a better place and time to do this as it related to a drug bust?"

 

If it was a life or death thing, okay. But we're talking about a drug bust. I understand his point, but I wonder what reasoning there is to do this in the middle of the night.

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Well, I can explain why:  it’s because you’re wrong, and are protecting a bias.

 

If you’d like, I can dissect it.

No-knocks (and recall in this case they knocked and were ***** shot at) are totes illegal. You may want to read up on the law.

Again, please spend some time with these brave LEOs who serve warrants on these drug dealers. After you have been shot at for trying to serve a warrant on these charming, precious little angels, you may change your tune. 

 

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, IDBillzFan said:

 

I heard Rand earlier today commenting on the 'middle of the night' part of this. He was essentially asking "Was there not a better place and time to do this as it related to a drug bust?"

 

If it was a life or death thing, okay. But we're talking about a drug bust. I understand his point, but I wonder what reasoning there is to do this in the middle of the night.

Standard operating practice because people are less likely to resist...except when the do.

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

I don't think knocking on a door, screaming "police", and then immediately taking the door with guns drawn in the middle of the night is much different.  Liberty versus the state.

 

To what extent though. If someone is in a house with a hostage and has a gun to her head, do the police need to wait for him to take the chain off the door before breaching? We obviously have examples in our system wherein law enforcement breaking down doors and using the element of surprise is acceptable. I’m not saying this example is one of them, but supposedly they didn’t do that anyways.

 

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Are you equating just with law?

 

If so, you just sided with the British during the afore mentioned Boston Massacre.

 

And you in your view are siding with the anarchists in the street who are arguing that laws don’t matter if they don’t fit their definition of “justice.”

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

To what extent though. If someone is in a house with a hostage and has a gun to her head, do the police need to wait for him to take the chain off the door before breaching? We obviously have examples in our system wherein law enforcement breaking down doors and using the element of surprise is acceptable. I’m not saying this example is one of them, but supposedly they didn’t do that anyways.

Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Alaska Darin said:

Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation.

The guy shot at them, how much more dangerous does it get?

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

The guy shot at them, how much more dangerous does it get?

Way to miss the point. 

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation.

In a practical sense yes, but when we talk about the protection of due process as it pertains to search and seizure it’s really not different as they’re both seen as within the context of due process. (Or in the case of imminent danger, seen as superseding process) 
 

No-knocks became prevalent because people were destroying evidence when police served traditional warrants and it gave highly dangerous criminals the opportunity to prepare to combat the police. 
 

Again, I’m not sure how it’s justified in this situation, but it doesn’t change the facts of what actually happened. 
 

P.s.- if anything, your argument is a point in favor of the no-knock. If in this case they hadn’t knocked and gone in quickly maybe they get him subdued before he gets to the gun. Here it just seems like he wanted to shoot it out with the cops. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by whatdrought

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Way to miss the point. 

What was the point since you think I missed it. You stated there was a "Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation." They served a warrant (and foolishly knocked) so the guy started shooting. That is imminent danger. They shot back.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[keepthefaith]

26 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Nope. Not at all. I’m saying that when police serve a just warrant and get shot at it, they’re well within their rights to shoot back and if someone dies in the crossfire, it’s the fault of whoever fired the first shot. I will grant that there’s clearly ambiguity if the shooter doesn’t know it’s police, but as has been established, that’s not the case here. 

 

I thought I had read that the boyfriend made a statement that he did not hear the police identify themselves and do we know if the boyfriend had a visual ID on the police before shooting?  Is it possible that there was some mis-communication here?  Police at door say they are police with warrant and enter and Breonna and Boyfriend don't hear that, assume it's an intruder and boyfriend fires?

 

Any way you look at it, it's terrible that this woman lost her life. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by keepthefaith

[dubs]

How many more radical left narratives need to be completely destroyed before they just start telling the truth?  
 

it’s like a bottomless pit. 

[B-Man]

 

 

[whatdrought]

16 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I thought I had read that the boyfriend made a statement that he did not hear the police identify themselves and do we know if the boyfriend had a visual ID on the police before shooting?  Is it possible that there was some mis-communication here?  Police at door say they are police with warrant and enter and Breonna and Boyfriend don't hear that, assume it's an intruder and boyfriend fires. 

 

Any way you look at it, it's terrible that this woman lost her life. 

 

Going strictly off of what the AG said today, the police identified themselves outside the apartment, waited several minutes and then entered. Upon entering they were met with Taylor and the BF standing at the end of the hall and he had his gun raised and fired immediately. 
 

It was actually difficult for me to find the transcript of then AG’s statement, but here it is: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courier-journal.com/amp/3507419001

[whatdrought]

https://www.wdrb.com/news/metrosafe-lmpd-officer-shot-at-brook-and-broadway-in-downtown-louisville/article_8236bf40-fdfd-11ea-8fd2-d3f4b95b0f33.html
 

 

***** animals.

 

this is one block from my wife’s work. I drive it every day when I drop her off. Take all their worthless asses to jail. 

[meazza]

14 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Going strictly off of what the AG said today, the police identified themselves outside the apartment, waited several minutes and then entered. Upon entering they were met with Taylor and the BF standing at the end of the hall and he had his gun raised and fired immediately. 
 

It was actually difficult for me to find the transcript of then AG’s statement, but here it is: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courier-journal.com/amp/3507419001

This wouldn’t happen if they legalized drugs.

[RocCityRoller]

44 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Totally organic protest... nothing to see here.

Edited September 24, 2020 by RocCityRoller

[Westside]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I thought I had read that the boyfriend made a statement that he did not hear the police identify themselves and do we know if the boyfriend had a visual ID on the police before shooting?  Is it possible that there was some mis-communication here?  Police at door say they are police with warrant and enter and Breonna and Boyfriend don't hear that, assume it's an intruder and boyfriend fires?

 

Any way you look at it, it's terrible that this woman lost her life. 

Do you know if the boyfriends gun was legal? I really don't know, just wondering.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Two police officers were shot in Louisville tonight, suspect in custody.

[Hedge]

12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

S-O-R-O-S

 

 

 

There is an audio clip in the above article.

 

Quote

Holly Zoller, a member of the George Soros-funded “The Bail Project,” is the woman responsible for bringing a U-Haul truck filled with riot shields, umbrellas, and other gear for the street criminals, aiding and abetting rioters in the city of Louisville. Members of The Bail Project are closely tied to infamous financier and nation-wrecker George Soros.

...

A clever anonymous caller pretending to be U-Haul called her and got her to admit to bringing supplies to the illegal riot taking place in the Kentucky city today. The truck contained shields, masks, goggles, and other riot gear.

...

Holly Zoller delivers riot gear, rioters do riot things and get arrested using her supplies, and her organization helps them get bailed out.

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Hedge

[Hedge]

 

 

[whatdrought]

3 hours ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

What a B word. 

[BillStime]

#PutinProud

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Wacka]

One of these days, someone is going to be armed and start opening fire.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Wacka said:

One of these days, someone is going to be armed and start opening fire.

 

Sadly, really expect that is what the organizers of these events are hoping for.

 

Pretty sure they're actually disappointed that they've only gotten their own shot by "the other side" in Kenosha to date.

[DFT]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Sadly, really expect that is what the organizers of these events are hoping for.

 

Pretty sure they're actually disappointed that they've only gotten their own shot by "the other side" in Kenosha to date.

Agreed.  They’re instigators.  They take the broken, mentally unstable and lost and give them a cause.  They pay them in hopes they’ll become a martyr.  That’s what this seems to be about.  Getting these kids who have no idea what they’re getting themselves into, close enough to the flame.  
 

 

A pawn never knows how disposable they truly are when measured against the greater objective - winning.

[GG]

Just now, DFT said:

Agreed.  They’re instigators.  They take the broken, mentally unstable and lost and give them a cause.  They pay them in hopes they’ll become a martyr.  That’s what this seems to be about.  Getting these kids who have no idea what they’re getting themselves into, close enough to the flame.  
 

 

A pawn never knows how disposable they truly are when measured against the greater objective - winning.

 

The profile of the ricin lady, the Oregon shooter and the shot Kenosha protesters certainly fit this description.

[Alaska Darin]

12 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What was the point since you think I missed it. You stated there was a "Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation." They served a warrant (and foolishly knocked) so the guy started shooting. That is imminent danger. They shot back.

They CHOSE to serve a warrant at 0100 in the morning in a populated apartment building.  There are a million ways to arrest someone without possibly initiating an armed confrontation in a densely populated building where it is GUARANTEED the majority of residents will be at home.

 

I said nothing whatsoever about the officers returning fire - they were certainly well within their rights to defend themselves.  The question for me has VERY OBVIOUSLY been whether or not they should have served this warrant, in this manner, in the first place.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, Alaska Darin said:

They CHOSE to serve a warrant at 0100 in the morning in a populated apartment building.  There are a million ways to arrest someone without possibly initiating an armed confrontation in a densely populated building where it is GUARANTEED the majority of residents will be at home.

 

I said nothing whatsoever about the officers returning fire - they were certainly well within their rights to defend themselves.  The question for me has VERY OBVIOUSLY been whether or not they should have served this warrant, in this manner, in the first place.

Is it generally safer to serve a warrant on a drug dealer at 1am or 3 am  versus 10am, noon, 2pm?

 "There are a million ways to arrest someone without possibly initiating an armed confrontation in a densely populated building where it is GUARANTEED the majority of residents will be at home." On a drug dealer?  Was the man generally armed? Did he frequently use human shields? Did he have body guards willing to shoot? 

As I said, I am not LEO. If you are, especially if you are in drug enforcement, it would be helpful to know how and when they could have served this warrant that there would be an absolute guarantee that the drug dealer would not start shooting. Perhaps a middle of the night no-knock where they actually do not knock?
 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[B-Man]

Suspect ID’d as Man Who Shot Two Louisville Police Officers Taken Into Custody

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

That is a very nice strip in St. Pete. Hubby and I would like to vacation there again soon.  We stayed at the Vinoy (Marriott) last year. Inside the hotel is a history of what the area looked like, and how it has been rebuilt. A lot of time, energy, effort, and money have gone into making that waterfront strip safe, walkable, and high(er) end.  The last thing that area needs is to become lawless. I am surprised the police were not on them to disburse that crowd immediately. 
 

[B-Man]

ROGER SIMON: Bullets over Louisville.

I thought back to my days as a sixties anti-war protestor, being caught up in the crowds yelling “Off the pig!” The joke then was what we would do if someone broke into our apartments with no cops available. “Call a hippie!” was the supposedly jocular response.

 

In truth, in those days few of us thought badly of the police (with the exception, of course, of the extremist Kathy Boudin/Weather Underground-types who killed them). It was all kind of a game to us, stupid, juvenile and pointless as it was, not to mention politically reactionary. The police were and are the working class, not the privileged college kids then attacking them.

 

Today, things are very different and multiple times worse, making the sixties indeed seem like child’s play.

 

As I type this, yet another cop is reported as being shot in Louisville, making two, the same number as were shot just the other day in L.A., with no one apprehended.

 

All this after it was made clear that in the Breonna Taylor case, the one all the Louisville madness is supposed to be about, the police did not break in on her apartment with a “no-knock” entry, and her drug-dealer boyfriend they were seeking admittedly opened fire first. And yet a cop, who was defending an already wounded buddy, got indicted. Go figure.

 

Basta.

The time has come to say clearly what many of us have muttered for a long time:

 

BLM… the Marxist-led Black Lives Matter… is the modern version of the KKK. The skin colors may be different but the murderous instincts and racist loathing are the same.

So, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, to coin a phrase?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Is it generally safer to serve a warrant on a drug dealer at 1am or 3 am  versus 10am, noon, 2pm?

 "There are a million ways to arrest someone without possibly initiating an armed confrontation in a densely populated building where it is GUARANTEED the majority of residents will be at home." On a drug dealer?  Was the man generally armed? Did he frequently use human shields? Did he have body guards willing to shoot? 

As I said, I am not LEO. If you are, especially if you are in drug enforcement, it would be helpful to know how and when they could have served this warrant that there would be an absolute guarantee that the drug dealer would not start shooting. Perhaps a middle of the night no-knock where they actually do not knock?
 

Obviously you're not in law enforcement.

 

Reality check:  In order to obtain a warrant, you have to have probable cause.  In this instance, they had multiple times surveilled this perp and had patterns, which were in the warrant documentation. 

 

Patterns are the key.  If you have patterns, you can chose your arrest point based on them.  It's "generally" much easier to simply traffic stop or catch them as they leave the apartment building in a more controlled situation.  What they "decided" on was (seemingly) a fundamentally more risky course of action and it ended up with multiple high velocity rounds being sprayed around in a populated apartment complex.  It's stupid, lazy, and put a large number of innocent people in unnecessary danger. 

 

These senseless tactical decisions are the reason why inexperienced and stupid politicians feel the need to constantly tie cop's hands.

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Alaska Darin said:

Obviously you're not in law enforcement.

 

Reality check:  In order to obtain a warrant, you have to have probable cause.  In this instance, they had multiple times surveilled this perp and had patterns, which were in the warrant documentation. 

 

Patterns are the key.  If you have patterns, you can chose your arrest point based on them.  It's "generally" much easier to simply traffic stop or catch them as they leave the apartment building in a more controlled situation.  What they "decided" on was (seemingly) a fundamentally more risky course of action and it ended up with multiple high velocity rounds being sprayed around in a populated apartment complex.  It's stupid, lazy, and put a large number of innocent people in unnecessary danger. 

 

These senseless tactical decisions are the reason why inexperienced and stupid politicians feel the need to constantly tie cop's hands.

 

 

Are you in law enforcement?

 

[Alaska Darin]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Are you in law enforcement?

 

Not anymore.