PDA

View Full Version : We live in a Police State




adam1mc
06-16-2008, 11:06 AM
www.cnn.com


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/weather/06/16/iowa.floods/t1home.flood.mon.10.ap.jpg

An officer warns a resident to back off at a checkpoint in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo)




So I guess we now shoot people who wish to risk their own lives to secure their own property. This picture and caption tick me off...:mad:

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:09 AM
Context is everything.

(from the article accompanying the picture)


Tracy Murphy made a beeline for her family photos when she entered her house, parts of which looked as if burglars had ransacked it.

That's why the authorities are trying to keep people from going in there willy-nilly, hon. Looters suck.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:11 AM
"strike teams" yeah..

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:11 AM
We have no idea what was going on in this picture beyond what was written in the caption. Clean-up and rescue efforts are hampered if everyone wants to drive into a flooded area in their SUV...

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:13 AM
This is why I dont live in Iowa. Im beginning to think that its pointless to live any place that has enough population density to have reliable LE, if you want to avoid having a glock pointed at you for trying to go home.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:13 AM
We have no idea what was going on in this picture beyond what was written in the caption. Clean-up and rescue efforts are hampered if everyone wants to drive into a flooded area in their SUV...

I guarantee that if its the cops home, no one will stop them from going back in.

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:15 AM
I guarantee that if its the cops home, no one will stop them from going back in.

Police or not, hopefully they wouldn't be dumb enough to drive into a flooded area in their vehicles!

Come on, people, this isn't rocket science. Sometimes the police actually do GOOD things...

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:16 AM
Police or not, hopefully they wouldn't be dumb enough to drive into a flooded area in their vehicles!

Come on, people, this isn't rocket science. Sometimes the police actually do GOOD things...

But apparently not today.

adam1mc
06-16-2008, 11:17 AM
Context is everything.

(from the article accompanying the picture)



That's why the authorities are trying to keep people from going in there willy-nilly, hon. Looters suck.

Context:

"Residents have been getting angry with the authorities who are keeping them from their homes, she said, but she understands safety comes first.

"They have Red Cross, police department, fire department, and the people who they brought in -- the Marines and stuff, the National Guard -- have been excellent," she said. "They are keeping us out of our homes even though we're getting upset with them. We have no right because they're trying to protect us."



So really they are pulling guns on people to keep them safe. God-forbid that people can actually take care of themselves.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:18 AM
Context:

"Residents have been getting angry with the authorities who are keeping them from their homes, she said, but she understands safety comes first.

"They have Red Cross, police department, fire department, and the people who they brought in -- the Marines and stuff, the National Guard -- have been excellent," she said. "They are keeping us out of our homes even though we're getting upset with them. We have no right because they're trying to protect us."



So really they are pulling guns on people to keep them safe. God-forbid that people can actually take care of themselves.

We are the government. We know whats best for you, and will kill you to prove it.

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:19 AM
But apparently not today.

What's wrong? I still can't understand why there's outrage over this. You know that the same people who were dumb enough to drive their vehicle into flood waters are probably the first ones to demand to be rescued. I see nothign wrong with preventing the citizens from going back to their houses at this point. It's only going to hamper relief efforts.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:19 AM
This is why I dont live in Iowa. Im beginning to think that its pointless to live any place that has enough population density to have reliable LE, if you want to avoid having a glock pointed at you for trying to go home.

So you're perfectly OK with Barney Fife letting Joe Q. Looter into your neighborhood to steal all your stuff. Maybe Barney could give Joe an affectionate pat on the ass to reassure him that his looting experience will be all it can be too. :mad:

If you DO find a place where "reliable LE" lets people in willy-nilly to flooded neighborhoods just because they claim they live there, do let me know where that urban paradise is, because I NEVER want to live there.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 11:19 AM
I live in Cedar Rapids. He was ignoring the road block and tried to run through it and around it.

I was around all of the flood areas taking pictures. Never once was I harassed by the police or guardsmen. They were polite and respectful in reminding those who did not heed the roadblocks and mandatory evacutation zones. Never had a gun pulled on me, never heard a harsh word, they didn't search me or ask for papers, even when I had ventured past a road block on foot to get a better picture. Many people tried to get a closer look. On first avenue about thirty people tried to and the officer was calm and polite in reminding people to step back.

And we did.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:21 AM
Police or not, hopefully they wouldn't be dumb enough to drive into a flooded area in their vehicles!

Come on, people, this isn't rocket science. Sometimes the police actually do GOOD things...

pointing weapons at unarmed civilians who aren't breaking the law is never good.

and this is even more pathetic.


Evacuees waited in line at the checkpoints Sunday to receive special wristbands that allowed them to go home and gather their belongings.

I can understand that they are trying to protect property from looters. I just don't see how forcing people to wait in line to get their stuff is doing that. I don't need a special wrist band to come home after work. Why should I need one when their is a disaster?

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:23 AM
What's wrong? I still can't understand why there's outrage over this. You know that the same people who were dumb enough to drive their vehicle into flood waters are probably the first ones to demand to be rescued. I see nothign wrong with preventing the citizens from going back to their houses at this point. It's only going to hamper relief efforts.

Your logic can be used to justify any government stupidity. People have a right to their property without government interference. People dont have a right to be rescued if they are stupid. Just because some people are gonna be stupid doesnt justify the government denying everyone access to their homes. If it did, then the government can use that argument to deny us everything, because there is always an idiot making a mistake somewhere.

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:23 AM
pointing weapons at unarmed civilians who aren't breaking the law is never good.

and this is even more pathetic.



I can understand that they are trying to protect property from looters. I just don't see how forcing people to wait in line to get their stuff is doing that. I don't need a special wrist band to come home after work. Why should I need one when their is a disaster?

But you don't KNOW what that citizen was trying to do, based solely on the picture and caption. So there's no way to tell if he just threatened to run over a police officer. I'd have my gun out, too, in that case.

As for waiting in line, when there's a disaster, it's best to run things in an organized manner instead of saying "Okay, everybody, go crazy!" :)

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:26 AM
So really they are pulling guns on people to keep them safe. God-forbid that people can actually take care of themselves.

No, they're getting guns pulled on them because the people in the SUV are freaking morons trying to force their way through a police checkpoint into a disaster area, which was put there in the first place to try to help KEEP THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORS FROM BEING LOOTED BY DORKS WHO LIE THAT THEY DO LIVE THERE. Not everybody is Joe Survivalist, and you can't expect the police to run a full background check on everybody who claims that they live in that neighborhood.

pinkmandy
06-16-2008, 11:27 AM
It isn't govt's "job" to protect people from themselves. That interferes with natural selection. ;)

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:28 AM
So you're perfectly OK with Barney Fife letting Joe Q. Looter into your neighborhood to steal all your stuff. Maybe Barney could give Joe an affectionate pat on the ass to reassure him that his looting experience will be all it can be too. :mad:

If you DO find a place where "reliable LE" lets people in willy-nilly to flooded neighborhoods just because they claim they live there, do let me know where that urban paradise is, because I NEVER want to live there.

I will protect my own property, thank you. Denying me access to my property means NO ONE IS PROTECTING IT. LE should be about not interfering unless they have direct evidence of criminal activity. The minute we allow LE the ability to engage in 'preventive' law enforcement, we are on a slippery slope straight to hell. Which of course, we are on now.

These LEOs could just patrol the areas and stop anyone they see engaging in obviously suspicious activity.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:28 AM
I live in Cedar Rapids. He was ignoring the road block and tried to run through it and around it.

I was around all of the flood areas taking pictures. Never once was I harassed by the police or guardsmen. They were polite and respectful in reminding those who did not heed the roadblocks and mandatory evacutation zones. Never had a gun pulled on me, never heard a harsh word, they didn't search me or ask for papers, even when I had ventured past a road block on foot to get a better picture. Many people tried to get a closer look. On first avenue about thirty people tried to and the officer was calm and polite in reminding people to step back.

And we did.

Well, the vast majority of you apparently did. Except for the moron in the SUV. I hope that one saw his life pass before his eyes.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:29 AM
No, they're getting guns pulled on them because the people in the SUV are freaking morons trying to force their way through a police checkpoint into a disaster area, which was put there in the first place to try to help KEEP THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORS FROM BEING LOOTED BY DORKS WHO LIE THAT THEY DO LIVE THERE. Not everybody is Joe Survivalist, and you can't expect the police to run a full background check on everybody who claims that they live in that neighborhood.

Again, why should one person suffer for the inability of another? Your responses here are pretty collectivistic.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:29 AM
But you don't KNOW what that citizen was trying to do, based solely on the picture and caption. So there's no way to tell if he just threatened to run over a police officer. I'd have my gun out, too, in that case.

As for waiting in line, when there's a disaster, it's best to run things in an organized manner instead of saying "Okay, everybody, go crazy!" :)

i don't know what was going on. according to reports on this thread from eye witnesses, the guy was trying to run around the road block. is it possible that he had a reason to do that? does it justify the policy responding with violence? I don't think so.

So in a disaster, we need the government to tell us how to act. I don't buy that. Police and the government do not have some special skills or abilities to be better organized than anyone else.

The time and energy wasted in having to go through checkpoints could have been better spent helping people get themselves and their stuff to higher ground.

Honestly, I am just sick of seeing cops pull out weapons for whatever the hell reason they think "justifies" the use of deadly force. I am sick of the shoot first ask questions later mentality. I am also sick of the preemptive attitude of our government that says "we will escalate to violence before you do."

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:31 AM
But you don't KNOW what that citizen was trying to do, based solely on the picture and caption. So there's no way to tell if he just threatened to run over a police officer. I'd have my gun out, too, in that case.

As for waiting in line, when there's a disaster, it's best to run things in an organized manner instead of saying "Okay, everybody, go crazy!" :)

cool. When they are organizing the lines for the ovens, I suggest you employ that strategy.

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:31 AM
Your logic can be used to justify any government stupidity. People have a right to their property without government interference. People dont have a right to be rescued if they are stupid. Just because some people are gonna be stupid doesnt justify the government denying everyone access to their homes. If it did, then the government can use that argument to deny us everything, because there is always an idiot making a mistake somewhere.

You're right...people have a right to be stupid. However, in this case, I can definitely see how OTHER people can be harmed. If the Red Cross is trying to rescue stranded people/pets, and some idiot comes floating down in his SUV because he was dumb enough to drive into flood waters, then how is that fair to the rescue/clean-up workers? They have enough work to do already.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 11:31 AM
There were bystanders nearby, lots of them, and he had rammed his SUV onto the grass.

Everyone hates a cop until they need one.

I have been VERY critical of the CR police department over the years but, based upon FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE IN THIS DISASTER their overall behavior has been exemplary.

When a civilian threatens the rights, property, liberties, and lives of others, said civilian loses HIS. Simple.

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:32 AM
cool. When they are organizing the lines for the ovens, I suggest you employ that strategy.

Hmm...I've never seen anyone go ballistic at a bakery ;)

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 11:32 AM
No, they're getting guns pulled on them because the people in the SUV are freaking morons trying to force their way through a police checkpoint into a disaster area, which was put there in the first place to try to help KEEP THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORS FROM BEING LOOTED BY DORKS WHO LIE THAT THEY DO LIVE THERE. Not everybody is Joe Survivalist, and you can't expect the police to run a full background check on everybody who claims that they live in that neighborhood.

Well, the police do have a tough and thankless job preventing looting. And, yes, considering the SUV in the photo is on the grass, I'd say they got impatient and stupid and earned the right to look down that blue barrel. However, I can surely understand why those people got impatient--especially if their address is current on their ID. They should be let in.

The last people need in an emergency is someone restricting their mobility. And from the experience of Greensburg, Ks., where residents report that while they were being kept out of their damaged town the ATF was busy looting their gun safes, I see no reason to and every reason not to let the authorities take such an area completely over.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:33 AM
You're right...people have a right to be stupid. However, in this case, I can definitely see how OTHER people can be harmed. If the Red Cross is trying to rescue stranded people/pets, and some idiot comes floating down in his SUV because he was dumb enough to drive into flood waters, then how is that fair to the rescue/clean-up workers? They have enough work to do already.


YOu are honestly implying that the RC has a greater interest here than individual home owners? And that the unlikely possiblity that someone is going to hit an RC worker with a floating SUV justifies keeping ALL OF THESE PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES?

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:33 AM
I will protect my own property, thank you. Denying me access to my property means NO ONE IS PROTECTING IT. LE should be about not interfering unless they have direct evidence of criminal activity. The minute we allow LE the ability to engage in 'preventive' law enforcement, we are on a slippery slope straight to hell. Which of course, we are on now.

These LEOs could just patrol the areas and stop anyone they see engaging in obviously suspicious activity.

What is "obviously suspicious activity"? What would be the difference between you retrieving your stuff from your flooded house and Joe Q. Looter retrieving somebody else's stuff from their flooded house? Is Joe Q. Looter somehow required by law to wear a curly moustache and black stovepipe hat with a big orange sign on his chest that says, "LOOTER"? Yeah, that's how we can tell the looters from the bonafide residents. :rolleyes:

And I'm glad that there are enough police and emergency personnel in YOUR neighborhood to conduct these fictional patrols in a disaster area. God knows there aren't enough in my neighborhood.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:34 AM
Hmm...I've never seen anyone go ballistic at a bakery ;)

I was referring to the crematorium.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:35 AM
There were bystanders nearby, lots of them, and he had pulled on the grass.

Everyone hates a cop until they need one.

I have been VERY critical of the CR police department over the years but, based upon FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE IN THIS DISASTER their overall behavior has been exemplary.

When you impede upon the rights, property, liberties, and lives of others, you lose YOUR rights. Simple.


I have two diabetic cousins who need to take 2 shots a day. If their insulin is in danger of being flooded away, guess what? You are going to have to shoot me to stop me from getting past the cops and into the house where this stuff is at.

Regarding your last statement. Its true unless you are a cop. Like I said before, if it was a cop that needed to get to his house, no one would be raising these questions.

Primbs
06-16-2008, 11:35 AM
Lets just hope you guys can rely on the police to keep things secure. People have very little faith in the govt. to actually protect their home in an emergency situation.

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:36 AM
YOu are honestly implying that the RC has a greater interest here than individual home owners? And that the unlikely possiblity that someone is going to hit an RC worker with a floating SUV justifies keeping ALL OF THESE PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES?

Umm...yeah. I believe the Red Cross and other workers are there to perform EMERGENCY RELIEF duties. They are volunteers, not the big, bad government. If I were stuck in that flood (or if my dogs were...:) ), I can guarantee you that I would want to be rescued and would be severely cheesed off if some moron in an SUV boat can floating down the waters screaming, "help me, help me!"

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:36 AM
Again, why should one person suffer for the inability of another?

So you'd let looters run wild through your neighborhood if it would mean that you could go in and get your stuff any time you want to. Don't you dare presume to speak for anybody other than yourself.


Your responses here are pretty collectivistic.

A meaningless taunting catchphrase. Rejected.

pcosmar
06-16-2008, 11:37 AM
This is one of the reasons I never evacuated for any of the several Hurricane evacuations in the Florida Keys.
We were around to start the clean up and there was NO looting on my Key.

It was a joke after Hurricane Georges.

Q. what is the difference between the National Guard and the locals?
A. The locals have bullets in their guns.

Armed locals=no looting.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 11:37 AM
Ohhh, C'mon.

"Serve and Protect."

Looks like a "police state." to me.

Good luck.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:38 AM
cool. When they are organizing the lines for the ovens, I suggest you employ that strategy.

Godwin's Law invoked. Your credibility here just became zero.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:38 AM
What is "obviously suspicious activity"? What would be the difference between you retrieving your stuff from your flooded house and Joe Q. Looter retrieving somebody else's stuff from their flooded house? Is Joe Q. Looter somehow required by law to wear a curly moustache and black stovepipe hat with a big orange sign on his chest that says, "LOOTER"? Yeah, that's how we can tell the looters from the bonafide residents. :rolleyes:

And I'm glad that there are enough police and emergency personnel in YOUR neighborhood to conduct these fictional patrols in a disaster area. God knows there aren't enough in my neighborhood.

Dont be a douche. Its easy enough to terry stop (a flood associated with moving shit out of a house should meet the RAS standard) anyone you see loading shit out of a house and ask for proof of residence.

These cops have guaranteed that anyone who makes it past their checkpoint has carte blanche, AND, nobody can protect their homes. Awesome.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 11:39 AM
Well, the police do have a tough and thankless job preventing looting. And, yes, considering the SUV in the photo is on the grass, I'd say they got impatient and stupid and earned the right to look down that blue barrel. However, I can surely understand why those people got impatient--especially if their address is current on their ID. They should be let in.

The last people need in an emergency is someone restricting their mobility. And from the experience of Greensburg, Ks., where residents report that while they were being kept out of their damaged town the ATF was busy looting their gun safes, I see no reason to and every reason not to let the authorities take such an area completely over.

One of them problems is now the Feds are involved and are pressuring local LE to tighten up security. I saw homeland security trucks today: Must be all of the gun toting terrorists in Cedar Rapids. We were orderly and LE professional and respectful prior to federal intervention.

Even though I know a lot more about this than everyone here does, I still concede that I don't have all of the facts. Therefore judgment is supended. I can share my experience.

I also concede that skepticism toward government use of force is healthy, and necessary.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:39 AM
So you'd let looters run wild through your neighborhood if it would mean that you could go in and get your stuff any time you want to. Don't you dare presume to speak for anybody other than yourself.



A meaningless taunting catchphrase. Rejected.


according to the police, he isn't allowed to stop looters from pillaging his house much less that of his neighbors. I think you not seeing both sides of the issue here.

UtahApocalypse
06-16-2008, 11:39 AM
:roll:

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:39 AM
Godwin's Law invoked. Your credibility here just became zero.


Roflmao, coming from a boot polishing badge worshiper, Im not exactly rebuffed.

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 11:39 AM
Lets just hope you guys can rely on the police to keep things secure. People have very little faith in the govt. to actually protect their home in an emergency situation.

Especially since they know the cops will be too busy making sure the homeowners mind their roadblock at the front way in while completely ignoring that jeep path through the woods out back.

SnappleLlama
06-16-2008, 11:40 AM
I'm getting the feeling that we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this one, guys ;)

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:41 AM
I'm getting the feeling that we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this one, guys ;)

unless you are cop. then you could just pull your gun and have your way.

adam1mc
06-16-2008, 11:41 AM
Same article; New picture and new caption


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/weather/06/16/iowa.floods/t1home.flood.mon.12.ap.jpg

An officer warns a resident to back off at a checkpoint in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo

Danke
06-16-2008, 11:42 AM
So you'd let looters run wild through your neighborhood if it would mean that you could go in and get your stuff any time you want to. Don't you dare presume to speak for anybody other than yourself.



A meaningless taunting catchphrase. Rejected.

Doesn't one actually have to steal something to be classified as a thief (or "looter")?

And then, is the use of deadly force by a third party to recover stolen items justified?

hmm...

constituent
06-16-2008, 11:43 AM
It isn't govt's "job" to protect people from themselves. That interferes with natural selection. ;)

couldn't agree with you more.

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 11:43 AM
One of them problems is now the Feds are involved and are pressuring local LE to tighten up security. I saw homeland security trucks today: Must be all of the gun toting terrorists in Cedar Rapids. We were orderly and LE professional and respectful prior to federal intervention.

Well, I commend you for reserving judgement. You just confirmed every stereotype about the federal government that I hold near and dear.

I am not surprised by this news.

Danke
06-16-2008, 11:44 AM
i don't know what was going on. according to reports on this thread from eye witnesses, the guy was trying to run around the road block. is it possible that he had a reason to do that? does it justify the policy responding with violence? I don't think so.

So in a disaster, we need the government to tell us how to act. I don't buy that. Police and the government do not have some special skills or abilities to be better organized than anyone else.

The time and energy wasted in having to go through checkpoints could have been better spent helping people get themselves and their stuff to higher ground.

Honestly, I am just sick of seeing cops pull out weapons for whatever the hell reason they think "justifies" the use of deadly force. I am sick of the shoot first ask questions later mentality. I am also sick of the preemptive attitude of our government that says "we will escalate to violence before you do."

1+

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 11:44 AM
I have two diabetic cousins who need to take 2 shots a day. If their insulin is in danger of being flooded away, guess what? You are going to have to shoot me to stop me from getting past the cops and into the house where this stuff is at.

Regarding your last statement. Its true unless you are a cop. Like I said before, if it was a cop that needed to get to his house, no one would be raising these questions.

How about some personal responsibility? Why would you leave the insulin in there in the first place??? Besides, no hospital would refuse them treatment had they mindlessly neglected to grab medication their life was dependent on.

But I don't want to be too harsh. I understand the skepticism and in truth, it is healthy.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:44 AM
Same article; New picture and new caption


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/weather/06/16/iowa.floods/t1home.flood.mon.12.ap.jpg

An officer warns a resident to back off at a checkpoint in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo

Hmmm... Okay, someone is trying to go through the checkpoint. Let me stand in front of him, so if he keeps going forward I get to cap him!

adam1mc
06-16-2008, 11:44 AM
The way I see it... technically he's on public property and he isn't breaking any laws trying to pass a checkpoint with the intent of returning to his private property. If the cop were to shoot... I'd be real interested to see how that would all play out in court. Police are only supposed to use weapons against criminals and when they feel as though their life is in danger. This is obviously not one of those cases.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:45 AM
Same article; New picture and new caption


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/weather/06/16/iowa.floods/t1home.flood.mon.12.ap.jpg

An officer warns a resident to back off at a checkpoint in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo

just noticed the uniform in the back ground. I thought those guys were supposed to packing sandbags? Why would they be at a police check point with a little satellite dish in the background?

Danke
06-16-2008, 11:46 AM
Hmmm... Okay, someone is trying to go through the checkpoint. Let me stand in front of him, so if he keeps going forward I get to cap him!

Nobody said you had to have high SAT scores to be a cop.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:47 AM
Dont be a douche.

Since you're now reduced to flinging insults, I accept your surrender.


Its easy enough to terry stop (a flood associated with moving shit out of a house should meet the RAS standard) anyone you see loading shit out of a house and ask for proof of residence.

I notice you didn't address my point earlier - WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET ALL THESE OFFICER FRIENDLIES CONDUCTING ROUTINE PATROLS IN A DISASTER AREA? Most police and emergency personnel are rather busy elsewhere at times like these, you know, saving lives and protecting property, pulling idiot SUV drivers out of flood waters, transporting casualties to hospitals, dealing with downed power lines, et al.


These cops have guaranteed that anyone who makes it past their checkpoint has carte blanche, AND, nobody can protect their homes. Awesome.

If they make it past the checkpoint, there is obviously a good reason that they did so. :rolleyes:

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 11:48 AM
WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET ALL THESE OFFICER FRIENDLIES CONDUCTING ROUTINE PATROLS IN A DISASTER AREA? :rolleyes:

Ummm... Off the checkpoints?

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:48 AM
The way I see it... technically he's on public property and he isn't breaking any laws trying to pass a checkpoint with the intent of returning to his private property. If the cop were to shoot... I'd be real interested to see how that would all play out in court. Police are only supposed to use weapons against criminals and when they feel as though their life is in danger. This is obviously not one of those cases.

So the cop had no reason to believe his life to be in danger when a crazed SUV driver has his bumper 6 inches from the cop's chest with the engine running? :rolleyes:

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 11:49 AM
Ummm... Off the checkpoints?

So you also want to give looters an affectionate pat on the butt as they steal your stuff. Must be nice to be you - I personally am rather fond of my stuff and don't want looters stealing it.

Primbs
06-16-2008, 11:53 AM
In New Orleans, many of the cops were the looters. And of course congressmen were pulling rank and getting rescue boats to their homes to save their possessions.

I don't think the 1st priority of the cops is to guard individual houses. They have other priorities such as search and rescue, manning checkpoints, investigating crimes after they have happened.

You would not be able to sue the cops for failing to protect your house if it gets robbed.

There is a valid reason for individual home owners to protect their own property and homes.

Truth Warrior
06-16-2008, 11:54 AM
I'm gonna tell the police that you said that. :D

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 11:55 AM
So you also want to give looters an affectionate pat on the butt as they steal your stuff. Must be nice to be you - I personally am rather fond of my stuff and don't want looters stealing it.

So, you have no faith in the cops' ability to spot looters on patrol but unlimited faith in their ability to completely seal an area by guarding only those paved entrances. Well, well, don't know what to say to that...

newbitech
06-16-2008, 11:55 AM
How about some personal responsibility? Why would you leave the insulin in there in the first place??? Besides, no hospital would refuse them treatment had they mindlessly neglected to grab medication their life was dependent on.

But I don't want to be too harsh. I understand the skepticism and in truth, it is healthy.

personal responsibility? You don't know the circumstances for one but thats ok, this guy was going home to take care of those responsibilities and was denied by armed resistance. Let me explain. I live in FL. We go through evacuation every once in a while and its not uncommon to have certain areas flood that aren't in the flood zone.

Insulin must remain cold in the frig. You don't carry the stuff around with you. The first thing on my evacuation list is to get the cooler with ice and pack the meds. Of course in my case I have more time to react since I don't have to worry about levies breaking. Also, in a time of emergency, you are not going to want to have to deal with hospitals or take the risk that you can't get to one when you have a diabetic or two to take care of. They can go into seizure with no warning.

All that being said. We still don't know the circumstances. I don't think people are going to try to go around a military blockade without a good reason. I also think that if you have ever been in this type of situation, one of your biggest fears is having to rely on government to take care of things for you. No one who has diabetics age 5 and 11 would mindlessly forget the meds. Its more than skepticism, it is complete critical of police force that is willing to shoot someone dead rather than taking in to consideration that this man's life is more valuable than loot, no matter his motivation.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:56 AM
Since you're now reduced to flinging insults, I accept your surrender.

an insult is not the same thing as an objectively neutral label




I notice you didn't address my point earlier - WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET ALL THESE OFFICER FRIENDLIES CONDUCTING ROUTINE PATROLS IN A DISASTER AREA? Most police and emergency personnel are rather busy elsewhere at times like these, you know, saving lives and protecting property, pulling idiot SUV drivers out of flood waters, transporting casualties to hospitals, dealing with downed power lines, et al.

You dont get it. I dont care that there arent enough officer friendlies to protect all the property. There are never enough officer friendlies to protect all the property, even without an emergency. That is why we have crime. The only people capable of protecting property are INDIVIDUALS, and these idiots are stoping them from doing that. These cops would be more effective actually helping people, instead of standing in their way waving guns around.




If they make it past the checkpoint, there is obviously a good reason that they did so. :rolleyes:

yeah, like they have a boat or a jeep and went off the paved road, because they are looters. The people that the cops are stopping are homeowners.

Dr.3D
06-16-2008, 11:57 AM
just noticed the uniform in the back ground. I thought those guys were supposed to packing sandbags? Why would they be at a police check point with a little satellite dish in the background?

Those satellite dishes you are referring to, look more like lights so they can see at night.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 11:58 AM
So the cop had no reason to believe his life to be in danger when a crazed SUV driver has his bumper 6 inches from the cop's chest with the engine running? :rolleyes:

this dumbass cop put himself in front of someone who is trying to get home to save his property. Who is the crazed one again?

pcosmar
06-16-2008, 11:59 AM
A better idea,

http://www.lorainohio.net/pics/NoRitaLooters2.jpg

http://lunatic_angelic.shackspace.com/looters%20beware.jpg

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 12:00 PM
A better idea,

http://www.lorainohio.net/pics/NoRitaLooters2.jpg

http://lunatic_angelic.shackspace.com/looters%20beware.jpg

exactly. the locals KNOW who is supposed to be there. The cops are just getting in the way.

constituent
06-16-2008, 12:03 PM
http://lunatic_angelic.shackspace.com/looters%20beware.jpg


that's my favorite picture ever.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 12:03 PM
Those satellite dishes you are referring to, look more like lights so they can see at night.

ah you are right. the angle looked a little direct tv dish. still doesn't answer the question of why this guy is just chilling at a checkpoint instead of sandbagging or helping people.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:04 PM
So, you have no faith in the cops' ability to spot looters on patrol but unlimited faith in their ability to completely seal an area by guarding only those paved entrances. Well, well, don't know what to say to that...

How in the world did you come to those conclusions? Complete non sequitur.

constituent
06-16-2008, 12:04 PM
ah you are right. the angle looked a little direct tv dish. still doesn't answer the question of why this guy is just chilling at a checkpoint instead of sandbagging or helping people.

Q: Why the stiff in uniform?

A: gravitas?

mczerone
06-16-2008, 12:04 PM
Context is everything.

(from the article accompanying the picture)



That's why the authorities are trying to keep people from going in there willy-nilly, hon. Looters suck.

So they should let people go in to their homes, unless they can guarantee that there will be no looting. It's only a benefit to control the population if you can control All of the population, including the criminal element.

Regardless of the crime situation - the most the police should do is close a dangerous public road, and warn citizen of dangers that may be present in an area. NOT to lock down private property, at gunpoint.

The only people that are going to defend your home are those that care about you: yourself, any family that could help, and neighbors.

If they allowed SOME people to go into their neighborhoods, all of the criminal element would be driven out, as they would be recognized as outsiders and deterred from stealing.

Better yet, get some camera crews or other reporting means in the areas to record and prosecute any wrong-doers. These people (reporters) are usually more than willing to put themselves in harm's way for some good story/footage, which disaster zones always are.

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 12:09 PM
Yo, asgardshill, I suggested they could patrol instead of operating roadblocks and be more effective. You then said this:


So you also want to give looters an affectionate pat on the butt as they steal your stuff. Must be nice to be you - I personally am rather fond of my stuff and don't want looters stealing it.

Think about my reply another twelve seconds and you'll get it.

We bypassed hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops during WWII. If we hadn't, we probably wouldn't have won. Wasn't it nice of the Imperial Japanese Army to stick them in one spot so we could avoid them?

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:10 PM
personal responsibility? You don't know the circumstances for one but thats ok, this guy was going home to take care of those responsibilities and was denied by armed resistance.

How in the world did he think he was going to "take care of those responsibilities?" Last time I checked, refrigerators need AC power to work. They also work much better when they're NOT under 3 feet of flood water. Its quite possible that his stash of insulin was already ruined when they turned off the power x number of days previously. If the guy had any brains and cared about his health whatever, he would have hurriedly filled an ice chest with ice, dumped the insulin in there, and TAKEN IT WITH HIM. Going back into a disaster area to retrieve probably spoiled insulin is a non-starter, and the police were quite right to keep him from going back.

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 12:14 PM
How in the world did he think he was going to "take care of those responsibilities?" Last time I checked, refrigerators need AC power to work. They also work much better when they're NOT under 3 feet of flood water. Its quite possible that his stash of insulin was already ruined when they turned off the power x number of days previously. If the guy had any brains and cared about his health whatever, he would have hurriedly filled an ice chest with ice, dumped the insulin in there, and TAKEN IT WITH HIM. Going back into a disaster area to retrieve probably spoiled insulin is a non-starter, and the police were quite right to keep him from going back.

Quite an extensive sand castle we've built here...

Point is, no cop could possibly know whether it is truly vital for someone to get in there or not.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 12:22 PM
How in the world did he think he was going to "take care of those responsibilities?" Last time I checked, refrigerators need AC power to work. They also work much better when they're NOT under 3 feet of flood water. Its quite possible that his stash of insulin was already ruined when they turned off the power x number of days previously. If the guy had any brains and cared about his health whatever, he would have hurriedly filled an ice chest with ice, dumped the insulin in there, and TAKEN IT WITH HIM. Going back into a disaster area to retrieve probably spoiled insulin is a non-starter, and the police were quite right to keep him from going back.

We don't have enough facts to draw ANY intelligent conclusions.

Regarding another poster who is being semantically anal. You're questioning the use of force. I call that skepticism. For the record, THAT IS GOOD. A true patriot ALWAYS QUESTIONS government usage of force and should demand an airtight reason to support it. A true patriot should also base judgments on facts.

Yes I agree that if we had the right to bear arms according to the original intent of the Constitution then looting wouldn't be as much of a potential problem.

But we live in the really real world where WE DON'T HAVE THOSE RIGHTS thanks to activists, politicians and a supreme court more concerned with the way they think things ought be rather than defending Constitutional principles. Therefore it is prudent to have an armed police force because we live in the real world until we get those rights back. Remember that the evacuation was mandatory so there aren't many "militias" to protect property."

I believe in the Consitution and if the person in question was a danger to life, property, privacy and liberty of another, then the person is at risk to lose his own rights! The Consitution clearly supports that.

Regarding the insulin argument: Sophistry.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:25 PM
So they should let people go in to their homes, unless they can guarantee that there will be no looting.

Nobody can "guarantee" anything in a disaster situation. The police don't recruit from Mars or Valhalla. And, there was a procedure to allow some people to return to their homes to get stuff; its impatient morons like the SUV driver trying to run the police checkpoint and cut in line that screws things up for the rest of the victims.


It's only a benefit to control the population if you can control All of the population, including the criminal element.

An impossible goal, and one impossible to achieve. Police can't ring the entire neighborhood with an iron cordon of 150,000 armed police, so they did the next best thing and set up checkpoints.


Regardless of the crime situation - the most the police should do is close a dangerous public road, and warn citizen of dangers that may be present in an area. NOT to lock down private property, at gunpoint.

The only problem with doing that is that those who insist on returning to flooded neighborhoods can potentially become casualties themselves, necessitating that they be rescued again. And its not just flood waters that are dangerous - snakes, downed power lines, toxic chemicals, structural collapse of damaged homes - lather rinse repeat ...


The only people that are going to defend your home are those that care about you: yourself, any family that could help, and neighbors.

The police ARE trying to defend your home. Against opportunistic looters - that's what the checkpoints are designed to reduce if not stop entirely. In an ideal world, we could just call up 100,000 armed Instant Police in an emergency and assign one to every home - dessicate them then rehydrate them just like in that Daffy Duck cartoon with the "Instant Martians". But we can't - we do the things that work. And checkpoints work.


If they allowed SOME people to go into their neighborhoods, all of the criminal element would be driven out, as they would be recognized as outsiders and deterred from stealing.

You don't have time to conduct a complete background check on everybody who wants to return to what they say is their home. Its a NATURAL DISASTER, and the people who would have to run those background checks are probably busy themselves trying to save people's lives, not tap away on a computer and call up people's information.


Better yet, get some camera crews or other reporting means in the areas to record and prosecute any wrong-doers. These people (reporters) are usually more than willing to put themselves in harm's way for some good story/footage, which disaster zones always are.

What if the camera crews get flooded out? Or a ruined house falls on the cameraman? Or they get electrocuted by a downed power line? Would the camera people then be personally liable for any looting losses in that neighborhood?

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 12:28 PM
Nobody can "guarantee" anything in a disaster situation. The police don't recruit from Mars or Valhalla. And, there was a procedure to allow some people to return to their homes to get stuff; its impatient morons like the SUV driver trying to run the police checkpoint and cut in line that screws things up for the rest of the victims.



An impossible goal, and one impossible to achieve. Police can't ring the entire neighborhood with an iron cordon of 150,000 armed police, so they did the next best thing and set up checkpoints.



The only problem with doing that is that those who insist on returning to flooded neighborhoods can potentially become casualties themselves, necessitating that they be rescued again. And its not just flood waters that are dangerous - snakes, downed power lines, toxic chemicals, structural collapse of damaged homes - lather rinse repeat ...



The police ARE trying to defend your home. Against opportunistic looters - that's what the checkpoints are designed to reduce if not stop entirely. In an ideal world, we could just call up 100,000 armed Instant Police in an emergency and assign one to every home - dessicate them then rehydrate them just like in that Daffy Duck cartoon with the "Instant Martians". But we can't - we do the things that work. And checkpoints work.



You don't have time to conduct a complete background check on everybody who wants to return to what they say is their home. Its a NATURAL DISASTER, and the people who would have to run those background checks are probably busy themselves trying to save people's lives, not tap away on a computer and call up people's information.



What if the camera crews get flooded out? Or a ruined house falls on the cameraman? Or they get electrocuted by a downed power line? Would the camera people then be personally liable for any looting losses in that neighborhood?

If you keep polishing that badge that hard, you are gonna wear all the chrome off of it.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:30 PM
Quite an extensive sand castle we've built here...

Point is, no cop could possibly know whether it is truly vital for someone to get in there or not.

How is it a "sand castle?" You're throwing around non sequitur again.

In this particular instance, the individual claimed that he needed to go retrieve his insulin. My point was that the insulin he claimed he was going to retrieve was probably already spoiled, which is a valid point. Further, the person in question is not going to die if the insulin he takes doesn't come out of his own refrigerator and comes instead from a hospital or emergency clinic in a safe area. If the individual is truly that insulin-dependent, he should have taken it with him when he evacuated and not abandoned it to the flood waters.

Life's hard. And its even harder when you don't think ahead.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:32 PM
If you keep polishing that badge that hard, you are gonna wear all the chrome off of it.

Waaaaaa. Here's a tissue.

http://www.cluttercontrolfreak.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/kleenex.jpg

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 12:35 PM
Waaaaaa. Here's a tissue.

http://www.cluttercontrolfreak.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/kleenex.jpg

Dont cry. If you wear out the badge, Im sure you can polish their boots or lovingly caress their night sticks.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 12:35 PM
Regarding the insulin argument: Sophistry.

didn't you say you were speaking from first hand experience? So was I. Read a couple of comments up. The point was not to present an argument that would allow the guy to get around the roadblock. Obviously any argument made to the cops at this checkpoint is sophistry. Thats not a huge deal, but the fact the cops would kill someone for it? Yeah thats pretty evident of a police state attitude. Its marshal law and I think it should be pointed out that this is exactly the kind of power that the next president will be looking to build on.

I also said that if I was in the situation that I described, they would indeed have to kill me. This man did not push the issue so maybe he was just trying to get something else out of the house that he didn't really need that badly.

Regardless, this precedent scares the crap out of me because one day, I might need to get back to my house for a life or death reason and I expect the government to be on the scene to force me to have to choose if its going to be my life or someone else's life on the line. This is the last decision I or anyone should be making in a disaster.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 12:37 PM
Quite an extensive sand castle we've built here...

Point is, no cop could possibly know whether it is truly vital for someone to get in there or not.

the other point might be is that if everything of value has been destroyed, who cares about looters taking my soggy wide screen?

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:37 PM
Dont cry. If you wear out the badge, Im sure you can polish their boots or lovingly caress their night sticks.

You obviously have much more experience caressing sticks than I do, so I'll defer to you in this case.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:39 PM
the other point might be is that if everything of value has been destroyed, who cares about looters taking my soggy wide screen?

What about your soggy stash of FRNs? Your soggy jewelry? Your soggy gold coins? Yeah, no way THOSE could be pawned or sold elsewhere - the flood would just ruin them.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 12:40 PM
What about your soggy stash of FRNs? Your soggy jewelry? Your soggy gold coins? Yeah, no way THOSE could be pawned or sold elsewhere - the flood would just ruin them.

borrowing from your insulin argument.
maybe you should of had enough brains to take it with you when you evacuated.

Get real man.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 12:42 PM
You obviously have much more experience caressing sticks than I do, so I'll defer to you in this case.

Not true! You are the one begging for the big men with authority, all strapped with leather and steel to come seize your assets when you are scared of the big bad looters... Admit it, you desire to be grasped firmly by the hands of the state and taken care of in your time of need. You ache to submit to their wisdom and power.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:50 PM
didn't you say you were speaking from first hand experience? So was I. Read a couple of comments up. The point was not to present an argument that would allow the guy to get around the roadblock. Obviously any argument made to the cops at this checkpoint is sophistry. Thats not a huge deal, but the fact the cops would kill someone for it?

That's the problem with relying on one still photograph to make an entire set of assumptions - one still photo cannot provide any necessary context.

Was this the context?

Robert Meekmannered, concerned father, pulls up to the police checkpoint in his SUV. In a soft voice, he asks the nice policeman at the checkpoint, "Please, sir, my daughter needs her medication. Its in my house, just 2 blocks down that way. Here's my driver's license proving that I actually live there and her medical records proving that she will die, DIE sir, without the pills. And none of the local pharmacies that aren't underwater already have it. Please PLEASE let me pass - she's having seizures and only the medication will stop it."

Or was THIS the context?

Larry Looter needed a big score today. Crack and fine hos ain't free, you know. "Those are some nice cribs in that flood zone there and I should score good - just gotta get past those pigs." Larry guns the stolen SUV and stops 6 inches from the cop on picket duty. "GET THE FSCK OUT OF THE WAY, YOU FSCKING PIG! I GOTTA GO GET MY, HEH HEH, "MEDICATION"! NOW MOVE IT FO I RUN YO ASS OVER!"

As always, I think the truth and the context will lie somewhere in between.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:52 PM
borrowing from your insulin argument.
maybe you should of had enough brains to take it with you when you evacuated.

Get real man.

I don't need gold coins or jewelry to survive. That's why most of my assets are in the bank. Now if my safe deposit box was refrigerated, I could keep insulin in there. But its not.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 12:55 PM
Not true! You are the one begging for the big men with authority, all strapped with leather and steel to come seize your assets when you are scared of the big bad looters... Admit it, you desire to be grasped firmly by the hands of the state and taken care of in your time of need. You ache to submit to their wisdom and power.

Again, your own prose indicates a disturbing familiarity and obsession with authority figures. Does your mistress tie one of those choke balls on your mouth? Have you been bad today?

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 01:02 PM
Again, your own prose indicates a disturbing familiarity and obsession with authority figures. Does your mistress tie one of those choke balls on your mouth? Have you been bad today?

Actually, Im the one advocating that authority is just a legal fiction remember? You are the one all snuggling up to the choke balls, strap on weapons and submitting to authority becawz yous afwaid ov da big bad looter...

Really, dont try to turn this around, you should admit to your inner motivation here. Do you get all stirred up when you see a uniform or some other symbol of authority?

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 01:05 PM
In all seriousness, and if I can get this out without flaming anyone, this is kind of the heart of this movement, isn't it? Do we give up our freedoms for security or not? If we do, what's to stop the government from manufacturing crises at every opportunity?

And no, I'm not trying to get the tin hat brigade to pursue the obvious neglect of New Orleans' levees...

Long and the short of it is, if we are safe from the looters or "terrists" or whoever but no longer free, do we win?

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 01:06 PM
didn't you say you were speaking from first hand experience? So was I. Read a couple of comments up. The point was not to present an argument that would allow the guy to get around the roadblock. Obviously any argument made to the cops at this checkpoint is sophistry. Thats not a huge deal, but the fact the cops would kill someone for it? Yeah thats pretty evident of a police state attitude. Its marshal law and I think it should be pointed out that this is exactly the kind of power that the next president will be looking to build on.

I also said that if I was in the situation that I described, they would indeed have to kill me. This man did not push the issue so maybe he was just trying to get something else out of the house that he didn't really need that badly.

Regardless, this precedent scares the crap out of me because one day, I might need to get back to my house for a life or death reason and I expect the government to be on the scene to force me to have to choose if its going to be my life or someone else's life on the line. This is the last decision I or anyone should be making in a disaster.

I am sorry if I missed your comment. These posts are multiplying like rabbits.

Once again, all we have are some FACTOIDS. I cannot draw an intelligent conclusion about this without more FACTS and I'm sticking to it. I can say that before the feds got involved, we didn't have these problems. All of a sudden local LE is really tightening up around those areas. FEMA and Homeland Security are calling the shots now and they are demanding tighter security for no reason. I saw no incidents and I was out there next to the flood areas for three days straight among hundreds of people. This happens everytime the feds get involved with a state's issue.

BTW: The Constitution doesn't protect your right to threaten the life, liberty, property, and privacy of another if you forgot your insulin. If you did, you deserve to have your rights taken away. I will hold firm to this.

I believe in the Law of the Constitution, not anarchy. Anarchy isn't freedom. Anarchy leads to perhaps the most oppressive form of government possible.

But there is middle ground between us if you can drop the pride for a bit. For the record, I'm glad you are skeptical of it. I appreciate your instincts and general passion about liberty and agree with it. Once the government cared about our individual liberties because, quite frankly, individuals were committed to defending theirs. With more people like you, they'd start caring about individual liberties in DC again.

But I do believe you are on the path of rushing to judgment.

Peace bro.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 01:06 PM
I don't need gold coins or jewelry to survive. That's why most of my assets are in the bank. Now if my safe deposit box was refrigerated, I could keep insulin in there. But its not.


look i figure you don't have any first hand experiencing caring for two type-A diabetic children. Not many people do. I care less about gold coins or jewelry. Apparently you think it is brainless for someone to go back to their house to get insulin, but its completely reasonable that someone might leave gold coins, cash, and jewelry for thieves to steal.

Correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that gold and jewelry are > insulin?

I am mean really it doesn't matter what the guy was going back for he didn't deserve to be stopped with the threat of deadly force. And then the cops are going to frame him to look like a bad guy. Saying that they were struck three time by the car but didn't get hurt. Right. Breaking the guys window out. Standing in front of his moving vehicle. Arresting him (think of the paper work) like they had nothing better to do. ALL could have been avoided had they assumed the guy had a reason to risk the flood, rather than assuming he had criminal intent.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 01:09 PM
In all seriousness, and if I can get this out without flaming anyone, this is kind of the heart of this movement, isn't it? Do we give up our freedoms for security or not? If we do, what's to stop the government from manufacturing crises at every opportunity?

And no, I'm not trying to get the tin hat brigade to pursue the obvious neglect of New Orleans' levees...

Long and the short of it is, if we are safe from the looters or "terrists" or whoever but no longer free, do we win?

I think if you are trying to convince asgard, you are probably wasting your time. I dont know what the heck a 'government solution' guy is doing on this board, but oh well.

I think getting people to swallow the reality that all "security" is just an illusion anyway is a hard thing to do. People are programmed to believe this shit. I almost wish we could kidnap them and send them to a mises re education camp or something.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 01:17 PM
I am sorry if I missed your comment. These posts are multiplying like rabbits.

Once again, all we have are some FACTOIDS. I cannot draw an intelligent conclusion about this without more FACTS and I'm sticking to it. I can say that before the feds got involved, we didn't have these problems. All of a sudden local LE is really tightening up around those areas. FEMA and Homeland Security are calling the shots now and they are demanding tighter security for no reason. I saw no incidents and I was out there next to the flood areas for three days straight among hundreds of people. This happens everytime the feds get involved with a state's issue.

BTW: The Constitution doesn't protect your right to threaten the life, liberty, property, and privacy of another if you forgot your insulin. If you did, you deserve to have your rights taken away. I will hold firm to this.

I believe in the Law of the Constitution, not anarchy. Anarchy isn't freedom. Anarchy leads to perhaps the most oppressive form of government possible.

But there is middle ground between us if you can drop the pride for a bit. For the record, I'm glad you are skeptical of it. I appreciate your instincts and general passion about liberty and agree with it. Once the government cared about our individual liberties because, quite frankly, individuals were committed to defending theirs. With more people like you, they'd start caring about individual liberties in DC again.

But I do believe you are rushing to final judgment.

Peace bro.

I understand we live in perilous time both locally as in these circumstances and throughout the nation and world. Cops have power because we grant them that power. I am fine with that. Its when the people who have power begin to arbitrarily use that power that it becomes an abuse. When I see a cop throw his body in front of a moving vehicle, I have to wonder what the hell he was thinking.

I have also been a victim of this abuse so I can tell you first hand that when cops decide to do this stuff, its not in the heat of the moment. This kind of action is premeditated. Cops can't wait to put themselves in a situation like this where they would be completely justified in the eyes of the law in blowing someones head off. Maybe not all cops, but once the precedent is set, once we lose a little bit of liberty because of one idiot cop, we may never get it back in our lifetimes.

I am passionate, and yes prideful, and I try to remain objective (thats why I post my opinions). We need to err on the side of liberty. Even if we over step it and take away too much power it will be better than taking away our freedom. We are in the opposite climate and we need to meet force with and equal or greater force (metaphorically speaking) if we hope to hold and eventually gain ground.

Peace and good luck to you, I know what some of these folks are going through. People need to stick together in crisis.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:18 PM
I think if you are trying to convince asgard, you are probably wasting your time. I dont know what the heck a 'government solution' guy is doing on this board, but oh well.

Its not "government solution", its the "not falling into anarchy" and "doing things that work" parts that I'm about.


I think getting people to swallow the reality that all "security" is just an illusion anyway is a hard thing to do. People are programmed to believe this shit. I almost wish we could kidnap them and send them to a mises re education camp or something.

Somebody trumpeting anarchy who wants to kidnap people - you owe me one irony meter.

And wups - again with the "swallow" references. :rolleyes:

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 01:18 PM
I think getting people to swallow the reality that all "security" is just an illusion anyway is a hard thing to do. People are programmed to believe this shit. I almost wish we could kidnap them and send them to a mises re education camp or something.

Careful now. It does us no good to become what we despise. I'm ready for the neocons to go so far from the intent of the Framers that we create a new morality---or if not that, a new sense of responsibility--and say never again!

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 01:19 PM
Careful now. It does us no good to become what we despise. I'm ready for the neocons to go so far from the intent of the Framers that we create a new morality---or if not that, a new sense of responsibility--and say never again!


Note I said 'almost'.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 01:21 PM
Its not "government solution", its the "not falling into anarchy" and "doing things that work" parts that I'm about.



Somebody trumpeting anarchy who wants to kidnap people - you owe me one irony meter.

And wups - again with the "swallow" references. :rolleyes:


if kissing a cops ass makes us safe, you are the safest man on the planet. And note I said 'almost wish".

wow, do you get excited every time you read the word swallow?

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 01:23 PM
if kissing a cops ass makes us safe, you are the safest man on the planet. And note I said 'almost wish".

wow, do you get excited every time you read the word swallow?

The opening scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail must be hard for him to bear.

amy31416
06-16-2008, 01:25 PM
I am sorry if I missed your comment. These posts are multiplying like rabbits.

Once again, all we have are some FACTOIDS. I cannot draw an intelligent conclusion about this without more FACTS and I'm sticking to it. I can say that before the feds got involved, we didn't have these problems. All of a sudden local LE is really tightening up around those areas. FEMA and Homeland Security are calling the shots now and they are demanding tighter security for no reason. I saw no incidents and I was out there next to the flood areas for three days straight among hundreds of people. This happens everytime the feds get involved with a state's issue.



I've been reading this thread and think you've made some of the best points. To me, it's not about whether or not cops should be involved (as public servants, obviously they should) or even about this one particular incident. It's about how these situations go right down the toilet once you bring in Federal Agencies.

If the state and locals were handling it just fine, there was no need to bring in FEMA and Homeland Security. It certainly seemed they were from your accounts.

Let the Red Cross, the citizens, volunteers, the state and local authorities deal with theses situations.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 01:31 PM
I've been reading this thread and think you've made some of the best points. To me, it's not about whether or not cops should be involved (as public servants, obviously they should) or even about this one particular incident. It's about how these situations go right down the toilet once you bring in Federal Agencies.

If the state and locals were handling it just fine, there was no need to bring in FEMA and Homeland Security. It certainly seemed they were from your accounts.

Let the Red Cross, the citizens, volunteers, the state and local authorities deal with theses situations.

Agreed. I don't have a problem with the federal government promoting the general welfare or assisting recovery from a disaster that will affect the entire nation. But such should not come at the price of a state's right to self government. Now I don't have any specific instances to cite here but given what I do know of the Fed through literature and experience, that's EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO! They pressure local and state governments and "take charge."

I do know homeland security is here and I simply do not trust their idea of "security." Aren't they supposed to be dealing with threats to NATIONAL SECURITY? I see no national security issue here.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:32 PM
look i figure you don't have any first hand experiencing caring for two type-A diabetic children. Not many people do. I care less about gold coins or jewelry. Apparently you think it is brainless for someone to go back to their house to get insulin, but its completely reasonable that someone might leave gold coins, cash, and jewelry for thieves to steal.

My cousin's diabetic (not insulin-dependent but he does need Glucophage and his entire world turns to crap if he doesn't get it when he needs it). If you are caring for insulin-dependent dependents, then you have a tough row to hoe.

And yes, it is IMO brainless to try to circumvent procedure to return to a ruined house to get probably ruined medications when those exact same medications are available safely elsewhere.


Correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that gold and jewelry are > insulin?

They're in no way equivalent. The insulin was otherwise available in safe locations and was in all probability fresh and effective.


I am mean really it doesn't matter what the guy was going back for he didn't deserve to be stopped with the threat of deadly force. And then the cops are going to frame him to look like a bad guy. Saying that they were struck three time by the car but didn't get hurt. Right. Breaking the guys window out. Standing in front of his moving vehicle. Arresting him (think of the paper work) like they had nothing better to do. ALL could have been avoided had they assumed the guy had a reason to risk the flood, rather than assuming he had criminal intent.

They can't know that he DIDN'T have criminal intent - it was an emergency situation. And quite honestly, they didn't and don't have time to check. The police don't have the resources or time to carefully background check his story and let him cut in the line of people who WERE being allowed back in, or to personally escort him into the disaster area WHEN SAFER ALTERNATIVES WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM.

This thread has gone to 10 pages now - all over one isolated still photograph with no context provided. Some people are simply paranoid and prefer to mistakenly believe that the police want to kill them.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:35 PM
The opening scene of Monty Python and the Holy Grail must be hard for him to bear.

Don't tell me - let me guess. You stand up and cheer for the "COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!" peasant.

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 01:35 PM
They're in no way equivalent. The insulin was otherwise available in safe locations and was in all probability fresh and effective.

How did you get stuck on the insulin? That was just a working theory.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:37 PM
if kissing a cops ass makes us safe, you are the safest man on the planet. And note I said 'almost wish".

Once again, you bring up the kissing of asses and other sexual content. Get a girlfriend, guy (and NOT one you brought home from Helga's House of Pain).

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:40 PM
How did you get stuck on the insulin? That was just a working theory.

Just replying to posts. I was trying to imagine what animate object or objects a person could possibly believe would be important enough to risk their life going back into a disaster area AND run down police officers to get, and insulin was the first thing I could think of.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 01:42 PM
Once again, you bring up the kissing of asses and other sexual content. Get a girlfriend, guy (and NOT one you brought home from Helga's House of Pain).

Im not bringing it up, just calling you out on what you are doing. If you take a shit in the middle of the room, is it I who have a problem for saying 'hey, asgard just shit in the middle of the room, what a sicko!"?

I understand your need to point fingers so you can avoid taking an emotional inventory to explain the underlying psycho/sexual/emotional causes for your authority worship problem, but Im telling you, all of your protestations are just a defense mechanism.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to finding a cure.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 01:43 PM
My cousin's diabetic (not insulin-dependent but he does need Glucophage and his entire world turns to crap if he doesn't get it when he needs it). If you are caring for insulin-dependent dependents, then you have a tough row to hoe.

And yes, it is IMO brainless to try to circumvent procedure to return to a ruined house to get probably ruined medications when those exact same medications are available safely elsewhere.



They're in no way equivalent. The insulin was otherwise available in safe locations and was in all probability fresh and effective.



They can't know that he DIDN'T have criminal intent - it was an emergency situation. And quite honestly, they didn't and don't have time to check. The police don't have the resources or time to carefully background check his story and let him cut in the line of people who WERE being allowed back in, or to personally escort him into the disaster area WHEN SAFER ALTERNATIVES WERE AVAILABLE TO HIM.

This thread has gone to 10 pages now - all over one isolated still photograph with no context provided. Some people are simply paranoid and prefer to mistakenly believe that the police want to kill them.

The cop was pointing a gun at a guy trying to go home. No amount of circumstances is going to convince me that a person who has not committed a non violent crime or in the process of such deserves to face cops with guns drawn.

This is not an isolated incident, its one that just happened to slip through.

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 01:45 PM
Just replying to posts. I was trying to imagine what animate object or objects a person could possibly believe would be important enough to risk their life going back into a disaster area AND run down police officers to get, and insulin was the first thing I could think of.

Well, that's the thing about freedom. If we have freedom, they get to go to their home and do what they intended to do regardless of whether you or I or anyone else thinks it important. And if we question their motives, we have to keep an eye on them and catch them being guilty rather than just assuming it.

And, no, I don't think patrolling takes more personnel than maintaining roadblocks.

Furthermore, I much prefer being policed by people who have to live in or near my community. People called in from wherever by the feds don't have the same motivations as my neighbor the local cop. Not even close.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:48 PM
In all seriousness, and if I can get this out without flaming anyone, this is kind of the heart of this movement, isn't it? Do we give up our freedoms for security or not? If we do, what's to stop the government from manufacturing crises at every opportunity?

Nothing. Paranoia is very much a self-fulfilling prophetic pathology - if you honestly and truly believe that the government is out to get you, the chances are good that you will indeed wind up dead or injured or incarcerated through some act of government. I have always believed that being paranoid is punishment enough in itself.


And no, I'm not trying to get the tin hat brigade to pursue the obvious neglect of New Orleans' levees...

A lot of THAT malfeasance can be traced to crooked Democrat politicians skimming the cream off those government contracts to line their own pockets. Remember William Jefferson and his freezer full of $100 bills?


Long and the short of it is, if we are safe from the looters or "terrists" or whoever but no longer free, do we win?

"Safe"? Or "safer?" What we call "freedom" is a balancing act between rights and responsibilities. Otherwise, there would be no way to amend the Constitution or any need for new laws or to change laws or even to have a court system.

Primbs
06-16-2008, 01:48 PM
I thought cops are only to draw guns when you intend to shoot to kill. Did the cop really think his life was in danger?

One slip and the gun can go off by accident.

That is why cops are taught to only pull their guns when they ready to kill.

We don't know what the context is.

But you have to worry about trigger itchy cops.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 01:49 PM
Just replying to posts. I was trying to imagine what animate object or objects a person could possibly believe would be important enough to risk their life going back into a disaster area AND run down police officers to get, and insulin was the first thing I could think of.

I think he was trying to go around them. Also, I brought up insulin because item one on my hurricane check list is insulin. I have no idea if this guy is in the same situation as I would be in here in Florida. But I imagine there are other reasons why he may have needed to get back in a hurry.

The whole wristband ideas was another example of government wasting precious time and resources. I am not going to wait in line while my kids have a seizure nor am I going to try and drive through evacuation traffic or fight my way through the cuts and bruises freebie medical crowd when I know my house has what I need. Sure if there is medical available then I will use that. But you don't know when a seizure will happen and I don't think the ambulance would appreciate me following them around "just in case".

I want the insulin and I want it now.

Danke
06-16-2008, 01:50 PM
I thought cops are only to draw guns when you intend to shoot to kill. Did the cop really think his life was in danger?

One slip and the gun can go off by accident.

That is why cops are taught to only pull their guns when they ready to kill.

We don't know what the context is.

But you have to worry about trigger itchy cops.

This cop hasn't learned that Aikido move of stepping aside yet.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 01:50 PM
Well, that's the thing about freedom. If we have freedom, they get to go to their home and do what they intended to do regardless of whether you or I or anyone else thinks it important. And if we question their motives, we have to keep an eye on them and catch them being guilty rather than just assuming it.

And, no, I don't think patrolling takes more personnel than maintaining roadblocks.

Furthermore, I much prefer being policed by people who have to live in or near my community. People called in from wherever by the feds don't have the same motivations as my neighbor the local cop. Not even close.

If my children needed insulin, I wouldn't be wasting my time evading cops and dog paddling to my house. I'd take my children straight to the hospital.

I'm speaking in general of course. I know it's better to err on the side of liberty but I strive for more, such as not erring at all. Rushing to judgment based on instinct and paranoia is what often leads me to error.

amy31416
06-16-2008, 01:51 PM
Furthermore, I much prefer being policed by people who have to live in or near my community. People called in from wherever by the feds don't have the same motivations as my neighbor the local cop. Not even close.

Gotta agree with you there, the only exception might be if things get completely out of hand and the state requests it and does so through proper channels.

WRellim
06-16-2008, 01:53 PM
So you're perfectly OK with Barney Fife letting Joe Q. Looter into your neighborhood to steal all your stuff. Maybe Barney could give Joe an affectionate pat on the ass to reassure him that his looting experience will be all it can be too. :mad:

If you DO find a place where "reliable LE" lets people in willy-nilly to flooded neighborhoods just because they claim they live there, do let me know where that urban paradise is, because I NEVER want to live there.


Actually, Barney is probably NOT the best example to choose from.

Barney always scared the SH*T out of me... and I am sad to say that whereas he might have been an over-the-top caricature back in the 1960's these days his descendants far FAR outnumber the Andy Griffith's of the world.

It was bad enough that Barney even HAD a gun (I never could fathom why Andy didn't just take Barney's gun away permanently.)

Unfortunately, "Barney" is now in charge of your local county's S.W.A.T. team, complete with a fleet of up-armored Humvee's, a whole rack full of M16's and RPG's, a helicopter, a bunch of GPS "tag-boxes" and probably a tank-like vehicle to boot... just waiting and drooling for the chance to use all of his toys.





Where is Andy Griffith when you need him?

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:53 PM
Well, that's the thing about freedom. If we have freedom, they get to go to their home and do what they intended to do regardless of whether you or I or anyone else thinks it important. And if we question their motives, we have to keep an eye on them and catch them being guilty rather than just assuming it.

Which also includes the looters' freedom to run rampant with no realistic way to stop them. Sorry, but anarchy's been tried and it doesn't work.


And, no, I don't think patrolling takes more personnel than maintaining roadblocks.

In a flooded neighborhood? Police cruisers are built to be robust, but there's not many of them that can operate in 3 feet of water.


Furthermore, I much prefer being policed by people who have to live in or near my community. People called in from wherever by the feds don't have the same motivations as my neighbor the local cop. Not even close.

Gotta agree with you there. I don't have a problem if the federal government helps out, but only as a supply chain. The FBI and Homeland Security can stay nice and dry in Washington DC while we take care of our own.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:54 PM
Where is Andy Griffith when you need him?

QFT.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 01:57 PM
This cop hasn't learned that Aikido move of stepping aside yet.


Actually, he did. Except in cop school, they teach them to step IN FRONT of the moving vehicle, so they can shoot you legally.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 01:58 PM
The cop was pointing a gun at a guy trying to go home.

The cop was pointing a gun at somebody trying to run a checkpoint and threatening to turn HIM into road pizza at the same time. That's what I saw.


No amount of circumstances is going to convince me that a person who has not committed a non violent crime or in the process of such deserves to face cops with guns drawn.

This is not an isolated incident, its one that just happened to slip through.

The guy DID commit a crime - he was trying to blast his way through a checkpoint and threatening the life of the cop with his 2-ton SUV.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 02:07 PM
I think he was trying to go around them.

Yes. And he was very lucky not to end up with a brainpan full of 9MM ball.


Also, I brought up insulin because item one on my hurricane check list is insulin. I have no idea if this guy is in the same situation as I would be in here in Florida. But I imagine there are other reasons why he may have needed to get back in a hurry.

Sure. And legitimate reasons too. He might have wanted to save his entire collection of mint-condition Andy Dick Underoos from the flood. Problem is, America is not Burger King - we don't always get it our way. And we certainly don't have the freedom to run over the cops just because we want something and they're in the way. That's called anarchy, and that's not what we're about here.


The whole wristband ideas was another example of government wasting precious time and resources. I am not going to wait in line while my kids have a seizure nor am I going to try and drive through evacuation traffic or fight my way through the cuts and bruises freebie medical crowd when I know my house has what I need. Sure if there is medical available then I will use that. But you don't know when a seizure will happen and I don't think the ambulance would appreciate me following them around "just in case".

You can't know that your house has what you need, in a usable condition. You can't know that you won't have to be rescued AGAIN if you try to go in there and get what you want. And more importantly, neither can the police. Your "right" to whatever you want when you want it has to be weighed against the greater good. And sometimes the greater good wins out.


I want the insulin and I want it now.

So take it with you. Or go to the hospital and get it.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 02:11 PM
The cop was pointing a gun at somebody trying to run a checkpoint and threatening to turn HIM into road pizza at the same time. That's what I saw.



The guy DID commit a crime - he was trying to blast his way through a checkpoint and threatening the life of the cop with his 2-ton SUV.

nice sensationalism. you sound like the guy who trains cops how to write police reports. from the little picture we saw, the car was off road. No idea if the cop jumped in front of the truck.

The fact is, had the cop let the man pass there would be no violence occurring. The cops then proceed to make up some lame story that he was hit 3 times but didn't get hurt. This sounds to me like the cop was trying to stop the truck with his body. Sounds like the guy was moving slowly forward around the check point and the cop was going to kill him if he didn't change his mind.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 02:14 PM
The fact is, had the cop let the man pass there would be no violence occurring. The cops then proceed to make up some lame story that he was hit 3 times but didn't get hurt. This sounds to me like the cop was trying to stop the truck with his body. Sounds like the guy was moving slowly forward around the check point and the cop was going to kill him if he didn't change his mind.

that is usually how it works.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 02:15 PM
nice sensationalism.

Isn't it amazing how one still photograph can elicit so many differing theories about what actually happened? And the ironic thing? Neither of us actually knows for sure what happened.


you sound like the guy who trains cops how to write police reports.

No.


from the little picture we saw, the car was off road. No idea if the cop jumped in front of the truck.

The fact is, had the cop let the man pass there would be no violence occurring.

Had the cop let the man pass, he could have cleaned the valuables out of an entire neighborhood of abandoned houses too.


The cops then proceed to make up some lame story that he was hit 3 times but didn't get hurt. This sounds to me like the cop was trying to stop the truck with his body. Sounds like the guy was moving slowly forward around the check point and the cop was going to kill him if he didn't change his mind.

You got all of that from one still picture?

Danke
06-16-2008, 02:16 PM
And we certainly don't have the freedom to run over the cops just because we want something and they're in the way.


If the cop had time enough to draw his gun, he had the time to step to the side.

The car must have been stopped, or there would be no use to pointing a gun at it at such close range.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 02:19 PM
If the cop had time enough to draw his gun, he had the time to step to the side.

And if the cop had had one more donut, it would have given me enough time to rob the convenience store AND the pawn shop too. ;)


The car must have been stopped, or there would be no use to pointing a gun at it at such close range.

As another poster pointed out earlier, cops are trained to step in front of a moving vehicle to stop them. They might get hit but the driver is going to get a new 9MM-sized hole in his head too.

acptulsa
06-16-2008, 02:19 PM
The point is, cops seldom if ever have to draw on people when the laws and regulations they are enforcing are just.

You wonder why many cops supported Ron Paul. They really, really don't want to be the bad guys.

Every time the rich get burgled, they want to change up everything the cops do. And half the time, these changeups infringe on someone's rights. And, of course, the forces for big government use every such opportunity to advantage.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 02:21 PM
Yes. And he was very lucky not to end up with a brainpan full of 9MM ball.
and if that happened you would say he deserved it. Even though he was not committing a violent crime or a crime that threatened anyone's besides maybe his own life or property.



Sure. And legitimate reasons too. He might have wanted to save his entire collection of mint-condition Andy Dick Underoos from the flood. Problem is, America is not Burger King - we don't always get it our way. And we certainly don't have the freedom to run over the cops just because we want something and they're in the way. That's called anarchy, and that's not what we're about here.

The man didn't run over a cop. He was never going to run over a cop. Again, the only life threatening that went on came from the cop. The cops seem to always get their way. So yeah America is not Burger King, but the LE agencies are?


You can't know that your house has what you need, in a usable condition. You can't know that you won't have to be rescued AGAIN if you try to go in there and get what you want. And more importantly, neither can the police. Your "right" to whatever you want when you want it has to be weighed against the greater good. And sometimes the greater good wins out.


I know more about my house than any cop or govt official does. I know that in a life or death situation, I don't want cops involved because more often than not in those situations, I won't have control over who lives and dies. Why is it more important that the police know more than me? The greater good does not involve threating someones life for trying to go home.


So take it with you. Or go to the hospital and get it. Apparently you don't understand what insulin dependency is all about. You talk like I am going to walk up to a hospital in a disaster area and get what I want when I want.

Bottom line, the guy had a very good reason for going back to his house. So much so that he was willing to partake in a little civil disobedience. The cops, rather than helping people evacuate or get their stuff to higher ground decided it would be better off to defend the road block at all cost including escalating a non violent circumstance to a violent. Then proceed to blame the victims.

Trust me, if it was a cop trying to get to his house, no one would have stopped him or threatened to stop him. Abuse of power in display in Iowa.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 02:23 PM
The point is, cops seldom if ever have to draw on people when the laws and regulations they are enforcing are just.

You wonder why many cops supported Ron Paul. They really, really don't want to be the bad guys.

Every time the rich get burgled, they want to change up everything the cops do. And half the time, these changeups infringe on someone's rights. And, of course, the forces for big government use every such opportunity to advantage.

??

The setting up of checkpoints and controlling traffic and people flow into a disaster area is hardly a new law enforcement strategy. The police have been doing that since well before George W. Bush came into office. Perhaps around the time of the Truman Administration.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 02:32 PM
Isn't it amazing how one still photograph can elicit so many differing theories about what actually happened? And the ironic thing? Neither of us actually knows for sure what happened. Pulling a gun on someone is serious. Especially in the broader context of disaster relief. Especially at a military checkpoint. Especially, And for those that haven't been paying attention, when the president has granted himself the right to declare disaster if someone sneezes and snot flies out of their nose.

The picture shows how desperate people are and how callous cops are.




No.


might want to check in to it, it is on par with some of the reports and testimony I have been a part of.


Had the cop let the man pass, he could have cleaned the valuables out of an entire neighborhood of abandoned houses too.

no he could not have because he was going to his house to get something valuable enough that he was willing to risk a confrontation with armed police and military units.


You got all of that from one still picture?
pretty much. there are some other pictures and an article that goes along with it. But basically yeah, looks like the man was being very careful to not cause any harm to life or property, unlike the cops who broke his window out and threatened to kill him in order to enforce a checkpoint.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 02:39 PM
and if that happened you would say he deserved it. Even though he was not committing a violent crime or a crime that threatened anyone's besides maybe his own life or property.

And the cop he threatened to mow down with his SUV was chopped liver?


The man didn't run over a cop.

And he wasn't shot.


He was never going to run over a cop.

And he wasn't shot.


Again, the only life threatening that went on came from the cop.

Bullshit.


The cops seem to always get their way. So yeah America is not Burger King, but the LE agencies are?

If the cop would have truly gotten it "his way", there wouldn't have been a 500-year flood in his town and he would have been sitting at the local donut emporium with his partner like every other weekday waiting for his shift to begin.



I know more about my house than any cop or govt official does.

I know you do. And so do I. But the cops don't know that, and don't know that you're not a looter looking to make a big score because you're down to one rock of crack.


I know that in a life or death situation, I don't want cops involved because more often than not in those situations, I won't have control over who lives and dies. Why is it more important that the police know more than me? The greater good does not involve threating someones life for trying to go home.

Again, the cops aren't mind-readers and couldn't know that the guy was just "trying to go home." They would have committed a much larger breach of duty and ethics by just letting the guy go on his way. If you owned a home in the area and the guy turned out to be a looter and robbed you blind, I'd bet you would be the first one at the courthouse filing lawsuits against the police for not doing their duty.


Apparently you don't understand what insulin dependency is all about. You talk like I am going to walk up to a hospital in a disaster area and get what I want when I want.

I am not diabetic, that is true. And if one symptom of diabetes was that you automatically grow a third eye in the middle of your forehead, it would make it much easier for everybody to know that you are telling the truth and that you need to go get your insulin. But that doesn't happen, so there we are. If you need the insulin to live, TAKE IT WITH YOU.


Bottom line, the guy had a very good reason for going back to his house.

That has not been proven.


So much so that he was willing to partake in a little civil disobedience.

Threatening to run over a cop and trying to blast through a checkpoint does not equal "a little civil disobedience." That's called attempted murder, and freaked-out SUV driver is very lucky that he didn't end up in the local clinker on that charge.


The cops, rather than helping people evacuate or get their stuff to higher ground decided it would be better off to defend the road block at all cost including escalating a non violent circumstance to a violent. Then proceed to blame the victims.

Uh, the neighborhood had already been evacuated. By the cops and other emergency personnel. This was a guy trying to GET BACK IN to a flooded neighborhood for reasons unknown.


Trust me, if it was a cop trying to get to his house, no one would have stopped him or threatened to stop him. Abuse of power in display in Iowa.

Most cops would have been smart enough to get whatever they needed before evacuating, and would have known that they could get whatever they needed elsewhere.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 02:39 PM
by the way, the picture may be staged. The original picture did not show a Road Closed sign. Also, the article says that the cop knocked out the driver window, the picture shows the cop knocking out the passenger window. I wouldn't be surprised.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 02:40 PM
??

The setting up of checkpoints and controlling traffic and people flow into a disaster area is hardly a new law enforcement strategy. The police have been doing that since well before George W. Bush came into office. Perhaps around the time of the Truman Administration.


Like Katrina.

First priority: Dis-arm the populace, and remove them from their homes.

Last priority: Provide food, shelter. and safety.

Ensure transportation and health services.

Danke
06-16-2008, 02:41 PM
Anyone believe if this man just had the intention to loot, he wouldn't have turned around when he saw a checkpoint?

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 02:44 PM
Pulling a gun on someone is serious. Especially in the broader context of disaster relief. Especially at a military checkpoint. Especially, And for those that haven't been paying attention, when the president has granted himself the right to declare disaster if someone sneezes and snot flies out of their nose.

1. So is threatening to run over them in your 2-ton SUV.

2. Presidents have been declaring disasters since before you were born. It didn't start with George W. Bush.


The picture shows how desperate people are and how callous cops are.

I saw a cop doing his job in the picture


no he could not have because he was going to his house to get something valuable enough that he was willing to risk a confrontation with armed police and military units.

Like his neighbor's jewelry collection, gold coins, and safes? Yeah, a good haul like that might be worth blasting through a checkpoint, especially if you could jack another vehicle on the other end and get off scot-free.


But basically yeah, looks like the man was being very careful to not cause any harm to life or property, unlike the cops who broke his window out and threatened to kill him in order to enforce a checkpoint.

I didn't see any broken windows in the picture. I did see some spoiled brat who wasn't going to let the police tell him what to do, do what the police told him to do and back off.

asgardshill
06-16-2008, 02:45 PM
Like Katrina.

First priority: Dis-arm the populace, and remove them from their homes.

Last priority: Provide food, shelter. and safety.

Ensure transportation and health services.

Oh, there's no argument from me on that count - the confiscation of personal firearms during Katrina was illegal and wrong as hell, and those responsible should have been thrown under the jail for doing it.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 02:50 PM
Oh, there's no argument from me on that count - the confiscation of personal firearms during Katrina was illegal and wrong as hell, and those responsible should have been thrown under the jail for doing it.

So.The Feds have their priorities right?

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 03:03 PM
So.The Feds have their priorities right?

Yep, they'll crack down on organized militias formed by caring citizens trying to protect the property and lives within the area...

errrr, sorry for the "euphemism." Those militias will be called "looters" or "gangs." After all, we the people aren't smart enough to protect ourselves and god forbid the media ever shows an example of self government doing a better job than Big Brother. If the facts don't support the desired truth, fluck the facts. Those religious gun toting maniac rednecks I tell ya!

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 03:08 PM
Yep, they'll crack down on organized militias formed by caring citizens trying to protect the property and lives within the area...

errrr, sorry for the "euphemism." Those militias will be called "looters" or "gangs." After all, we the people aren't smart enough to protect ourselves and god forbid the media ever shows an example of self government doing a better job than Big Brother. If the facts don't support the desired truth, fluck the facts. Those religious gun toting maniac rednecks I tell ya!

You sound like an enemy of the people.

Hope you don't catch a slug.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 03:08 PM
And the cop he threatened to mow down with his SUV was chopped liver? Apparently the cop thought he could stop struck with his body. We should ask the cop if he thinks he is chop liver.


And he wasn't shot.
Nope, he had his window smashed though.


And he wasn't shot. Nope but they still accused him of "hitting" the cop not once, not twice, but THREE times with his truck. Oh and the cop was never hurt. They dragged him out of the truck and I am sure roughed him up as cops are famous for. He will also be facing felony charges on a trumped up police report.



Bullshit. Its not bullshit, the guy wasn't there to give the cops a hard time. On the other hand, the cops were there specifically to use deadly force to stop him and they flaunted it and its in the picture.



If the cop would have truly gotten it "his way", there wouldn't have been a 500-year flood in his town and he would have been sitting at the local donut emporium with his partner like every other weekday waiting for his shift to begin.
Same could be said of the man who truly did have his life threatened. The difference? It wasn't the cops life and property that were being devastated. So in the end, the cops did have their way with this man and in this circumstance. Thank goodness nothing is being stolen except a piece of this man's future.



I know you do. And so do I. But the cops don't know that, and don't know that you're not a looter looking to make a big score because you're down to one rock of crack.
So everyone is a customer eh? Nice attitude. Thats the problem. Thats why the power gets abused. You see everyone is NOT a customer. To have this kind of attitude during a disaster where people are dying, homes and business being destroyed, is very nauseating.




Again, the cops aren't mind-readers and couldn't know that the guy was just "trying to go home." They would have committed a much larger breach of duty and ethics by just letting the guy go on his way. If you owned a home in the area and the guy turned out to be a looter and robbed you blind, I'd bet you would be the first one at the courthouse filing lawsuits against the police for not doing their duty.

you don't have to read someone's mind in a disaster area to know that they are desperate. they did know they guy was trying to go home, they just choose to ignore it.

It didn't matter what the cops decided to do, the power they are allowed to abuse will let them get away with killing the driver. Unjustified homicide > looting. The threat of death > threat of stolen property.

No but they would be paying for a new window as soon as the State Attorney dropped these baseless charges.



I am not diabetic, that is true. And if one symptom of diabetes was that you automatically grow a third eye in the middle of your forehead, it would make it much easier for everybody to know that you are telling the truth and that you need to go get your insulin. But that doesn't happen, so there we are. If you need the insulin to live, TAKE IT WITH YOU.

You making light of diabetics is quite insulting. However, it didn't matter if the guy was telling the truth or not, the cops would shoot him for driving around the barricade. What part of, you can't carry insulin around in your pocket do you not get? Does it matter why the guy needed to get in the neighborhood? Sure it matter IF he was planning on looting. But as you pointed out, we can't assume either way, so we just have to look at motive. You already made my point on that.



That has not been proven.
Then why stop him?



Threatening to run over a cop and trying to blast through a checkpoint does not equal "a little civil disobedience." That's called attempted murder, and freaked-out SUV driver is very lucky that he didn't end up in the local clinker on that charge.
He didn't threaten to run the cop over. He went around the barricade. That you would charge this guy with the same thing as someone who did actually ram his truck through the barricade tells me that you give cops the benefit of the doubt and are even willing to fabricate stories to support your conclusions. Are you a cop?



Uh, the neighborhood had already been evacuated. By the cops and other emergency personnel. This was a guy trying to GET BACK IN to a flooded neighborhood for reasons unknown.

They were passing out wristbands for people before allowing them to WALK to their houses. This guy was tired of waiting. OR had a reason to not wait. I don't care if my house is completely submerged. The cops can ask me not to go home, but if they try to stop me by force, then they are in the wrong.



Most cops would have been smart enough to get whatever they needed before evacuating, and would have known that they could get whatever they needed elsewhere.


I guess this answers my question more than anything. What do you know about most cops? The point remains, if it was a cop he would have been waived through because he is a cop and he retains his rights because he carries a gun and a badge for his 9-5

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 03:13 PM
You sound like an enemy of the people.

Hope you don't catch a slug.

Call homeland security and fret not about the slugs. Leeches on the other hand are a pain in the ass while "looting" flooded neighborhoods!

newbitech
06-16-2008, 03:15 PM
i am just curious to know, all arguing aside, from the people who think this is not evidence of a police state, what would you need to see to convince you that it is? in other words, are we waiting for the prez to declare marshal law in order to call a spade a spade?

amy31416
06-16-2008, 03:18 PM
i am just curious to know, all arguing aside, from the people who think this is not evidence of a police state, what would you need to see to convince you that it is? in other words, are we waiting for the prez to declare marshal law in order to call a spade a spade?

It's not evidence of anything, it's a picture.

What happened during Katrina--that's a bit more persuasive.

newbitech
06-16-2008, 03:25 PM
It's not evidence of anything, it's a picture.

What happened during Katrina--that's a bit more persuasive.

I agree Katrina is a lot more persuasive. How about the DC checkpoints? No floods going on there. Same police action. Tell me, which law are the police enforcing here?

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 03:29 PM
It's not evidence of anything, it's a picture.

What happened during Katrina--that's a bit more persuasive.

As per usual, THE Mongoose agrees with >>>THE<<< Amy31416.

We're all for liberty, property rights, self determination, state's rights and have nothing but hateful contempt for police states. But do we have to leave our brain at the door and rush to judgment on a picture? Must we be THAT impressionable Amy? I guess you and I just don't fit in.

Government's job is to protect the privacy, property and liberties of its people. It is also supposed to protect life. You cannot protect liberty without protecting life.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 03:30 PM
Call homeland security and fret not about the slugs. Leeches on the other hand are a pain in the ass while "looting" flooded neighborhoods!

A "slug" is an aberration in loading practices.
\
Sometimes the shotgun needs testing.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 03:32 PM
A "slug" is an aberration in loading practices.
\
Sometimes the shotgun needs testing.

Well slug to me can also mean a suitable replacement for a parrot IF IT CAN TALK, according to Pythonian wisdom :rolleyes:

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 03:44 PM
Well slug to me can also mean a suitable replacement for a parrot IF IT CAN TALK, according to Pythonian wisdom :rolleyes:

OK.

But a "solid" is a natural deterrent.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 03:49 PM
OK.

But a "solid" is a natural deterrent.

well given the "solid" waste in the water, we might need a natural detergent!

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 03:50 PM
Anyone believe if this man just had the intention to loot, he wouldn't have turned around when he saw a checkpoint?


absolutely. No looter in his right mind is going to draw that kind of attention to himself.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 03:55 PM
well given the "solid" waste in the water, we might need a natural detergent!

A "rifled" slug loaded into my 12 gauge.

Is a great detergent.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 03:56 PM
A "rifled" slug loaded into my 12 gauge.

Is a great detergent.

You're an Aussie therefore do not have a gun :D

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 03:59 PM
You're an Aussie therefore do not have a gun :D


I think they are allowed single shot, breech loading shotguns with 60" barrels. Birdshot only.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 04:01 PM
You're an Aussie therefore do not have a gun :D

Ahhh...

You are a mistaken.

We're kinda like Canadians.

Deceptively mysterious. But armed to the teeth.:D

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 04:03 PM
Ahhh...

You are a mistaken.

We're kinda like Canadians.

Deceptively mysterious. But armed to the teeth.:D

so long as by 'armed to the teeth' you mean technology that was available in 1914.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 04:05 PM
I think they are allowed single shot, breech loading shotguns with 60" barrels. Birdshot only.

Well ban them too I say! Can't have crazy Aussie Pink Floyd fans like Ozwest going sparrow hunting.

:)

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 04:05 PM
I think they are allowed single shot, breech loading shotguns with 60" barrels. Birdshot only.

I do own a single shot 410 shotty, but wait...

There's more.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 04:07 PM
Ahhh...

You are a mistaken.

We're kinda like Canadians.

Deceptively mysterious. But armed to the teeth.:D

Armed for gekko eh? Besides, we all know Aussies don't have teeth! and neither do those freakin canucks! :p

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 04:07 PM
Well ban them too I say! Can't have crazy Aussie Pink Floyd fans like Ozwest going sparrow hunting.

:)

Fuck off!

I got me some marsupials to hunt!

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 04:10 PM
Ok.

We got some boarers down here that would make you Alabama boys shit yourselves.

Feral tuskers. Bring your whimpy dogs.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 04:12 PM
Fuck off!

I got me some marsupials to hunt!

Might I suggest a popular Australian ballad if you're hunting for a date: "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport?" bwahahahahaha!

Oz I'm disappointed because I know you got some good quips for us Americrats. How much are you going to take?

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 04:19 PM
Might I suggest a popular Australian ballad if you're hunting for a date: "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport?" bwahahahahaha!

Oz I'm disappointed because I know you got some good quips for us Americrats. How much are you going to take?

You are a cruel man.

My dream is to have a week- ender in Hollywood.

Do you think it's possible?

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 04:27 PM
You are a cruel man.

Just some ribbing there, all in good fun. On a serious note, I have always wanted to visit Australia.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 04:33 PM
Just some ribbing there, all in good fun. On a serious note, I have always wanted to visit Australia.

Thanks for telling me you were poking me in the ribs.

I was about to slit my Kangaroos wrists.

:)

Primbs
06-16-2008, 05:32 PM
There was a police shooting in Virginia that gots lots of debate.

Three or four teenagers were in a late night diner like a dennys. They decided to skip out on the bill. An off duty police officer who still had his gun ran out into the parking lot.

As the teenagers were driving away, toward the police officer who had just run out into the parking lot, the officer pulled his gun out and shot one of the passengers in the car, not the driver.

The kid died. The officer felt his life was threatented after running out into the path of oncoming vehicle.

The officer was put on administrative leave.

So not paying a ten dollar check escalates into endangering the life of a police officer who shoots in self defense.

There was a heated debate in the D.C. area.

The officer got disciplined.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1021053

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 05:38 PM
There was a police shooting in Virginia that gots lots of debate.

Three or four teenagers were in a late night diner like a dennys. They decided to skip out on the bill. An off duty police officer who still had his gun ran out into the parking lot.

As the teenagers were driving away, toward the police officer who had just run out into the parking lot, the officer pulled his gun out and shot one of the passengers in the car, not the driver.

The kid died. The officer felt his life was threatented after running out into the path of oncoming vehicle.

The officer was put on administrative leave.

So not paying a ten dollar check escalates into endangering the life of a police officer who shoots in self defense.

There was a heated debate in the D.C. area.

By all means...

When I ran out on my
Denny's" bill as a teenager, I wish someone shot me.

A lesson learned.

Make you a better (dead) person.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 06:11 PM
There was a police shooting in Virginia that gots lots of debate.

Three or four teenagers were in a late night diner like a dennys. They decided to skip out on the bill. An off duty police officer who still had his gun ran out into the parking lot.

As the teenagers were driving away, toward the police officer who had just run out into the parking lot, the officer pulled his gun out and shot one of the passengers in the car, not the driver.

The kid died. The officer felt his life was threatented after running out into the path of oncoming vehicle.

The officer was put on administrative leave.

So not paying a ten dollar check escalates into endangering the life of a police officer who shoots in self defense.

There was a heated debate in the D.C. area.

The officer got disciplined.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1021053

Sadly there are a lot of cases like that. I grow weary of the excuse regarding how tough it is to be a police officer. The bottom line is some police officers are trigger happy action junkie power tripping hicks who wanted nothing more than a paycheck for bullying and their first justified kill.

My own experience? I came from South Dakota to Cedar Rapids Iowa for my brother's wedding. The police decided to pull me over. I was in my tux as was my passenger and was followed by my family (all appropriately dressed.) I left my wallet in my mother's car. After answering about thirty questions pertaining to what business I had in Iowa, where I was going, why, and what drugs I had in the car, he proceeded to yell at me saying: "Look, this is NOT a fucking game of twenty questions" and pointed the finger of doom at me. I responded POLITELY: "Then stop asking them and get to the point." I have ALWAYS been polite to officers. He said he doesn't believe I'm going to a wedding even though my family vouched for me. He claimed I was "speeding" but never gave me a radar reading. He requested my license. I very clearly told him it was in the car behind me and that I needed to get it. He allowed me to. I walked, and I mean walked to the car. The cop shouts: "HALT!" My mother starts screaming. I turned around and the cop had drawn his gun. My mother freaks out on the cop about why he pulled his gun on me: He responded: "Because he was walking in a manner indicating that he might run away!"

I was eventually let go without a ticket but quite a load in my pants. Of course, he searched the vehicle and found nothing. No apologies from him either.

I'm certain some law enforcement apologists will use the tired old logic that I must have done something wrong otherwise he wouldn't have treated me that way.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 06:19 PM
Sadly there are a lot of cases like that. I grow weary of the excuse regarding how tough it is to be a police officer. The bottom line is some police officers are trigger happy action junkie power tripping hicks who wanted nothing more than a paycheck for bullying and their first justified kill.

My own experience? I came from South Dakota to Cedar Rapids Iowa for my brother's wedding. The police decided to pull me over. I was in my tux as was my passenger and was followed by my family (all appropriately dressed.) I left my wallet in my mother's car. After answering about thirty questions pertaining to what business I had in Iowa, where I was going, why, and what drugs I had in the car, he proceeded to yell at me saying: "Look, this is NOT a fucking game of twenty questions" and pointed the finger of doom at me. I responded POLITELY: "Then stop asking them and get to the point." I have ALWAYS been polite to officers. He said he doesn't believe I'm going to a wedding even though my family vouched for me. He claimed I was "speeding" but never gave me a radar reading. He requested my license. I very clearly told him it was in the car behind me and that I needed to get it. He allowed me to. I walked, and I mean walked to the car. The cop shouts: "HALT!" My mother starts screaming. I turned around and the cop had drawn his gun. My mother freaks out on the cop about why he pulled his gun on me: He responded: "Because he was walking in a manner indicating that he might run away!"

I was eventually let go without a ticket but quite a load in my pants. Of course, he searched the vehicle and found nothing. No apologies from him either.

I'm certain some law enforcement apologists will use the tired old logic that I must have done something wrong otherwise he wouldn't have treated me that way.

That is un-called for.

The cops should have gone to jail.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 06:25 PM
See what's happened Mongoose.

Instead of outrage.

Complacency.

Blood oath.

Move to Australia or New Zealand.

We give a fuck.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 06:27 PM
That is un-called for.

The cops should have gone to jail.

Cops in Iowa, especially in the I-380 corridor, have a reputation for being nasty. However I must say in Cedar Rapids it has improved. They are a lot friendlier these days. Some years ago I reported a crime to a cop who was drunk on duty and was absolutely nasty to me. I got a buzz off of his breath and it wasn't Listerine. It was hard liquor.

I truly understand that an officer has to present an image of strength and authority but harassment and bullying is uncalled for. People have a tough time, as is, trusting officers and even a modicum of calmness and empathy can go a long way to gaining community trust.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 06:30 PM
Sorry mate,

doesn't work for me.

Unacceptable.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 06:31 PM
Sorry mate,

doesn't work for me.

Unacceptable.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I meant some empathy and politeness on the part of the OFFICERS could go along way.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 06:48 PM
I did a little checking, and you are 6xtimes more likely to die of Homicide in America than Australia or New Zealand.

Scary shit.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 06:54 PM
I did a little checking, and you are 6xtimes more likely to die of Homicide in America than Australia or New Zealand.

Scary shit.

I'm not giving up on this once great country. I still have hope.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:00 PM
I'm not giving up on this once great country. I still have hope.

Power to ya.

My hope died with Ron Pauls' candidacy.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 07:07 PM
See what's happened Mongoose.

Instead of outrage.

Complacency.

Blood oath.

Move to Australia or New Zealand.

We give a fuck.

if aus was significantly better, and they would welcome me, id get on the next boat. sadly everywhere is fuxxed.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:10 PM
if aus was significantly better, and they would welcome me, id get on the next boat. sadly everywhere is fuxxed.

Roll up your sleeves bro.

100k+ Starting.

No joke.

Google Mining West Australia.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 07:20 PM
ill check it out. I can imagine my wifes face screaming in frustration after I spent 6 years and 200k on a juris doctor degree if I then chuck it all to go dig in the dirt... lol

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:21 PM
ill check it out. I can imagine my wifes face screaming in frustration after I spent 6 years and 200k on a juris doctor degree if I then chuck it all to go dig in the dirt... lol

No digging mate.

Open cut mines.

Kraig
06-16-2008, 07:24 PM
Roll up your sleeves bro.

100k+ Starting.

No joke.

Google Mining West Australia.

That is really tempting.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:25 PM
Another Lawyer.

Good.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:26 PM
We need everyone.

Even Lawyers...

Arghhhh.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:27 PM
Seriously West Australia is Hot.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:28 PM
Don't go to Iraq.

Come here.

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 07:49 PM
Don't go to Iraq.

Come here.


funny. some of my classmates actually ARE headed to the middle east. some to iraq for obvious purposes. some to dubai and saudi to help the oil sheiks invest the ridiculous amounts of dollars we are sending over there.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:50 PM
That is really tempting.

Go for it mate.

We need workers.

Big time.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 07:59 PM
funny. some of my classmates actually ARE headed to the middle east. some to iraq for obvious purposes. some to dubai and saudi to help the oil sheiks invest the ridiculous amounts of dollars we are sending over there.

As I stated earlier.

Non-skilled startimg wage on open cut (above ground) mines is 100k+.

Includes food, accomodation and 25-50 free flights per annum (within about 1500 kms.).

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 08:10 PM
As I stated earlier.

Non-skilled startimg wage on open cut (above ground) mines is 100k+.

Includes food, accomodation and 25-50 free flights per annum (within about 1500 kms.).

interesting. what's the tax situation?

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 08:20 PM
We need everyone.

Even Lawyers...

Arghhhh.

Wanna be a lawyer? Stay in America. We're a lawsuit crazy nation which will sue on a whim. We're in a hyper-regulatory phase with no end in sight and lawyers (along with big business) will be the primary beneficiary.

More rules and regulations equals more "lawbreakers." It means more court cases. It means more lawyers demanded. It means more money for them.

For lawyers, America is truly the land of opportunity.

Ozwest
06-16-2008, 08:21 PM
Not sure what Uncle Sam would do, but at the very minimum, lowest wage earners would pocket about 86-90k cash in hand. Most mines have a 2week on-one week off policy.

They fly you just about anywhere for free every second week within 1500kms.

Bali is always an option.

Welders,mechanics, operators make more. As skill levels increase, the skies the limit.

Check it out for yourself.

You won't be putting Aussies out of work. We need "hands on deck."

Kalifornia
06-16-2008, 08:25 PM
Wanna be a lawyer? Stay in America. We're a lawsuit crazy nation which will sue on a whim. We're in a hyper-regulatory phase with no end in sight and lawyers (along with big business) will be the primary beneficiary.

More rules and regulations equals more "lawbreakers." It means more court cases. It means more lawyers demanded. It means more money for them.

For lawyers, America is truly the land of opportunity.

suprisingly, this does not relate to reality on the ground. there is great demand these days for IP, tax, and regulatory people. for litigators, not so much. the golden era for trial lawyers is over.

Mongoose470
06-16-2008, 08:28 PM
suprisingly, this does not relate to reality on the ground. there is great demand these days for IP, tax, and regulatory people. for litigators, not so much. the golden era for trial lawyers is over.

That was what I was getting at. Thanks for clarifying that.

Primbs
06-17-2008, 05:47 AM
How many engineers are in each law class. Probably very few which is why there is a high demand for IP Lawyers. Maybe one out of 100 lawyers have science degrees.

Most lawyers tend to have liberal arts background, not math or accounting.

V-rod
06-17-2008, 05:57 AM
Someone was murdered in my city yesterday. Oh NOes! We live in a crime infested country.

newbitech
06-20-2008, 03:42 PM
wonder why these folks didn't get arrested? And where are the cops to make sure these aren't looters?

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/Midwest_Flooding.sff_ILMG105_20080619143228.jpg

RideTheDirt
06-20-2008, 04:06 PM
wonder why these folks didn't get arrested? And where are the cops to make sure these aren't looters?

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/Midwest_Flooding.sff_ILMG105_20080619143228.jpg
Look at how big that house is!
That is your answer.

constituent
06-21-2008, 06:09 AM
wonder why these folks didn't get arrested? And where are the cops to make sure these aren't looters?

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/Midwest_Flooding.sff_ILMG105_20080619143228.jpg

Ron Paul Republicans?

devil21
06-21-2008, 11:18 PM
Wow that was a long, weird thread to read since asgardshill is on my ignore list. Why do you guys insist on feeding this troll? :confused:

Kalifornia
06-21-2008, 11:26 PM
Wow that was a long, weird thread to read since asgardshill is on my ignore list. Why do you guys insist on feeding this troll? :confused:


I didn't get the 'well known trolls' memo, apparently.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-22-2008, 06:39 AM
www.cnn.com


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/US/weather/06/16/iowa.floods/t1home.flood.mon.10.ap.jpg

An officer warns a resident to back off at a checkpoint in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo)




So I guess we now shoot people who wish to risk their own lives to secure their own property. This picture and caption tick me off...:mad:

Pointing a gun at him was unnecessary but they aren't there just to keep residents out but to keep looters out likewise. I'm all for shooting looters.

You know, we have less than 4 years to address a national problem of how the press cheated Ron Paul. They argue on the grounds that the people backing Dr. Paul are extremists. Yet, we spend our time in here legitimizing the press by using their information to back conspiracy type theories. Instead we should be exposing how shallow editing has become in today's media. How it has changed from editing quality of writing to the outright repression of political content altogether.

Anti Federalist
03-11-2017, 02:37 PM
///