OK... First things first: I've not watched these videos. I've gotten a good idea what they contain by reading the commentary.
Second: First responders are those who respond first to an incident. Sometimes they're professionals, i.e. LEO, FF, EMT, sometimes they're just John Q. Public who happens to be there and willing to help someone in need.
Third:
A member of our board here was telling me a long while back about some time he spent in NOLA around the time of Katrina's impact. He told me, among other things, that the intel he and his group were given was.... well, let's just say it was not the whole truth. I'm not aware if any of it was truthful or not.
With that basis, I think it's fair to say that he and the troops he was with did things that circumvented Constitutional protections of rights, but did so based on the age-old cry of necessity. (Say for example, "We have intel that some people on this street are hoarding weapons with the intent of looting others' property." or some such example. Don't use that one literally, it's just the first that came to mind for me. Unlike some people in positions of power, lying does not come naturally to me.)
Is it such a stretch to think that the rank and file officer has no "nefarious plan"? He's following an order (and please, no Nuremberg quotes) to locate and take into custody a specific person in a specific area.
Put in more specific terms, is it possible that both sides are correct in this argument? Rambone has pointed out abuses of rights, carried out for what the actor believes is a noble purpose (stopping a mass-murderer) and those giving him the order to do so may be a little less noble than they're thought to be in giving it. (Correct me if I'm mistaken, but have I not heard several LEOs say that the chiefs, in their politically-appointed jobs, represent their bosses more than their officers?) Isn't it possible that even if the bombing, etc., IS a foreign-based terror campaign, that someone is making hay while the sun shines, not letting the crisis go to waste, slowly nudging the needle toward statism?
From the other side of that coin, for those embracing the conspiracy theory inherent in this, given, let's say, a three-square-block area in which a suspect is thought to be, how do you, as a person who has taken a job to maintain order and enforce the law, locate that specific lawbreaker, a mass-murderer who very possibly has wired himself with explosives and intends God-knows-what at some real or imagined trigger point, other than doing a house-to-house?
I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to this. In an ideal world, a single officer could go to the door, politely knock and wait for the homeowner to answer, explain the situation and ask if the suspect is there. He would receive a truthful answer to the best of the homeowner's knowledge and go about his duties, searching elsewhere. or even searching that property with the owner's permission. Obviously, this is not an ideal world, and that solution would not work, one reason for which being the whole "to the best of his knowledge" thing, and another being the perception that LEOs have some nefarious plan for world domination.
So.... those standing against the police actions here, what is your suggestion for locating this person who is suspected of killing and who may have further plans to do so?
I'll add here that I'm not yet taking any side on this issue, primarily because I think both sides have dug their heels in and are refusing to acknowledge any truth in the other's positions.
Blessings,
Bill
Second: First responders are those who respond first to an incident. Sometimes they're professionals, i.e. LEO, FF, EMT, sometimes they're just John Q. Public who happens to be there and willing to help someone in need.
Third:
Same people.
Same.
I kinda thought they would at least have the decency to hold off for a week before claiming that the Police are taking advantage of this disaster to implement their nefarious plans for complete domination of the nation.
(Which of course those of us on the "inside" know is true.)
But.....
Apparently when you're on a mission from God to rid the country of the NAZI Police, decency is not an option.
A member of our board here was telling me a long while back about some time he spent in NOLA around the time of Katrina's impact. He told me, among other things, that the intel he and his group were given was.... well, let's just say it was not the whole truth. I'm not aware if any of it was truthful or not.
With that basis, I think it's fair to say that he and the troops he was with did things that circumvented Constitutional protections of rights, but did so based on the age-old cry of necessity. (Say for example, "We have intel that some people on this street are hoarding weapons with the intent of looting others' property." or some such example. Don't use that one literally, it's just the first that came to mind for me. Unlike some people in positions of power, lying does not come naturally to me.)
Is it such a stretch to think that the rank and file officer has no "nefarious plan"? He's following an order (and please, no Nuremberg quotes) to locate and take into custody a specific person in a specific area.
Put in more specific terms, is it possible that both sides are correct in this argument? Rambone has pointed out abuses of rights, carried out for what the actor believes is a noble purpose (stopping a mass-murderer) and those giving him the order to do so may be a little less noble than they're thought to be in giving it. (Correct me if I'm mistaken, but have I not heard several LEOs say that the chiefs, in their politically-appointed jobs, represent their bosses more than their officers?) Isn't it possible that even if the bombing, etc., IS a foreign-based terror campaign, that someone is making hay while the sun shines, not letting the crisis go to waste, slowly nudging the needle toward statism?
From the other side of that coin, for those embracing the conspiracy theory inherent in this, given, let's say, a three-square-block area in which a suspect is thought to be, how do you, as a person who has taken a job to maintain order and enforce the law, locate that specific lawbreaker, a mass-murderer who very possibly has wired himself with explosives and intends God-knows-what at some real or imagined trigger point, other than doing a house-to-house?
I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to this. In an ideal world, a single officer could go to the door, politely knock and wait for the homeowner to answer, explain the situation and ask if the suspect is there. He would receive a truthful answer to the best of the homeowner's knowledge and go about his duties, searching elsewhere. or even searching that property with the owner's permission. Obviously, this is not an ideal world, and that solution would not work, one reason for which being the whole "to the best of his knowledge" thing, and another being the perception that LEOs have some nefarious plan for world domination.
So.... those standing against the police actions here, what is your suggestion for locating this person who is suspected of killing and who may have further plans to do so?
I'll add here that I'm not yet taking any side on this issue, primarily because I think both sides have dug their heels in and are refusing to acknowledge any truth in the other's positions.
Blessings,
Bill
