Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Ok, I would have posted this rebuttal on the original post but Carknocker closed it before I got that opportunity. That said I would like to add the following concerning the police raid gone wrong in Minneapolis:
Any Law abiding citizen who sits at home minding their own business and doing no wrong, upon hearing windows break and doors being broken in, has every right, responsibility and reason to first believe that it is an unlawful B & E, a possible thief, a rapist or worse some terrorist group (and yes, government can be classified as such on occaision) bent upon destruction or mayhem.
I read the article and the wife said she was watching tv and she heard some voices, then windows were broken in and she fled to her husband on the 2nd floor. He grabbed a gun, as is his right & duty, in order to defend his family.
No where is this story does it say that the police identified themselves before the windows were broken in--which probably did not happen until after the exchange of weapons fire where-upon the father put his weapon up and was promptly arrested, later released pending the normal investigative procedures of this type of incident.
Now I know I used the term terrorist in my original response, which of course gained some wild eyed fanatical obfuscation. Please note that I said all reasonable and lawful citizens would do what is necessary when confronted by an unknown element of society when their home is broken into. This home owner did nothing wrong, he only protected his family, who here wouldn't do that? Until the threat was discerned to be the police, this man did everything right, when he discovered the offenders of his homes peace were police he surrendered in order to stave off fears of his complicity in the crimes which the police, even though at the wrong house) were there to discern or eliminate.
The founding fathers said that it was better to err on the side of the constitution and the people rather than to allow a right to be violated. I agree with them & will always cry out against unlawful no-knock warrants, which was never specifically mentioned, though it was alluded to in the article. No knocks violate our most sacred right to peace in our own homes and to have security of self, papers and effects with the only option to be lawful search warrants and to always err on the side of the citizen.
Yes our police have some very difficult situations to deal with, and they most of the time do an admirable job at it. It is we the citizens of this country which have the right to be treated properly, the police are to respect those aspects of the constitution and uphold the law, no-knocks violate that. I have many officers, both retired & in service who agree with me and who wish they were eliminated as well--for the same reasons.
Any Law abiding citizen who sits at home minding their own business and doing no wrong, upon hearing windows break and doors being broken in, has every right, responsibility and reason to first believe that it is an unlawful B & E, a possible thief, a rapist or worse some terrorist group (and yes, government can be classified as such on occaision) bent upon destruction or mayhem.
I read the article and the wife said she was watching tv and she heard some voices, then windows were broken in and she fled to her husband on the 2nd floor. He grabbed a gun, as is his right & duty, in order to defend his family.
No where is this story does it say that the police identified themselves before the windows were broken in--which probably did not happen until after the exchange of weapons fire where-upon the father put his weapon up and was promptly arrested, later released pending the normal investigative procedures of this type of incident.
Now I know I used the term terrorist in my original response, which of course gained some wild eyed fanatical obfuscation. Please note that I said all reasonable and lawful citizens would do what is necessary when confronted by an unknown element of society when their home is broken into. This home owner did nothing wrong, he only protected his family, who here wouldn't do that? Until the threat was discerned to be the police, this man did everything right, when he discovered the offenders of his homes peace were police he surrendered in order to stave off fears of his complicity in the crimes which the police, even though at the wrong house) were there to discern or eliminate.
The founding fathers said that it was better to err on the side of the constitution and the people rather than to allow a right to be violated. I agree with them & will always cry out against unlawful no-knock warrants, which was never specifically mentioned, though it was alluded to in the article. No knocks violate our most sacred right to peace in our own homes and to have security of self, papers and effects with the only option to be lawful search warrants and to always err on the side of the citizen.
Yes our police have some very difficult situations to deal with, and they most of the time do an admirable job at it. It is we the citizens of this country which have the right to be treated properly, the police are to respect those aspects of the constitution and uphold the law, no-knocks violate that. I have many officers, both retired & in service who agree with me and who wish they were eliminated as well--for the same reasons.
