ramifications of watertown.

[PharaohF4]

When you open the door for the mailman, pizza guy, or UPS man what do you do?

Just do the same thing with the police.

Usually let the dog bark a bit, so they know there is a dog here. I'll peek out the living room window to see who's out there.

I grab the dog by the collar. As I open the door I shove my dog's head out there a bit so they meet my dog first. Usually by then my dog is wagging it's tail, but 2 seconds ago they heard a vicious bark. It's surprising how many people are scared of dogs.

Then I'll either stand at the main door cracked (apparently not a good idea according to jrumann59) or step out.

I like being partially behind the door and with the dog near by verses stepping completely outside and shutting the door behind me.

But having a cop in full uniform and patrol car knock is different than a stranger at my door.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Do we know that there was not a report someone strange running into the backyard. The point is too many here automatically jump to oh noes they are coming to take me away based on a video taking froma cellphone. Listen I get the fact .gov has done things to warrant the stink eye but perpetuating black helicopter scenarios with half the info and guessing about the situation to fit a pre-conceived notion that backs up an agenda. I am not advocating burying your head in the sand and say, "well it must be alright." We can question without accusing but too many already have the police/.mil guilty of Jack Boot Thuggery will no real evidence except for what they think they see, if it looks like duck, walks like a duck, but you do not hea it quack like duck is it still a duck?

A great line from a movie: When ten men tell you your drunk, you better lay down.

Are you saying we should not believe what our own eyes are seeing?

Are you saying that what we have seen didn't really happen?

Let's forget about the home invasions for a moment. They still put thousands of heavily armed men on the streets and locked-down an entire village. It was not required and they didn't even find him. It was a show of force. Plain and simple.

Good God, Man.

You have been out voted 15 to 1 on this issue.

I understand your attachment to the good ol' days, but it's not healthy.

Come on over to our side, we'll give you a group hug, and we'll get you fitted for one of our new tinfoil hats.

Better yet, go back and read my "jelly fingers" post. You'll have a good laugh and you'll feel better too.

 

[Safetech]

Safetech the reason many of the LEOs and such that would defend situaions like this are quiet is because this like the 7th thread about this adn they have been called many names

Nah. I give them (the ones I'm referring to) more credit. Most of the LEOs I'm referring to are the kind of men who know what happened in Watertown was wrong.


Just out of curiosity.... Why is it that you automatically want to give the police that appear to be behaving badly "...the benefit of the doubt". How about giving the citizens the benefit of the doubt sometime?


Why is it that in just about every single case like this that is discussed here, it's (at least for a few) always the police in question that are to be given "the benefit of the doubt"?

There seems to be a certain group here that when incidents like this come up in discussion, will make any excuse they can think of to keep from calling foul on "one of their own".

Kind of a comical double standard when you sit back and watch it happen over, and over, and over, and over......


Yes. There are a few here who genuinely dislike cops. I get it. But there also seems to be an equal number of LEOs (and wannabees) that will say/do anything to keep from admitting that the police were wrong. (And it's almost always the same "players".)

 

[Inigoes]

Nah. I give them (the ones I'm referring to) more credit. Most of the LEOs I'm referring to are the kind of men who know what happened in Watertown was wrong.


Just out of curiosity.... Why is it that you automatically want to give the police that appear to be behaving badly "...the benefit of the doubt". How about giving the citizens the benefit of the doubt sometime?


Why is it that in just about every single case like this that is discussed here, it's (at least for a few) always the police in question that are to be given "the benefit of the doubt"?

There seems to be a certain group here that when incidents like this come up in discussion, will make any excuse they can think of to keep from calling foul on "one of their own".

Kind of a comical double standard when you sit back and watch it happen over, and over, and over, and over......


Yes. There are a few here who genuinely dislike cops. I get it. But there also seems to be an equal number of LEOs (and wannabees) that will say/do anything to keep from admitting that the police were wrong. (And it's almost always the same "players".)

What's even better is when the court opinion's validate your thought process.

 

[jrumann59]

Nah. I give them (the ones I'm referring to) more credit. Most of the LEOs I'm referring to are the kind of men who know what happened in Watertown was wrong.


Just out of curiosity.... Why is it that you automatically want to give the police that appear to be behaving badly "...the benefit of the doubt". How about giving the citizens the benefit of the doubt sometime?


Why is it that in just about every single case like this that is discussed here, it's (at least for a few) always the police in question that are to be given "the benefit of the doubt"?

There seems to be a certain group here that when incidents like this come up in discussion, will make any excuse they can think of to keep from calling foul on "one of their own".

Kind of a comical double standard when you sit back and watch it happen over, and over, and over, and over......


Yes. There are a few here who genuinely dislike cops. I get it. But there also seems to be an equal number of LEOs (and wannabees) that will say/do anything to keep from admitting that the police were wrong. (And it's almost always the same "players".)

I have not made up my mind because with the information (facts) are unknown except for what we see from a video or picture. From being involved in similar situations Iknow somethings do not appear as tehy seem to be. Example the NJ beheading by an egyptian, first assumptiont hey were muslims then it was a group that was a sect of christianity.

Everybody gets upset when the antis paint the 2a community with broad strokes, but it is ok for the 2a to do the same to another group based on incomplete information.

 

[jrumann59]

Nah. I give them (the ones I'm referring to) more credit. Most of the LEOs I'm referring to are the kind of men who know what happened in Watertown was wrong.


Just out of curiosity.... Why is it that you automatically want to give the police that appear to be behaving badly "...the benefit of the doubt". How about giving the citizens the benefit of the doubt sometime?


Why is it that in just about every single case like this that is discussed here, it's (at least for a few) always the police in question that are to be given "the benefit of the doubt"?

There seems to be a certain group here that when incidents like this come up in discussion, will make any excuse they can think of to keep from calling foul on "one of their own".

Kind of a comical double standard when you sit back and watch it happen over, and over, and over, and over......


Yes. There are a few here who genuinely dislike cops. I get it. But there also seems to be an equal number of LEOs (and wannabees) that will say/do anything to keep from admitting that the police were wrong. (And it's almost always the same "players".)

I am not calling foul per se my argument has been where is the solid proof. All that has been cited here is youtube clips and news articles from sources that many on this board would not use as a source for sunrise times but now are the gospel. All these OH NOES the COPS are JBT because this youtube video shows it or this blog that started on monday says so. Many believe that cops have no right to do their jobs within the laws and guidelines that are set forth, they think exigent circumstances are a violation, they probably believe sobriety checks are a violation, they probably even mouth of to cops when they get pulled over for speeding because cops should be out catching "bad guys". I have never wavered in the fact if there are 100% true violations and misconduct then those guilty need to be dealt with by the justice system. I have never believed that 100% of LEOs or .mil are all virtuous and good, but many here believe the virtuous and good are exceptions not the rule.

 

[2AHokie]

I am not calling foul per se my argument has been where is the solid proof. All that has been cited here is youtube clips and news articles from sources that many on this board would not use as a source for sunrise times but now are the gospel. All these OH NOES the COPS are JBT because this youtube video shows it or this blog that started on monday says so. Many believe that cops have no right to do their jobs within the laws and guidelines that are set forth, they think exigent circumstances are a violation, they probably believe sobriety checks are a violation, they probably even mouth of to cops when they get pulled over for speeding because cops should be out catching "bad guys". I have never wavered in the fact if there are 100% true violations and misconduct then those guilty need to be dealt with by the justice system. I have never believed that 100% of LEOs or .mil are all virtuous and good, but many here believe the virtuous and good are exceptions not the rule.

I know the point you're trying to make, but you continually pick terrible examples. Police officers earn respect by doing a dangerous job while respecting the people, the rights of the people, and the law. The Boston house searches are not an example of that. Checkpoints are not an example of that either.

1) There were no exigent circumstances in Boston. None. Exigent circumstances are someone screaming bloody murder or seeing a suspect run into a house. It is not, and never will be, the possibility that a suspect is maybe, possibly somewhere within a 4 square mile area.

2) Sobriety checkpoints (and ALL checkpoints, like what Border Patrol does) are unconstitutional. I defy you to explain how simply driving down the road is cause for the police to detain you and ask you questions. It's no different than NYC's "Stop and Frisk" policy which is also blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

You just opened another can of worms.

Sobriety check points ARE a violation of my civil liberties.

You are detaining me against my will when you have no proof that I am drunk or have been drinking.

I am simply in my vehicle at a given place and time. I'm out on a Friday or a Saturday night therefore I must be drunk.

I have seen traffic at a complete stop so the police can pull people over at random. Every 5th car or every 10th car. How does this stop drunk driving when every 4th car, 6th car, 9th car, or 11th car could have the drunk drivers in them.

If someone is driving like they are drunk (probable cause) then pull THAT car over.

Jesus Christ!!! We just want to be left alone!!!

Your ex-military so I'll tell you a story. I had an E-5 write me up one time when I was an E-2. He said my punishment was to go around the perimeter of the barracks and pick up all the cigarette butts. I flatly refused and he started Captains Mast proceedings against me. So here is this 18 year old E-2 standing in front of a Navy Captain/Base Commander. He asked me why I refused to follow orders and pick up the butts. I said Captain, with all due respect, I don't smoke and it's not my job to pick up other peoples butts. That man had my life in his hands and he stared a hole straight thru me for what felt like an eternity. The next words out of his mouth were: Case Dismissed. When I left his office, he asked the E-5 to remain behind. I never had a problem with that E-5 again.

Do you see where I'm coming from now?

Do you see where my authority issues come from?

Some people with (so-called) power MUST be kept in check.

 

[Ouhuzo]

Different perspective

Web-searching this subject provided something one can piece together, so allow me to play Devil's advocate . . .

As y'all well aware, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid all searches and seizures, just "unreasonable" ones. The absolute in the 4th amendment is that no warrant shall be issued "without probable cause." That is the one absolute you cannot break, but it does not say you always have to have a warrant to search, or that you always have to have probable cause.

Reasonableness, as defined by the courts, is that point at which the government’s interest advanced by a particular search or seizure outweighs the loss of individual privacy or freedom of movement that attends the government’s action, Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427 (2004) (“in judging reasonableness, we look to the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty”).

So in one instance among a sets of exceptions SCOTUS has carved out of the 4th Amendment is a hap-hazard body of case-law evolved over the years known as the "administrative search doctrine." Starting with Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), SCOTUS held that a reasonable administrative search may be conducted upon a showing of probable cause which is less stringent than that required for a search incident to a criminal investigation. Under this doctrine, the government must establish a substantial compelling need to search, that the search will serve the need, and that the decision to search a particular person is not left to the discretion of a field officer. Examples, as you're well aware, are public school students, government employees, probationers, business inspections, airports, checkpoints, border crossings, and—increasingly—wiretaps and other searches used in the gathering of national security intelligence, . . .

. . . And dragnets, like the kind we've seen last week, and are regarded by the courts as another form of administrative search because such intrusions are permissible if they involved only minimally intrusive government actions necessary to protect important health or safety interests that an individualized probable cause regime could not sufficiently protect. In other words: "The constitutional question would seem to depend on whether the searches are reasonably limited in scope (such as limited to a specific geographic area), the dangerousness of the suspect (here, very high), and the strength of the government’s case that the suspect may be in the area and cannot be caught another way." And all you need is a cell-phone call to a judge for him to issue a wide-area warrant.

But what would the founders thought about a house-to-house search for a wanted terrorist that we saw last week? I don't think it would bother them at all on "reasonableness" grounds because it's something that might happen once in a lifetime. Balancing the individual need for privacy against the scope of government intrusion (akin to a protective sweep and then quickly gone to the next house), it would be reasonable. If they happened on a little dope in their house-to-house sweep would the police even care? No; they certainly don't have time to seize it and write a report. The homeowner gets a pass.

But you can argue that reasonableness tests currently in use are too-open ended, unnecessarily broad and too deferential to the government resulting with governmental interests defined broadly and privacy and individual interests narrowly. Many regard the reasonableness test, that balances government need versus individual privacy, operates as a form of rational basis review under which the government presumptively wins.

 

[Tacticalglobe]

It sickens me to watch the video and see the images of the government taking so many of our rights away.

As I watched the video, all I could think of is what if this happen to me and my loved ones.

Do I resist? Would I be shot? Beaten in front of my family? Shoot my dogs as they defend their home?
How could one watch armed men search my family and home?
Being helpless to the situation at hand.

What if they came to disarm and take us away??
It happened before to so many, with out warning. It was too late. Off to the camps and ovens. HELPLESS



You "hope" they come just protect us, but what if they came for other reasons???

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Web-searching this subject provided something one can piece together, so allow me to play Devil's advocate . . .

. . . And dragnets, like the kind we've seen last week, and are regarded by the courts as another form of administrative search because such intrusions are permissible if they involved only ***minimally intrusive*** government actions necessary to protect important health or safety interests that an individualized probable cause regime could not sufficiently protect.


***MINIMALLY INTRUSIVE*** government actions.

I saw none of that in Watertown.

We are moving closer and closer to extreme vagueness when making laws that impact our rights as a nation.

Nothing is clear cut anymore. Everything is open to interpretation. The only problem is that the government is doing all of the interpreting.

Would you care try again?

 

[kwaters4]

the correct way to do it, is the way that was set up in the constitution. yes it may make LEO's jobs a little harder but if you don't like it go be a librarian. Don't give me the "I walk in danger every day". If you seriously were expecting a job that isn't dangerous you are in the wrong line of work. I love and respect my local law enforcement but that being said they can kiss my a** if they think I'm going to give up a single one of my god given rights to make their jobs easier. this country was set up by men who didn't have these rights. LEO's are here to uphold the constitution, not catch bad guys. When you get in the mind set of there is nothing else but catching those who break the law, everyone becomes a suspect instead of those you were there to serve.

 

[jrumann59]

the correct way to do it, is the way that was set up in the constitution. yes it may make LEO's jobs a little harder but if you don't like it go be a librarian. Don't give me the "I walk in danger every day". If you seriously were expecting a job that isn't dangerous you are in the wrong line of work. I love and respect my local law enforcement but that being said they can kiss my a** if they think I'm going to give up a single one of my god given rights to make their jobs easier. this country was set up by men who didn't have these rights. LEO's are here to uphold the constitution, not catch bad guys. When you get in the mind set of there is nothing else but catching those who break the law, everyone becomes a suspect instead of those you were there to serve.

HUH? Law Enforcement Officers are there to enforce laws and keep the peace. They are expected to follow COTUS when doing their jobs. The "correct" way would pretty much make lawyers moot because they are part of the problem, LEOs try to enforce the letter of the law, lawyers and judges interpret the spirit of a law.

 

[Ouhuzo]

***MINIMALLY INTRUSIVE*** government actions.

I saw none of that in Watertown.

We are moving closer and closer to extreme vagueness when making laws that impact our rights as a nation.

Nothing is clear cut anymore. Everything is open to interpretation. The only problem is that the government is doing all of the interpreting.

Would you care try again?

What did you see? What did you hear? Were you there? How many dragnets were you involved in and know them first-hand?

"Minimally Intrusive" doesn't mean what you think it means. A warrantless search is reasonable if it is ‘justified at its inception’ and if ‘the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of’ the circumstances giving rise to the search; and because the search is neither personal in nature nor aimed at the discovery of evidence of crime, they involve a relatively limited invasion of the urban citizen’s privacy.” And a judge makes the decision when the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search. (O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987); Camara v. Municipal Court; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948)).

You seem to forgot already that a armed and dangerous fugitive just killed a cop and shot up another and is loose in the area posing a clear and present danger to the community; which necessitate a security sweep of the area for public safety. You can be creative and engaged in post hoc evaluation of police conduct to always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished. But "[t]he fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by `less intrusive' means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable." (Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 447 (1973)).

Other than the name, I have no doubt the instructions given to local, state and federal agents in last week's federal dragnet (because the inital incident, the manathon bombing, involved explosives it became a federal jurisdiction) is gonna sound similar to that given by Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard (played by Tommy Lee Jones) in the movie "The Fugitive:"

Alright, listen up, ladies and gentlemen. Our fugitive has been on the run for ninety minutes. Average foot speed over uneven ground barring injuries is 4 miles-per-hour. That gives us a radius of six miles. What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Checkpoints go up at fifteen miles. Your fugitive's name is Dr. Richard Kimble. Go get him!

Niaalll. "Tommy Lee Jones Speech THE FUGITIVE." YouTube.com. YouTube, 01 June 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

 

[Markp]

What did you see? What did you hear? Were you there? How many dragnets were you involved in and know them first-hand?

"Minimally Intrusive" doesn't mean what you think it means. A warrantless search is reasonable if it is ‘justified at its inception’ and if ‘the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of’ the circumstances giving rise to the search; and because the search is neither personal in nature nor aimed at the discovery of evidence of crime, they involve a relatively limited invasion of the urban citizen’s privacy.” And a judge makes the decision when the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search. (O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987); Camara v. Municipal Court; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948)).

You seem to forgot already that a armed and dangerous fugitive just killed a cop and shot up another and is loose in the area posing a clear and present danger to the community; which necessitate a security sweep of the area for public safety. You can be creative and engaged in post hoc evaluation of police conduct to always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished. But "[t]he fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by `less intrusive' means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable." (Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 447 (1973)).

Other than the name, I have no doubt the instructions given to local, state and federal agents in last week's federal dragnet (because the inital incident, the manathon bombing, involved explosives it became a federal jurisdiction) is gonna sound similar to that given by Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard (played by Tommy Lee Jones) in the movie "The Fugitive:"

Niaalll. "Tommy Lee Jones Speech THE FUGITIVE." YouTube.com. YouTube, 01 June 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

The secured interior of a persons property should not be subject to a "sweep" in the name of public safety. If a person is in their home, secure, and requests that LEO not to search without a warrant then their wishes should be respected unless it can be shown that the person of interest is actually in that dwelling.

There is a difference between requesting permission, which I more than likely would have given to any part of my property that wasn't under my direct control, and telling me I have to leave my secured home at gun point.

One is right, the other is wrong. Below is an example of "Not Right".

 

[Inigoes]

The secured interior of a persons property should not be subject to a "sweep" in the name of public safety. If a person is in their home, secure, and requests that LEO not to search without a warrant then their wishes should be respected unless it can be shown that the person of interest is actually in that dwelling.

There is a difference between requesting permission, which I more than likely would have given to any part of my property that wasn't under my direct control, and telling me I have to leave my secured home at gun point.

One is right, the other is wrong. Below is an example of "Not Right".

Rule of thumb: if it's locked private property, police have to get a warrant or permission.

 

[Safetech]

It's sad (at best) and down right scary (at worst) to read what some of the LEOs are saying in this thread.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

What did you see? What did you hear? Were you there? How many dragnets were you involved in and know them first-hand?

"Minimally Intrusive" doesn't mean what you think it means. A warrantless search is reasonable if it is ‘justified at its inception’ and if ‘the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of’ the circumstances giving rise to the search; and because the search is neither personal in nature nor aimed at the discovery of evidence of crime, they involve a relatively limited invasion of the urban citizen’s privacy.” And a judge makes the decision when the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search. (O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987); Camara v. Municipal Court; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948)).

You seem to forgot already that a armed and dangerous fugitive just killed a cop and shot up another and is loose in the area posing a clear and present danger to the community; which necessitate a security sweep of the area for public safety. You can be creative and engaged in post hoc evaluation of police conduct to always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished. But "[t]he fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by `less intrusive' means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable." (Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 447 (1973)).

Other than the name, I have no doubt the instructions given to local, state and federal agents in last week's federal dragnet (because the inital incident, the manathon bombing, involved explosives it became a federal jurisdiction) is gonna sound similar to that given by Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard (played by Tommy Lee Jones) in the movie "The Fugitive:"

Niaalll. "Tommy Lee Jones Speech THE FUGITIVE." YouTube.com. YouTube, 01 June 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

...and they didn't find him!

Maybe they should have sent the Police home and brought Tommy Lee Jones in to finish the job.

That way honest, tax paying, law abiding citizens would not be dragged from THEIR HOMES while the muzzles of AR-15's are shoved in THEIR FACES.

Those people weren't "terrified" until the JBT's showed up.

P.S.

This is not a shot at AR-15's.

P.P.S.

This is not a shot at most Police Officers.

 

[Moon]

Web-searching this subject provided something one can piece together, so allow me to play Devil's advocate . . .

As y'all well aware, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid all searches and seizures, just "unreasonable" ones. The absolute in the 4th amendment is that no warrant shall be issued "without probable cause." That is the one absolute you cannot break, but it does not say you always have to have a warrant to search, or that you always have to have probable cause.

Reasonableness, as defined by the courts, is that point at which the government’s interest advanced by a particular search or seizure outweighs the loss of individual privacy or freedom of movement that attends the government’s action, Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 427 (2004) (“in judging reasonableness, we look to the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty”).

So in one instance among a sets of exceptions SCOTUS has carved out of the 4th Amendment is a hap-hazard body of case-law evolved over the years known as the "administrative search doctrine." Starting with Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), SCOTUS held that a reasonable administrative search may be conducted upon a showing of probable cause which is less stringent than that required for a search incident to a criminal investigation. Under this doctrine, the government must establish a substantial compelling need to search, that the search will serve the need, and that the decision to search a particular person is not left to the discretion of a field officer. Examples, as you're well aware, are public school students, government employees, probationers, business inspections, airports, checkpoints, border crossings, and—increasingly—wiretaps and other searches used in the gathering of national security intelligence, . . .

. . . And dragnets, like the kind we've seen last week, and are regarded by the courts as another form of administrative search because such intrusions are permissible if they involved only minimally intrusive government actions necessary to protect important health or safety interests that an individualized probable cause regime could not sufficiently protect. In other words: "The constitutional question would seem to depend on whether the searches are reasonably limited in scope (such as limited to a specific geographic area), the dangerousness of the suspect (here, very high), and the strength of the government’s case that the suspect may be in the area and cannot be caught another way." And all you need is a cell-phone call to a judge for him to issue a wide-area warrant.

But what would the founders thought about a house-to-house search for a wanted terrorist that we saw last week? I don't think it would bother them at all on "reasonableness" grounds because it's something that might happen once in a lifetime. Balancing the individual need for privacy against the scope of government intrusion (akin to a protective sweep and then quickly gone to the next house), it would be reasonable. If they happened on a little dope in their house-to-house sweep would the police even care? No; they certainly don't have time to seize it and write a report. The homeowner gets a pass.

But you can argue that reasonableness tests currently in use are too-open ended, unnecessarily broad and too deferential to the government resulting with governmental interests defined broadly and privacy and individual interests narrowly. Many regard the reasonableness test, that balances government need versus individual privacy, operates as a form of rational basis review under which the government presumptively wins.

This is easily the most reasoned and well-stated argument for the side believing the police actions were justified. Most of the other arguments presented amount to nothing more that "The police did it, so it's OK. You could never understand, because you are not a cop."


That being said, in my opinion, reasonable ends at some point before residents are ordered to stay in their houses until they are dragged out into the street at gun point.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I think Ouhuzo and jrumann59 are the same person.

I think we're in trouble.