Posted on 03/24/2014 7:43:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Gun owners beware. Squirt gun owners, that includes you. If a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team SUSPECTS you of crime, you may receive a late-night visit from an armed SWAT team.
That’s right, an armed and militant SWAT team could trot right through your front door as you slumber this summer. No-knock warrants are increasingly used by military-style police units, like SWAT teams for drug raids. Unfortunately, SWAT teams can obtain these warrants too easily from judges and consequently do not always perform sufficient due diligence. As a result, tens of thousands of decent, law-abiding American citizens are surprised every year by a no-knock visit when the SWAT team gets it wrong.
While we do not know the exact number of wrongful No-Knock SWAT invasions, a 2006 article by Cato Institute policy analyst put the number at 40,000 a year! We must rally together and use our freedom of speech to protest such an atrocity.
Think about it: When a SWAT team invades the wrong home in the middle of the night, as happened in the case of Tracy Ingle in 2008, the results can be bloody. SWAT team members barreled through Ingle’s main door and bedroom window under the cover of darkness. Understandably, Ingle thought he was being robbed and attempted to exercise his natural right to self-defense by reaching for what The New American describes as “a non-working gun.”
Completely disregarding Ingle’s natural and constitutional rights to self-defense (2nd Amendment); private property (4th Amendment) and right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (4th, 5th and 6th Amendments)—the SWAT team fired at Ingle over nine times—pummeling his chest, calf, arm and hip and shattering his leg bone.
It wasn’t until afterward that the SWAT team thought to verify Ingle’s identity by asking him if he was the criminal they were looking for named “Michael.” When they realized Ingle was not “Michael” but “Terry,” they rushed him to the hospital.
We certainly have many good and conscientious law enforcement officers in the United States. However, it is completely unjust and unethical for a team of law enforcement officers to storm into our homes and blast bullet holes through any moving shadow. Using this irresponsible method of “law enforcement,” a SWAT team could also accidently kill many innocent bystanders such as children, spouses or even pets who happen to live at the same house as the suspected criminal.
58 percent of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, according to an October 2013 Gallup report. The number of Americans who favor legalization has risen steadily as more Americans witness the failure of the “War on Drugs.” The combination of violent Mexican drug lords and unethical American drug cops (think Eric Holder) has been a recipe for disaster. Besides performing better due diligence, there’s another solution to preventing wrongful No-Knock SWAT invasions. If we were to legalize drugs, we would see a decrease in the narcotic crime rate. Legitimate business owners would eventually put the drug cartels out of business by reducing their profit margins.
How many more “Fasts and Furious” scandals are we willing to endure where we lose the lives of U.S. Border Patrol agents like Nicolas Ivie and Brian Terry? How many more chronically ill patients must be deprived of natural and effective treatment for their cancer or multiple sclerosis? How many more Terry Ingles need to wake up in the middle of the night to a spray of SWAT bullets? How many more Americans need to endure needless pain and bloodshed before we recognize the constitutional right of states to legalize drugs? One more American is one too many.
Speak up and tell your elected representatives to defend your 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights. Say no to No-Knock SWAT Team invasions.
Gun owners beware. Squirt gun owners, that includes you. If a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team SUSPECTS you of crime, you may receive a late-night visit from an armed SWAT team.
That’s right, an armed and militant SWAT team could trot right through your front door as you slumber this summer. No-knock warrants are increasingly used by military-style police units, like SWAT teams for drug raids. Unfortunately, SWAT teams can obtain these warrants too easily from judges and consequently do not always perform sufficient due diligence. As a result, tens of thousands of decent, law-abiding American citizens are surprised every year by a no-knock visit when the SWAT team gets it wrong.
While we do not know the exact number of wrongful No-Knock SWAT invasions, a 2006 article by Cato Institute policy analyst put the number at 40,000 a year! We must rally together and use our freedom of speech to protest such an atrocity.
Think about it: When a SWAT team invades the wrong home in the middle of the night, as happened in the case of Tracy Ingle in 2008, the results can be bloody. SWAT team members barreled through Ingle’s main door and bedroom window under the cover of darkness. Understandably, Ingle thought he was being robbed and attempted to exercise his natural right to self-defense by reaching for what The New American describes as “a non-working gun.”
Completely disregarding Ingle’s natural and constitutional rights to self-defense (2nd Amendment); private property (4th Amendment) and right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (4th, 5th and 6th Amendments)—the SWAT team fired at Ingle over nine times—pummeling his chest, calf, arm and hip and shattering his leg bone.
It wasn’t until afterward that the SWAT team thought to verify Ingle’s identity by asking him if he was the criminal they were looking for named “Michael.” When they realized Ingle was not “Michael” but “Terry,” they rushed him to the hospital.
We certainly have many good and conscientious law enforcement officers in the United States. However, it is completely unjust and unethical for a team of law enforcement officers to storm into our homes and blast bullet holes through any moving shadow. Using this irresponsible method of “law enforcement,” a SWAT team could also accidently kill many innocent bystanders such as children, spouses or even pets who happen to live at the same house as the suspected criminal.
58 percent of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, according to an October 2013 Gallup report. The number of Americans who favor legalization has risen steadily as more Americans witness the failure of the “War on Drugs.” The combination of violent Mexican drug lords and unethical American drug cops (think Eric Holder) has been a recipe for disaster. Besides performing better due diligence, there’s another solution to preventing wrongful No-Knock SWAT invasions. If we were to legalize drugs, we would see a decrease in the narcotic crime rate. Legitimate business owners would eventually put the drug cartels out of business by reducing their profit margins.
How many more “Fasts and Furious” scandals are we willing to endure where we lose the lives of U.S. Border Patrol agents like Nicolas Ivie and Brian Terry? How many more chronically ill patients must be deprived of natural and effective treatment for their cancer or multiple sclerosis? How many more Terry Ingles need to wake up in the middle of the night to a spray of SWAT bullets? How many more Americans need to endure needless pain and bloodshed before we recognize the constitutional right of states to legalize drugs? One more American is one too many.
Speak up and tell your elected representatives to defend your 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights. Say no to No-Knock SWAT Team invasions.
There's "precedent" for that, too -- Alexander Hamilton hated the very idea of the Bill of Rights, attacked it in The Federalist, and had he prevailed in the court of opinion, we'd have had none.
It was Madison who was the guy big enough to cross the aisle to the Anti-Federalists who predicted all the government abuses we deplore, and write the Bill of Rights "properly" i.e. competently. Hamilton OTOH always predicted that government attorneys would eventually lawyer-talk every amendment down, leaving the People worse off than before -- "we talked about that, and no, you don't have a right to your papers under the Fourth Amendment, so shut up".
Alexander Hamilton's alternative was to argue that every right not invaded by the law was reserved in all cases ..... how long do you think we'd have lasted in court, making that argument? Thanks, Alexander.
Good job, Aaron. Thanks.
One city.
Exactly right. And here’s what these cretins will do: they will raid homes in the dead of night and persecute those they raid. Whether those victims have guns or not, they intend to terrorize the people. But, their immunity and intimidation goes out the window when the first citizen’s body (or bodies) hit the floor. Then the active hunting of those responsible will begin.
The SWAT Gestapo (or State Police) must go home or back to the cop shop. When they do they are vulnerable. Their families are also vulnerable. The same thing applies to the corrupt politicians, media scum, legal tyrants, and other gun grabbers. If the SWAT Nazis (or State Police) want to murder their neighbors, their neighbors will murder them back. It’s called retribution and the victims get the final vote.
Addiction changes the game less if the habit holder is held responsible for what he or she does “under the influence.”
There it is. Another junkie-wannabe, whining for her OJ's.
You don't believe in honoring the Tenth Amendment?
bkmk
Alexander Hamilton, I believe, is the main reason we are in the situation we are today. He was for big central government and no individual rights. It basically started with Alexander Hamilton and the Whiskey Rebellion. He talked Geo Washington to muster fed troops and put down a legal rebellion.
Aaron Burr did is a favor, although not soon enough.
If you support the War on Drugs (WoD), then you are not a Constitutionalist. Period.
The WoD is the expansion of the federal government's power into every aspect of life; as Justice Thomas said in his dissent of Raich:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Justice Thomas said in his dissent of Raich:Thomas is the shining beacon of liberty on this court. He never seems to fail on freedom.Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
4 months is not very long to deal with trauma. I’m no shrink but I do know that after 9/11 here in NYC, I was told by a doctor that trauma victims needed sleep more than anything else. Hope you’re getting it. For years after 9/11, I’d jump out of my seat if a plane flew low. It’s only in the last few years I’ve gotten over it.
Take care of yourself!
Getting out of Red England would be a BIG help...wife has insulin resistance syndrome (type-2 diabetes), so the additional stress hasn't done her any favors.
I'm sure many of us never considered the stress that results from low-flying jets in your situation. To my shame, I never did.
You’re in England? Or am I reading that wrong? If you are, I’m afraid there’s not many places much better. The USA is failing as we speak. And it’s so hard to leave one country for another. Good luck to you and your wife. I’m still in touch with my friend who was swatted and he is still in the process of recovery - but he has other problems (such as financial) that, I believe, retards his improvement.
No...NEW England...I refer to it as ‘Red England’ for personal reasons. Sorry for the confusion.
“I looked at that picture and didn’t even need to read the rest of this article. That picture speaks a thousand, no a MILLION words.”
This is the first thing that came to my mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQA003PutmE
Just sayin’
“and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.” And therefore, the fed is no longer valid.
I rather agree; the problem is that (a) many (most?) people would not realize that, because (b) the federal government would say that it is valid, which (c) virtually all citizens have been indoctrinated/conditioned to an acceptance of [arbitrary {abuses of}] authority
.
Hamilton was being cute -- "don't tax you, don't tax me, we'll tax those poor b*stards out there on the other side of the divide who don't have good representation in Congress and spend the money on deserving bankers in New York."
Unexpectedly, Mark received a reply the first thing the following morning. "The mayor called at about 8:00 and left a message on my answering machine, telling me that he was going to have the Utah County Attorney's Office conduct an investigation,” Mark relates. “The fact that this literally happened the first thing the morning after my call indicates that the mayor and other officials had been discussing what to do about my case.” Before the county attorney's office began its inquiry, Mark received another official visit from the AFPD. "An American Fork officer showed up at our door – a really big guy I hadn't seen before,” Mark attests. "I'm here to tell you that if you pursue this it will not go well for you,” the officer growled at Mark, taking care to cover his badge with one hand. "What's your name?” Mark asked. “Are you threatening me?” "You should just know that this isn't going to go well for you,” the officer said, ignoring Mark's question and turning to leave. (More at the link)
The authorities in the local, state and federal governments have been getting *encouragement* from the taxpayers to give the police more money, more power, and more “toys”.
All in the name of “safety”, “fighting the terrorists”, “fighting the war on drugs”, etc. The Official Excuse differs in accordance with the political leanings of the voter.
When the voters, by and large, reveal they will not stand for this any longer, then, only then, will government employees pay attention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.