Will THIS gestapo action by ATF wake nra up?

[IA_farmboy]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that our founding fathers (under conditions far worse than ours) exhausted every legal means of recourse at their disposal before resorting to force of arms

I believe this is in response to a comment I made. A comment that was removed from context by some and deleted by a moderator because of that.

I cannot advocate taking up arms against the government until the other three boxes of liberty have proven ineffective. I was just pointing out that it is natural for a person to defend themselves with lethal force when faced with potentially lethal force. I have to wonder what these politicians and bureaucrats thought would happen when they send armed police storming into a home on a no-knock warrant? Did they think that the occupants would always give up without a fight?

These no knock tactics have ended with people winding up dead. They continue to end up with people getting killed. Unless they stop we are going to see more innocent people and police officers ending up dead.

This is deeper than the no knock raids. The reason for these raids is because of unconstitutional laws that call for such tactics for effective enforcement. Call it mission creep, slippery slope, a paradigm shift, or a movement of the Overton window. What ever you call it we are shifting our society in the wrong direction. One of the first things we can do to turn it back into a constitutional republic again is to put an end to these no knock raids, and do it before someone else needlessly ends up dead.

[IA_farmboy]

I'm reminded of another "great idea" from some government officials. They thought it'd be a good idea to put the drug SWAT teams in ambulances so the drug dealers would not be alerted to their presence by the big van with "police" written on the side. Once the drug gangs figured this out then every ambulance became a bullet magnet. They had to stop the policy and announce publicly this policy change to keep ambulances from getting shot up.


really? where? when? source?



and "the satanic war on drugs" really? i wish i thought that was a joke but it was funny in a school bus full of kids on fire going over a cliff kinda way



and to quote her own lawyer emphasis mine
as far as we know without a warrant

I could not find a reference to SWAT using ambulances to carry themselves to drug raids. I'll look again when I have more time. i did however trip over something that should make your blood boil.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/..._kid_to_er.htm

[cassandrasdaddy]

not so much after reading this

http://www.postindependent.com/artic...NEWS/248366321


and this
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/storie.../wndsucks.html

Rather than try to address the issue with any sort of honesty and transparency (neither of which are notable WND virtues), Unruh decided to attack Vallario, apparently blaming Vallario for not telling him about Tom Shiflett's history of questionable behavior, which Vallerio cited as the rationale for using a SWAT team to seize the boy, as his comment to the Glenwood Springs paper indicates. Unruh notes in the Jan. 12 article that "in an e-mail response to a WND reader who questioned his actions," Vallario stated that "when we requested his cooperation [Shiflett] said, 'if you want my son, bring an army.'" Unruh then bashed the sheriff again:

However, what the sheriff left out of his response was what [caseworker Matthew] McGaugh reported happened just before the alleged threat. McGaugh confirmed he had delivered a not-so-veiled threat to Shiflett.

"This worker explained that the Department had an obligation to investigate the report, that it appeared the child needed medical attention, and that if he didn't consent, the Department would have to obtain a court order to get a medical evaluation for the child," McGaugh stated in a sworn affidavit.

So stating what is presumably standard procedure in such a case is a "threat"? Unruh then allows Shiflett to explain away his own threat -- claiming it was because "social workers had upset him by threatening a court order" -- as well as a previous arrest of Shiflett for "chasing a man down the street with an ax." Yet Unruh failed to give Vallario a fair opportunity to tell his story or air his complaints about WND's coverage

[Treo]

I believe this is in response to a comment I made. A comment that was removed from context by some and deleted by a moderator because of that.

The mod who deleted that part of your post had the ability to read the entire post, in context, before deleting that paragraph.

That said, my comment was not directed specifically at you. It was reminder to all of us that we are a long way from armed rebellion.

I don't feel comfortable commenting specifically on the deleted portion of your post since it was deemed off topic

[Selena]

not so much after reading this

http://www.postindependent.com/artic...NEWS/248366321


and this
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/storie.../wndsucks.html



So stating what is presumably standard procedure in such a case is a "threat"? Unruh then allows Shiflett to explain away his own threat -- claiming it was because "social workers had upset him by threatening a court order" -- as well as a previous arrest of Shiflett for "chasing a man down the street with an ax." Yet Unruh failed to give Vallario a fair opportunity to tell his story or air his complaints about WND's coverage

So, after twice peacefully and without incident allowing strangers to examine the child we are to believe he suddenly became uncooperative and hostile. I wonder what the strangers did to make hostility seem appropriate? Cop attitude is invariably a self-fulfilling fantasy of people that just don't like them.

[cassandrasdaddy]

you miss the part about him chasing someone with an ax? i suspect he might be a fry short of a happy meal

[Selena]

you miss the part about him chasing someone with an ax? i suspect he might be a fry short of a happy meal

There have been a few times your attitude has wanted me to chase you with an axe. Tease a bull enough and you can't complain if it hooks you. So, what did the person in question commit, word, deed or action that would provoke a reasonable person to violence? That's the part I missed and you conveniently ignore as is your habit.

[cassandrasdaddy]

So, what did the person in question commit, word, deed or action that would provoke a reasonable person to violence? That's the part I missed and you conveniently ignore as is your habit.


thats a funny thing neither al jones world nut daily or the guy with the ax seem to bring it up curious that. and as far as i know only the guy channeling jack nicholson in the shining got charged. being a violent nut has consequences. and if you tell them to bring an army why whine when they do? kinda girlish to do that

[Selena]

and if you tell them to bring an army why whine when they do? kinda girlish to do that

Exactly my point, what kind of atrocity was he responding to? Was it a reasonable LEO that lost control of the situation or a uniformed thug that was looking for a confrontation and kept being a jerk until he had provoked one? All we have is the official report and after hearing my brother in law brag of some the arrests in his 'post' I would have to assume any report filled by a police officer was filled with reasonable deception even if Saint Frances and Mother Mary notarized it. After all, leave out one small "unimportant" detail and the whole arrest takes on a different tenor.

[cassandrasdaddy]

Exactly my point, what kind of atrocity was he responding to? Was it a reasonable LEO that lost control of the situation or a uniformed thug that was looking for a confrontation and kept being a jerk until he had provoked one? All we have is he official report and after hearing my brother in law brag of some the arrests in his 'post' I would have to assume any report filled by a police officer was filled with reasonable deception even if Saint Frances and Mother Mary notarized it. After all, leave out one small "unimportant" detail and the whole arrest takes on a different tenor.

been my experience when folks hide something there is a reason. if this earlier mad moment was a case of leo run wild i think a revolutionary would bring it up to show how he was being persecuted by the man. when they don't? theres a reason

[Selena]

been my experience when folks hide something there is a reason. if this earlier mad moment was a case of leo run wild i think a revolutionary would bring it up to show how he was being persecuted by the man. when they don't? theres a reason

I am biting my tongue at the moment, just how stupid do you think I am? A uniformed thug does not exist in a vacuum. Like the case in LV where one gang banger screamed don't move and the other screamed drop the gun and get on your knees. Since he tried to get clarification instead of obeying they gang bangers shot and the scum defended by all the uniformed gang bangers in the country since they are 'family.' And in the majority of cases, blood follows blood.

Or logically, you don't appeal to reason with rabid animals. No matter what their wardrobe.

Now, since all you have left is to insult my intelligence and all I have left is the reasonable doubt of the honesty of police procedure, perhaps this might be a good place to say we disagree and leave it go at that.

[cassandrasdaddy]

I am biting my tongue at the moment, just how stupid do you think I am? A uniformed thug does not exist in a vacuum. Like the case in LV where one gang banger screamed don't move and the other screamed drop the gun and get on your knees. Since he tried to get clarification instead of obeying they gang bangers shot and the scum defended by all the uniformed gang bangers in the country since they are 'family.' And in the majority of cases, blood follows blood.

Or logically, you don't appeal to reason with rabid animals. No matter what their wardrobe.

Now, since all you have left is to insult my intelligence and all I have left is the reasonable doubt of the honesty of police procedure, perhaps this might be a good place to say we disagree and leave it go at that.

did you misunderstand my post? or just unable to respond to it so went off somewhere?

[Selena]

did you misunderstand my post? or just unable to respond to it so went off somewhere?

Are you trying to provoke a confrontation? I understood the post perfectly. I saw the arrogance and the cute little double standard. Once again, we disagree. I could give you reasoned arguments but your arrogance would brush them aside with trivialities and 'basic assumptions' we do not share. You have your opinion and you are welcome to it. I'm still looking for information to be able to form an opinion. The only side you are willing to present is already out there and, quite frankly, is suspect because of the culture of the people involved. Now, unless you have something of interest from a source that if not impartial, at least able to provide more pieces of the puzzle I would appreciate it. "believe it cause a cop said so"... Throw that in the manure pit where it belongs.

[cassandrasdaddy]

quite frankly, is suspect because of the culture of the people involved


irony alert! we have references from al jones and world nut and you wanna bring that up?

[ConstitutionCowboy]

How do you define the militia? Couldn't the FBI be considered part of the militia? I'm just confused I guess. First you say the federal government cannot have a police force of any kind then you say the militia can enforce federal law. If the militia is enforcing federal law then do they not become, by definition, a federal law enforcement agency? If they are enforcing the law then are they not a police force?

One thing that bothers me about this is that the founders believed in the separation between the military and law enforcement. This line can become blurred at times but the intent was to assure that the military answered to a civilian authority. If we have the militia called to enforce federal law then this concept of preventing a military occupation of the populace is at risk.

There is always going to be a need for some level of federal law enforcement somewhere. The distinction between the military and civilian functions of the federal government can get lost if the militia is called to enforce the law upon civilians.

If the FBI were to be considered militia, there would have to be a separate unit in each state with the officers being appointed solely by each state, and they would only be paid by the Feral Government when in the actual employ of the Feral Government. But, since the FBI should not be a law enforcement agency to begin with, it can only exist as an investigative agency for the Feral Government, and should be attached to the Executive branch.

When the militia is employed to enforce a Feral law, it is only when called forth by Congress and only for the specific purpose written into the bill Congress will pass.

The catch 22 for the enforcement of Feral law is that most Feral law is far and away out of the bounds of the Constitution. Were Congress to be held to only those specific areas it can make law under the Constitution, there would be so few Feral laws that it would be no problem for Congress to keep up with enforcement by utilizing the militia. The several states can and should handle the rest.

Don't forget that any action taken by the Feral Government outside the bounds of the Constitution is as criminal as if it were a foreign country doing it. I don't think such action by the Feral Government is anything less that an act of war against the sovereignty of any or all of the several states. I don't think it can be said any plainer or more succinctly than that!.

Woody

[Selena]

quite frankly, is suspect because of the culture of the people involved


irony alert! we have references from al jones and world nut and you wanna bring that up?

Irony? No. Coincidence. They are simply two sides of the same fence. So far, you have not presented one impartial, reputable source. I would be happy with reputable but satisfied with impartial.

[IA_farmboy]

The mod who deleted that part of your post had the ability to read the entire post, in context, before deleting that paragraph.

That said, my comment was not directed specifically at you. It was reminder to all of us that we are a long way from armed rebellion.

I don't feel comfortable commenting specifically on the deleted portion of your post since it was deemed off topic

Fair enough. I see no need to mention it further.

[IA_farmboy]

Back to this...

really? where? when? source?

I could not find a source after searching the internet further. Believe me or don't, I don't care. There's enough boneheaded decisions from the government to point to I no longer feel the need to dig this specific one up.

[IA_farmboy]

If the FBI were to be considered militia, there would have to be a separate unit in each state with the officers being appointed solely by each state, and they would only be paid by the Feral Government when in the actual employ of the Feral Government. But, since the FBI should not be a law enforcement agency to begin with, it can only exist as an investigative agency for the Feral Government, and should be attached to the Executive branch.

...

Woody

I believe that we generally agree on much here but disagree on the details. It seems we both have our minds made up so I'm just going to agree to disagree. I believe it is only distracting from the topic at hand.

[Jamie B]

Back to this...



I could not find a source after searching the internet further. Believe me or don't, I don't care. There's enough boneheaded decisions from the government to point to I no longer feel the need to dig this specific one up.

Gee, I'll have to remember this dodge.....

[bruno2]

I believe the FBI has legitimate duties in investigating federal crime but should never be engaged in any form of law enforcement - even something as simple as arresting someone for spitting. Federal law enforcement is the duty of Congress with the aid of the militia in command of the Chief Executive. Otherwise, it belongs in the purview of the several states, counties, cities, and towns.

Most of the rest of the alphabet agencies and bureaucracies shouldn't exist.

Woody

Not only that Woody,but, they certainly shouldnt have tactical entry teams and NFA weapons. There are plenty of local LEO's to handle anything necessary in the way of searches or arrests. The Cities have police forces. If the city cops dont have jurisdiction then the County Sheriffs do, and if the county doesnt have jurisdiction the state police certainly do. Some states even have Bureau's of investigation which help small communities catch murderers and other major criminals where they dont have the means to handle it in house. Such as the OSBI (Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation).

We have the Coast Guard to catch people committing crimes off our shores which is a legitimate branch of the military and Customs/Border Patrol to catch people outside the country trying to enter with contraband or ilegally take up residence here.

So that about wraps up any legitimate need for a police force. Any agencies above and beyond what I listed above falls into a category of "unecessary".

[IA_farmboy]

Gee, I'll have to remember this dodge.....

You do that.

Let me tell you a little story. About four years ago I told a co-worker about this unbelievable news article I read where a SWAT team was sent in to take a child from his home because they did not believe his father, a medic during the Vietnam War, was providing proper medical care after the child bumped his head. It sounded so unbelievable that he demanded a citation or it didn't happen. So, I did my best to search out the story I had read but since I could not find it in a reasonable amount of time he went off all smug thinking I made it up.

Now, to my surprise I did find that story again while looking for something else. I found it four years too late to convince my co-worker of the story's veracity but I did find it. At least I proved to myself that I was not deceived by someone else making up that story and posting it on some website for me to find.

Believe me or not, that's your choice. The point is not that some mayor or police chief thought it was a good idea to bring SWAT officers to a suspected drug house in an ambulance. The point is that there are people in the government that do some very stupid things, things that end up putting people's lives at risk, things that stomp all over our rights, and things that are so unbelievable that any intelligent person should doubt it even happened.

The specific story I was looking for is now lost in the noise of Google. I might find it again in three or four years when I go look for some other unrelated news item. I can only hope that when that time comes I will remember to come back to this thread and post a link just so that I can say, "I told you so!"

[Carl N. Brown]

To opening post subject:

Will this gestapo action by ATF wake NRA up

When the NRA criticized federal actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco as jackbooted thuggery, there was a lot of backlash and fallout. NRA has been aware of the problem and took lumps for criticizing it. Including George H.W. Bush publicly resigning NRA membership over NRA criticism of excessive force at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

The American public and the major parties apparently believe that overkill against accusations over guns or drugs shows they are doing something about the problems of abuse of guns or drugs.

The public needs to wake up. SWAT raids over mistaken addresses or raids seeking former tenants could happen to anyone.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/05/3...and-her-child/
"Greeley Mother Accuses ATF Of Terrorizing Her And Her Child", CBS Channel 4 Denver, 30 May 2012.

Jeez. "June 13, 2010, the task force made 13 arrests in a major gun and drug sweep. It was at 7 a.m. when they arrived at Griego’s home looking for a woman named Angela."

[sarcasm] So one little mistake out of 13 [/sarcasm] (Angela was a former tenant of the address where Griego is living). Amanda Griego is complaining about being left alive after a federal raid? The ingrate ought to thank her lucky stars she did not end up like Dirk Dickenson or Vicki Weaver.

In a botched raid in California, a federal agent (Lloyd Clifton) shot an unarmed man (Dirk Dickenson) in the back as he ran away. From the account in the court habeas corpus ruling ordering the release of Clifton from the custody of Sheriff Gene Cox, Humbolt County, California:

2 The district court held an evidentiary hearing, lasting three days, and found the following facts.

3 Petitioner was a member of a task force from various federal and state agencies which secured a federal search warrant authorizing a search of a ranch near Garberville, California, the alleged location of an illegal drug manufacturing operation. The task force also obtained a federal arrest warrant for Dirk Dickenson, one of the record owners of the property. A United States Army helicopter transported the task force to the raid site on April 4, 1972. It landed in front of the cabin raising a considerable amount of dust and debris and creating a lot of noise. During the commotion as the raiders debarked one agent (Agent Filben) outran his feet and fell to the ground. Clifton, thinking that Filben had been shot, rushed the cabin and kicked in the door. He did not knock, identify himself, nor announce his authority and purpose before making his forceful entry.

4 As Clifton entered the front door, Dickenson jumped over a bannister into the backyard and began running towards a nearby wooded area. Clifton leveled his pistol at the running figure, called "Halt," waited a few seconds, called "Halt" again, waited a second or two and then fired. The bullet entered Dickenson's back and he died en route to the hospital. Dickenson was unarmed and offered no physical resistance other than flight.

5 Clifton was indicted in the state court for second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. He subsequently petitioned the federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus and release from state custody.

........

It all came down to federal supremacy:

10 The landmark decision governing petitioner's rights is In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 658, 34 L.Ed. 55 (1890). There the Supreme Court of the United States recognized, by reason of the Supremacy Clause, U.S.Const. art. VI, that a federal officer cannot be held on a state criminal charge where the alleged crime arose during the performance of his federal duties. The Court held:

11 To the objection, made in argument, that the prisoner is discharged by this writ from the power of the state court to try him for the whole offence, the reply is that if the prisoner is held in the state court to answer for an act which he was authorized to do by the law of the United States, which it was his duty to do as marshal of the United States, and, if, in doing that act, he did no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do, he cannot be guilty of a crime under the law of the state of California. When these things are shown, it is established that he is innocent of any crime against the laws of the state, or of any other authority, whatever.

In a later case, Idaho v Horiuchi 2001, over the 22 Aug 1992 shooting of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Clifton v Cox and federal supremacy were cited to dismiss state charges against a federal sniper for killing Mrs. Weaver.

In the 1994 Ruby Ridge trial, Weaver defense lawyer Gerry Spence scored points with the jury when he asked FBI HRT Commander Dick Rogers when he drew up his Rules of Engagement (virtually shoot on sight), did he consider Idaho state law on use of deadly force by police? Rogers answered, no he operated under federal law which supercedes all state laws. The jury unfamiliar with the concept of federal supremacy was stunned (news media noted their expressions were incredulous). After-trial interviews established that from that point onward they regarded every point of the federal case with jaundiced eyes.


(I would like to point out the original court support for "federal supremacy" was in the case of local authorities arresting federal revenue agents for attempting to collect unpopular taxes.)

[stevelyn]

Will THIS gestapo action by ATF wake nra up?

The waffen BATFEces thugs have been engaged in gestapo actions since the early 90s and even earlier and no one other than outraged individuals have said anything about it.

One of the ressons for this was addressed by Rachael Parsons on one of the radio gun shows. Her explaination was that the NRA was reluctant to criticize or call into question the actions of this agency as they didn't want to be perceived as being against LE.

In my opinion calling the corrupt BATFEces thugs LE is akin to calling the Schutzenstaffel "highway patrol". But most sheeple don't see or understand the d-baggery they engage in so I can understand the NRA's hesitation to confront their activities.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

In the 1994 Ruby Ridge trial, Weaver defense lawyer Gerry Spence scored points with the jury when he asked FBI HRT Commander Dick Rogers when he drew up his Rules of Engagement (virtually shoot on sight), did he consider Idaho state law on use of deadly force by police? Rogers answered, no he operated under federal law which supercedes all state laws. The jury unfamiliar with the concept of federal supremacy was stunned (news media noted their expressions were incredulous). After-trial interviews established that from that point onward they regarded every point of the federal case with jaundiced eyes.

What should have been shown is that there is nothing in Feral(Federal) law allowing a "shoot on sight" or "kill order" to be supreme in the first place. Just because it is a Feral action doesn't mean it is lawful. Without the Feral action being supported by Feral law OR THE CONSTITUTION, it was an unlawful act under state law and therefore entirely under the jurisdiction of the state. It would be no different than a Feral officer walking past your apple tree and grabbing one for a snack, claiming he needed the nourishment to complete his Feral mission, and refused to pay you for the apple you didn't have up for sale to begin with!

These unlawful Feral actions are just as unlawful as if your neighboring state did it within your borders, or by an Indian tribe, or by a foreign country. Each state has sovereignty and that sovereignty is only subject to encroachment as specified in the Constitution for the United States of America.

It has been my experience that the NRA is bent more toward political expediency rather than fighting the good fight regardless of the political fallout. That said, there are times when the political approach is best, but when it comes to defending our rights, the gloves must come off, boots must hit the ground, names taken, and votes of principal cast on those grounds.

I do not expect the NRA to take any action along this axis. I wish the NRA would give me cause to eat crow.

Woody