"War on drugs" poster, edited 1/9


PDA






Oleg Volk
January 8, 2006, 01:05 AM
This image changed a lot based on the feedback I received.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/whatif_L9L5798.sized.jpg

Verbose, but more clear than the shorter captions I considered.

If you enjoyed reading about ""War on drugs" poster, edited 1/9" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
carebear
January 8, 2006, 01:57 AM
Perfect.

OtG
January 8, 2006, 02:28 AM
or 3) Shooting Federal officers is A-OK, just make sure to have a rifle, so they die properly! :scrutiny:

Perhaps not the best image to evoke.

WarMachine
January 8, 2006, 02:32 AM
I'm not quite sure I understand the DEA reference here :scrutiny:

If the DEA does a no-knock at her residence, I think it would be in her interest not to have a firearm in her hands as she (and pretty much all of us) would not stand a chance in a shootout with a skilled entry team.

A home invader is a different matter however...

I love your work Oleg, but I must be taking the message the wrong way. This seems a bit extreme if the message is that of shooting federal agents. Not the image I would want as a gun owner.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 02:36 AM
3) Shooting Federal officers is A-OK, just make sure to have a rifle, so they die properly!

Shooting honest citizens is A-OK, just make sure to have an entry team, so they die properly!:rolleyes:

How is one better than the other? If a federal officer breaks into my home, he deserves to be shot, same as any other goblin. Make no mistake, without a proper warrant for my residence, it is a crime, no matter what the misguided citizens are told.
http://www.combatcarry.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/vol_1/dedhorse2.gif
Sorry for the thread drift, there. And the beating of the horse, as well...

Oleg Volk
January 8, 2006, 02:50 AM
If the DEA does a no-knock at her residence, I think it would be in her interest not to have a firearm in her hands as she (and pretty much all of us) would not stand a chance in a shootout with a skilled entry team.

A home invader is a different matter however..

How would an innocent person know who just kicked the door in? I don't expect DEA or any other friends of the people at my home because I am law-abiding, so anyone doing a forcible entry of my home will be stopped to the best of my ability. Whether they die or not is immaterial, it's only important that they stop.

I am trying to suggest that the war on drugs and other civil liberties is going to lead to unnecessary deaths on both sides of the conflict, and to deaths of innocent bystanders also.

If a person can't tell who the intruders are, she'd be far better off with a magazine rifle capable of defeating armor than with a shotgun with buck. Having no weapon in hand is not an option because the expected opponent is the common gangbanger and not DEA. It is better to have an investigation into the reasonable/unreasonable use of force than to shoot the intruders ineffectively with buckshot and have them kill you in turn.

Some of my acquaintances kick doors for a living. If they kick in the wrong door and get killed by a lawful resident, I am not going to blame their victim for resisting what looked like a home invasion by perps. Since the SWAT cops are usually better trained, more numerous, better armed than their prey and have surprise on their side, they are more likely to win than to lose though. To their credit, they don't generally kill people on a whim (unlike gangbangers), and they try not to hit the wrong houses (we can discuss the ethics of raiding drug dealers in a different thread). All I am saying is that conducting urban warfare for whatever reason tends to produce casualties on all sides.

I work with people like these:

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/magazine_ads/january_06_swat_ad_02.sized.jpg

I don't want them dead, as I know them to be decent guys supportinve of my civil rights. I just think that SWAT should start figuring out the cost/benefit of sudden intrusions in cases not involving such necessities as hostage rescue. Getting team members killed is no worse than killing innocent people...and they should start thinking that way, not "us vs. them".

sm
January 8, 2006, 02:58 AM
Oleg's original post/poster and subsequent post
+ 1

Have I ever mentioned how I like shotguns and slugs on this forum?
I mean I really like slugs :)

WarMachine
January 8, 2006, 03:08 AM
Yes, I see what you are saying, and I understand the risk involved with "urban warfare" but this image does not seem to convey all of what you said in your well-written reply.

The issue of "defending" yourself from law-enforcement is a touchy topic that can really be generalized in my opinion. I am not active in LE/DEA, and I don't really have any idea of their entry procedures; but I didn't think they raided homes with the intent to kill any and all occupants; whether they resist or not. I will read up some more on this issue, but the message on the pic does not sit well with me for some reason.

I don't want innocent homes raided any more than I want LEO shot. It's like saying "Keep a firearm ready, in case one of your relatives attack you in the night when they mistake you as a home invader." Both sides are innocent in these cases, and it's just a tragic case of misunderstanding that none of us want to be in.

I guess I will be alone in my viewpoint, but I am just offering a different one...

sm
January 8, 2006, 03:19 AM
Two things come to mind, which I happen to believe in and practice best can.

-One keeps friends close - enemies closer.

-When meeting someone - how would you "stop an immediate threat".


<shiver> I was the target of a Rouge UC that decided the lure of easy money , Cocaine was worth giving up being Moral, adhering to Moral law, His oath to his Dept, and being a human being.

<shivers again> Folks whom were supposed to be kin, or friends did the same thing - put me in harm's way.

I do not appreciate being set up, a target, or being hurt. An enemy is an enemy - Period.

phoglund
January 8, 2006, 03:38 AM
I'm going to be a bit reasonable about this I think. First, if an "Entry Team" of SWAT officers come into my house by mistake I hope I don't happen to be armed at the time, both for risks to them and to myself. Second, if I am I hope I have the sense to drop both my weapon and my body to keep those guys happy. Because...third, I'm going to end up kind of dead if I don't. I strongly suspect most of the folks on those hypothetical entry teams are just like the people Oleg works with. If they have raided my house it is by mistake since I don't have any illegal drugs around. I'd rather be accepting their apologies for the mistake than getting buried while my surviving family members sue the governmental "owners" of the hypothetical entry team.

That being said, if they start using these entry teams to begin the confiscation of citizen firearms...I'm likely to keep myself armed with a rifle as a welcome wagon, but that's another subject...right?

P.S. Oleg, I always enjoy your posters and have visited your site often. Keep up the great work.

Oleg Volk
January 8, 2006, 03:45 AM
I am pretty sure we have DEA employees here. Any comments from them?

carebear
January 8, 2006, 03:55 AM
phoglund,

If you have no reason to expect the DEA will raid you, being a good law-abiding person, why will you assume those masked men crashing through your door are actually DEA?

If you do, can you afford to be wrong? Can your family?

It doesn't take much to get a blue jump suit, a ski mask and yell "police" in the middle of the night. Doesn't make a door-crasher a cop.

Ryder
January 8, 2006, 04:15 AM
The answer to the question in the picture is that she has zero chance of stopping them and as such this does not advocate defending yourself against no-knocks (rightly or wrongly) in my opinion.

Problem is not everyone knows she has no chance. Perhaps you could show her and a SWAT team on the poster to help them reach the right conclusion?

:)

carebear
January 8, 2006, 04:22 AM
Maybe an inset of a couple typical arrestee (or pre-stopped) home invaders and then a stacked entry team for contrast.

sm
January 8, 2006, 04:26 AM
One ploy used around here - again. Is to simply watch for elderly at grocery stores, drug stores, banks. Often just wait to see whom is parked in handicapped. Also the expectant mother parking.

Follow home. Any idiot can go to Thrift store and buy a brownish uniform, or any number of pants, shirts to appear to be delivery or utility person.

Folks getting robbed. This is not rocket science and not a new thing.

Pretending to be LEO. Hey, get a blue light, follow some good looking lady from the grocery store, secluded road, hit the blues and you too can be a blue light rapist. We and other areas had to change not only how unmarked cars were used [marked in a way] and ladies especially were educated.

I mean folks were NOT pulling over for being in fear. That had to be addressed.

Some of this is not original, just re-surfaces or makes a comeback.

A long time ago I got a phone call from the alarm company, an alarm was going off. In the wee hours off I go and arrive. There is NO alarm going off. None of what is supposed to happen or usually took place did.
I was followed and then 2 cars gave chase. I was doing 125 mph down a wide street and literally slid into the police station parking lot standing on the horn.

One seasoned officer, was way back there with lights on... I mean I was clocked doing this in a 40mph zone at 2:30 am- he caught up and about the time my butt was about to get yelled at. An officer who ran out stopped him and explained - an APB for the cars chasing me was issued.

I know how they were not found...btw.

Thank goodness some folks were on duty that knew me...of course back then nobody cared I was carrying concealed. Granted nobody addressed this until I had been the station for a bit. I stayed the night in a detectives office and slept there...or tried to.

I never ever left my abode without calling the alarm company again,and I had to hear a certain password. One I changed often and other arrangements.

I have been pulled over and why? My vehicle matched description of one used in a robbery or somesuch.

More than once,and out of state. The worst, when an LEO had been shot. I mean when the units converge, you stop, you get out and hug the ground, you get a gun removed off body and that 870 muzzle is at the nape of your neck, you do not breathe wrong. you get slammed into a squad car and taken in.

Finally it gets straightened out. One never forgets the feel of a 870 muzzle on nape of neck and it is being racked - never.

One never knows. Prepare oneself for whatever.

The scariest thing a LEO does, to me, is pull someone over. I was riding along...I stayed put, and it made me uncomfortable.

I prefer to not do Us vs Them. I mean just who is Us and who is them? Most folks do the LEO and civilians.

You got Moral and the UnMoral. I mean one cannot tell always from the Roster.

I've been taken for something I was not. So has persons whom wore a uniform.

That raccoon that gets into trash at 3am may be cute and cudly - might be rabid. Slugs work.

Oleg - IMO - is simply stating what we all state on THR. Tools for task, biggest one being the brain.

OtG
January 8, 2006, 04:35 AM
I guess that I have a few questions.

It seems fairly clear that a person who is attacked has the right to defend him/herself. There aren't too many people who'll argue with this, no matter their political orientation.

HOWEVER, this is a poster that is advocating rifles for self-defense because of the risk of LE busting down the wrong door.

You see what I'm getting at?
Many (most?) people will be much more wary about defending themselves against law enforcement officers, and they're not going to feel comfortable with the suggestion that they should keep a rifle on hand for just such an occasion.
I've asked myself the question of how to defend against LE if necessary.
It's a legitimate question, keeping in mind that the risk is very very very low.
However, what reason is there for making an image that seems to advocate shooting federal officers?

HOWEVER, you seem to be making posters that are intended to advance the RKBA cause.
In that light, I want to know: exactly what purpose does this poster serve?
If anyone is truly worried about fighting the DEA, they probably don't need this. If someone is a bit more...moderate...than I suspect a poster like this will make them extremely uncomfortable about who they are associating with.

Hell, I feel pretty damn uncomfortable with this poster, and I'm a very strong supporter of the RKBA, 2nd Amendment, etc.

If you want to protest the drug war, fine, just make it clear what you're protesting.

If you want to support the gun-rights cause, I could probably think of some better ways to do it.

Oleg Volk
January 8, 2006, 04:38 AM
I need to figure out anti-WOD messages from scratch. This was an unplanned foray into that territory. The audience for these posters would be people who already support RKBA. Suggestions are welcome.

jsalcedo
January 8, 2006, 04:40 AM
If I posted anything close to this it would be shut down in a nano second.

Hypothetically shooting cops? Isn't this the high road?

phoglund
January 8, 2006, 04:47 AM
Carebear,

Although you have a point I suspect the chance a bunch of home invasion losers will take the time and trouble to dress up like a SWAT entry team is probably less than a SWAT entry team hitting my house by mistake. The simple truth is a professional entry team is very unlikely to lose a confrontation with any of us if they do their job right. Although I have loaded firearms in my house and carry concealed when I leave I really don't perceive the threat level to be such that I am willing to accept the intrinsic cost of a level of armed vigilence that would allow me a reasonable chance of defeating a professional entry team raiding my house. It's important in my view to balance preparedness against the reasonable likelyhood of the event prepared for. I go armed because I think a situation may occur for which a firearm might help me protect myself. I don't walk around my house dressed for CQB because It's too uncomfortable in relation to the likely risk I'll need all that gear.

Demon440
January 8, 2006, 04:55 AM
It does happen. In fact it did not long ago close to where I live. Local police busted in the wrong house one night and the home's resident shot and killed one officer. Resident was cleared and no charges were pressed.

kwallace
January 8, 2006, 04:59 AM
This image could be taken two ways: 1) get a rifle 2) support legalization of drugs and elimination of DEA.

I suggest both.

And, ironically, I'm former State Bureau of Narcotics... It's hard to be a narc when you favour decriminalization. ;-) That prolly explains the "former" bit. heh

k

phoglund
January 8, 2006, 05:00 AM
Unfortunate for all involved. I'd not like to live with that on my concience...cleared legally and morally or not.

kwallace
January 8, 2006, 05:02 AM
Carebear,

The simple truth is a professional entry team is very unlikely to lose a confrontation with any of us if they do their job right.

You might be suprised. It happens more often than makes the news. But you are right. Interestingly, at least in my state, the numbers are about equal those shot (and actually hit) by criminals and those shot by accidental "friendly fire." In other words, both are relatively rare.

LAK
January 8, 2006, 08:14 AM
The issue here boils down to the rights of citizens in their homes versus the contrived reasoning to violate them and the antics of the state.

I support the castle doctrine.

There can be no peacetime moral or legal justification for the state to place the citizen in the position of "I must prostrate myself to any who burst into my home wearing black suits and masks shouting the magic words". Or "I must wait and see whether they really are goods guys or badguys before I shoot".

When the state tries to convince citizens that it is in their best interests to have things this way; the state definately does not have the citizens best interests at heart, and their motives lie elsewhere.
------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

CentralTexas
January 8, 2006, 01:40 PM
I need to figure out anti-WOD messages from scratch. This was an unplanned foray into that territory. The audience for these posters would be people who already support RKBA. Suggestions are welcome.

I think this makes the same statement as " X amount of innocent people are killed every year in high speed police pursuits of individuals with misdemeanors"

It is a statement about the no knock searches and the frequency of mistakes.

Which to me equals "of the last 100 people put to death in prison only 7 were innocent."

The caption doesn't say "Arm yourself to kill the Feds when they come".

CT

slide
January 8, 2006, 01:50 PM
We're supposed to know what or who we are shooting at even if in our homes. I personally don't think drugs s/b illegal or that no knock warrants are ok. Neither is the issue here.

The only issue is if we are ok to shoot DEA (etc.) agents who break down our doors in a wrong address no knock raid. I say no because we need to be able to identify who we shoot at - not just shoot away at anything which moves. Any fool can ID that the person at the end of his sights is a police or DEA by the way they look and act. Therefore, there isn't a justification for shooting, IMO.

BenW
January 8, 2006, 01:53 PM
I suspect the chance a bunch of home invasion losers will take the time and trouble to dress up like a SWAT entry team is probably less than a SWAT entry team hitting my house by mistake.
Though if it's the middle of the night, they don't have to dress up like a SWAT team. They just have to start yelling "POLICE!" as they kick your door in. The average citizen would probably hesitate long enough to give the home invaders an advantage.

I know this is always a difficult subject, but in my opinion the best option is finding a way for LE not to have to do no-knocks and ensuring clear laws are in place to protect a person's right of home defense. That way it becomes common knowledge that anyone breaking down your door is always a bad guy (no matter how they dress or what they yell on their way in) and that you have a clear legal right to defend yourself.

GD
January 8, 2006, 02:33 PM
We had a no knock early morning drug raid several years ago in Topeka. A police officer was killed by the home owner. Even though the guy was a drug dealer, the way the raid was conducted, called in to question as to whether the invaders were police officers or competitive drug dealers. The jury decided that the guy was only defending himself against what he perceived to be a threat. It is not right that police do this late night invasion to put a person off guard. It is even more wrong that they break in yelling, with masks on, and identifying marks on their back rather than on front. I expect more from our police in a civilized society. Yes, even if it means an occasional criminal goes free.

SomeKid
January 8, 2006, 02:47 PM
I say no because we need to be able to identify who we shoot at - not just shoot away at anything which moves.

Right, so if me and some guys throw on black face masks, and stormtrooper helmets, you will be able to identifiy us?

As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 03:07 PM
As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

That's what Jefferson would say.....

GRB
January 8, 2006, 04:19 PM
I have to wonder, do you even have any comprhension of: what is a no-knock warrant, how long they have been available to law enforcement (not nerw for sure even though all the fuss is new), what is invloved in getting one as opposed to a regular search warrant, and the tactics used when effecting one? I have been out on several no knock warrants during the course of my 26 year carrer. I said several, which is somewhat more thana few - I did not say manay. Most warrants are not no-knock. When they are though, what is invloved is a swift assault on a front door (or other entry way) and a speedy spotaneous entry during which the law enforcement officers usually announce themselves in loud voices. This is not the movies or covert ops teams. As to your question,m she would not have much of a chance to get that gun if it was indeed a no-knock warrant being effected and that would be a good thing because it would keeop a gun out of the hands of a criminal (if she was in fact the target of the warrant) and it would keep the defenders of law and order from harm. That mistakes are sometimes made and the wrong house gone into, well that is a sad thing and it should beaddressed but, to try to put down the no-knock warrant is a sad commentary on this forum.

carebear
January 8, 2006, 04:31 PM
What does the no knock gain in absolute terms that a standard search warrant cannot?

The one thing I keep hearing is it prevents evidence from being destroyed. But it's a search warrant, prior to an arrest or conviction, which means a presumed innocent civilian is being attacked with incredible force to prevent a couple ounces from going in a toilet? Sewers can be blocked, water can be shut off. Even if the evidence is destroyed, it isn't like the bad guy will give up crime, go back some other time.

Arrest warrants for known armed, violent repeat felons (or even first timers) make more sense, but they have to be outside and vulnerable at some point. Take them down then, away from their "arsenals". Alternately, cut off the water and food and starve them out. No risk to an innocent non-LEO that way.

What appears to be happening is that the tool of SWAT and no-knocks, which used to be very uncommon, for hostage situations and the like, is being used as a convenience instead of more creative solutions.

Phyphor
January 8, 2006, 04:31 PM
or 3) Shooting Federal officers is A-OK, just make sure to have a rifle, so they die properly! :scrutiny:

Perhaps not the best image to evoke.


Wow, I'll bet THAT line set off a red flag or 3,000... :evil:

slide
January 8, 2006, 05:56 PM
Right, so if me and some guys throw on black face masks, and stormtrooper helmets, you will be able to identifiy us?

As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door is as silly as needing a 14 shot semi-auto handgun in a street confrontation.

We're not facing a 'determined enemy' but instead weak often badly debilitated losers who aren't in for a fight. They are easy smash and grab types. When they meet resistance, they flee. No whacked out druggie is like portrayed on TV as supermen able to run through gunfire to get their fix.

They are, as a class, pathetic and weak.

mustanger98
January 8, 2006, 06:15 PM
Well, as I understand it, some Federal agencies and some in the legislative branch and some Presidents have wanted us to forget what Jefferson and all the other Founders said. The last 30 years, and particularly the Klinton admin how shown a lot of this type of behavior. I don't know about ya'll, but I'd like to think things are getting better. But, we have to work on smaller gov't and getting rid of the DEA, BATFE, IRS, etc as the nearly purposeless entities they are. This is not done through warfare and it's not done overnight, except if maybe Congress suddenly passed a bill none of us can really see them passing at this point.

No-knock warrants... well, I've heard of them around here, but I haven't heard of imitation no-knocks by the local gangstas. An aquaitance of mine is the assistant DA here and he goes on those too. We run into each other in town and get to talking guns and such. We're both armed citizens. No problem there. The sheriff- and I'm a constituent- has been helpful to us a time or two. No problems there either. I don't want to have to shoot it out with thugs only to find out they're my neighbors- who devote their careers to a safer community- because somebody made a mistake on a no-knock warrant. I'm sure my friend the assistant DA understands self defense in the home too.

While I'm talking about the assistant DA, he told me one time that crime related to methamphetamines is rampant around here. I recall we agreed it's smart to be ready to defend one's home, family, and person. A shotgun and buck is good in it's place. Slug are good in their place. A sidearm or rifle are each good in their places. But as several have said, the mind is the real weapon. I don't like the "Us vs. Them" debate either. To my mind, Citizens (as opposed to "subjects") and LEO/Peace Officers should be on the same page and working together for a safer community. LEO's need to come off of their "we're above them" attitude, because they work for us and they're subject to the law too. LEO's need to calm down and quit seeing everybody who isn't wearing a badge as a criminal because to my mind, most of us are on the same side.

I prefer to not do Us vs Them. I mean just who is Us and who is them? Most folks do the LEO and civilians.

You got Moral and the UnMoral. I mean one cannot tell always from the Roster.

I've been taken for something I was not. So has persons whom wore a uniform.

I agree. It's easy to mistake someone for one way or the other because people have a bad tendancy to "color code" so many things. It's kinda like mistaking a King Snake for a rattler or a Corn Snake for a Copperhead.

I could prabably philosiphize on this a while, but I think I'll quit before I ramble too much.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 06:21 PM
I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door

You may think it's silly, but it has happened, and does happen.

mustanger98
January 8, 2006, 06:38 PM
You may think it's silly, but it has happened, and does happen.

This comment kinda reminds me of that one time... it was my sister, our Daddy, and me... we went out behind the house so she could shoot her .38 snubbie and we could get an idea how best she could defend herself against break-in by common thugs in her small appartment at the time. She made fist sized groups at 7yds, but when it came to the distance to the front door and matters of losers hopped up on crap, she was huffy and mad at me and saying I "keep makin' up stuff". She shut up on that when Daddy told her those predators I spoke of were "out there" and I didn't make 'em up. In any case, best to know how to deal with stuff instead of accusing anybody of "making stuff up".

outofbattery
January 8, 2006, 06:48 PM
So on one hand you make posters showing LEO's armed with belt fed weapons and in all sorts of ninja poses and then you show the need to be armed against them.Play both sides against the middle,perfect:cool:

CentralTexas
January 8, 2006, 06:58 PM
Right, so if me and some guys throw on black face masks, and stormtrooper helmets, you will be able to identifiy us?

As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

You said it brother!
CT

Phyphor
January 8, 2006, 07:08 PM
I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door is as silly as needing a 14 shot semi-auto handgun in a street confrontation.


The first situation has happened before, after all, what crook wants to be recognizable? Costumes tend to help that.

As far as the ammo capacity of a firearm, what's with the 'you don't need that' way of thinking? I'd prefer having too much ammo as opposed to 'not enough. '



We're not facing a 'determined enemy' but instead weak often badly debilitated losers who aren't in for a fight. They are easy smash and grab types. When they meet resistance, they flee.

Except for the few that don't. Then what do you do?



No whacked out druggie is like portrayed on TV as supermen able to run through gunfire to get their fix.

They are, as a class, pathetic and weak.

The problem with painting with such a wide brush is those little spots you tend to miss. You have to hope for the best, and plan for the worst, that way, when things really do go rodeo, you're probably gonna make it.

Old Fuff
January 8, 2006, 07:34 PM
Oleg:

Perhaps you need to revise the text a little:

When you cannot tell if it's the Authorities or a Home Invader who's kicking in your door...

or

When you can't tell if it's the Authorities or a Home Invader who's kicking in your door...

You don’t have to explain the particular firearm (rifle/shotgun/handgun) because the issue is self-protection against illegal invaders, no matter who they are.

I agree with your basic premise - when the authorities kick in a door, they must be ABSOLUTELY SURE they have the right one and are making a legal entry, or pay serious consequences. The real problem is that this hasn't the case very often. Here, the consequence for making a mistake is usually a pay-off by some liability insurance company.

carebear
January 8, 2006, 07:37 PM
slide (and others),

I'm all for recognizing that we typically aren't facing DeNiro's guys from HEAT on our way to the store.

But there are criminals out there who have more actual practice at violence than us. It is, for what it's worth, their JOB. They DO practice shooting and they can read the same books and watch the same videos as us. They can get training from unscrupulous pros and former military, some gangs send guys through uncle sam's finishing schools for just that reason.

We don't want to overestimate the opposition but we shouldn't underestimate them either.

Particularly because either way, cowardly incompetents or stone killers, they'll be controlling the time, place and numbers when the balloon goes up.

slide
January 8, 2006, 07:38 PM
Well, as I understand it, some Federal agencies and some in the legislative branch and some Presidents have wanted us to forget what Jefferson and all the other Founders said. The last 30 years, and particularly the Klinton admin how shown a lot of this type of behavior.

I'll grant you that clinton was on the job when Waco occurred, but you can't say he's bad and the others are good or even neutral. We hear a lot of whining about the PATRIOT ACT from libertarians today, but it was only an extension of RICO which was enacted and supported under Reagan. We lost a lot under Reagan and the Bushes. I think even more than under clinton whose major act was the AWB which has gone away now. However, the restrictions we suffered under the R's are still with us.

slide
January 8, 2006, 07:41 PM
slide (and others),

I'm all for recognizing that we typically aren't facing DeNiro's guys from HEAT on our way to the store.

But there are criminals out there who have more actual practice at violence than us. It is, for what it's worth, their JOB. They DO practice shooting and they can read the same books and watch the same videos as us. They can get training from unscrupulous pros and former military, some gangs send guys through uncle sam's finishing schools for just that reason.

We don't want to overestimate the opposition but we shouldn't underestimate them either.

Particularly because either way, cowardly incompetents or stone killers, they'll be controlling the time, place and numbers when the balloon goes up.


Geez, I work with these guys. They don't practice and they are pathetic. Try taking a lot of drugs and then spending money on that stuff instead of decent food or clothing and see what occurs to your physique.

There are reasons these guys go for women. First, women tend not to be alert to threats or potential bad situations. Second, they don't react very fast when things start going badly for them. Third, they are weaker than the guys or at least are conditioned not to fight back very much. Instead, they plead or bargain.

Criminals practicing with weapons? Is this some sort of James Bond scenario? Where do you get your info? It sure isn't from my area.

mustanger98
January 8, 2006, 07:43 PM
The problem with painting with such a wide brush is those little spots you tend to miss. You have to hope for the best, and plan for the worst, that way, when things really do go rodeo, you're probably gonna make it.

I tend to agree with planning for the worst while hoping for the best. General Norman Schwartzkopf (sp?) said then while analyzing the situation at Pearl harbor, that if you plan for the worst, you're better off when the worst doesn't happen than you would be if you'd done nothing and the worst happened. Of course, in that case, they didn't know what to do but they knew they had to do something which is better than nothing.

If things really do go rodeo, you don't go for your gun. (When your only tool is a hammer, all the problems start lookin' like nails.) You jump on 'em and dig in with the spurs, ride 'em to the ground and hogtie 'em. That by itself oughta make 'em wonder what just happened.:D (You probably gotta be a cowboy to understand what I just said.:D )

mustanger98
January 8, 2006, 07:51 PM
I'll grant you that clinton was on the job when Waco occurred, but you can't say he's bad and the others are good or even neutral. We hear a lot of whining about the PATRIOT ACT from libertarians today, but it was only an extension of RICO which was enacted and supported under Reagan. We lost a lot under Reagan and the Bushes. I think even more than under clinton whose major act was the AWB which has gone away now. However, the restrictions we suffered under the R's are still with us.

I didn't say the others were good, bad or neither. I said over the last 30 years, there's been a lot of this going on. I said Klinton in case somebody said something like "yeah, name one..." for lack of an example. Like Bill O'Reilly always says, give examples. I did. I'm not disagreeing with you either. Reagan and the Bushes have done things I agreed with, but all politicians, including the Bushes and Reagan have done things I disagreed with. Granted I'd rather see a sincere likeable guy in the President's position, but we the people must stand ready to politically defeat the intollerable legislations before they become law and be sure our legislators and President understand how We the People take a dim view of being screwed over and out of our Rights.

mustanger98
January 8, 2006, 08:02 PM
There are reasons these guys go for women. First, women tend not to be alert to threats or potential bad situations. Second, they don't react very fast when things start going badly for them. Third, they are weaker than the guys or at least are conditioned not to fight back very much. Instead, they plead or bargain.

Criminals practicing with weapons? Is this some sort of James Bond scenario? Where do you get your info? It sure isn't from my area.

Actually, women are just as strong as men. Thing is, while most men are stronger from the waist up, most women are stronger from the waist down. It's not totally a matter if who's stronger, but who knows how to use their respective strengths. That said, hand to hand combat is not a good idea when you can have a weapon to keep the bad guys outside arm's length and preferably further away than that. I do agree that many women don't react very fast when it all goes downhill, but neither do a lot of men. This is just a matter of one idividual to the next. There are plenty of people, men and women, who are conditioned to passive reactions and bargaining and it's been proven that these reactions can get you killed.

While the average meth/crack/pot loser is probably not practicing with weapons, I wouldn't rule out some criminals practicing and using their weapons to devastating effect. But I also agree most of us aren't dealing with DeNiro's guys, at least not daily. Who said anything about James Bond? That's a whole 'nuther topic and you'll have to take that stuff up with Ian Flemming to know what he was thinking besides selling novels.

slide
January 8, 2006, 08:11 PM
The biggest problems with women are that they aren't vigilant, they don't react to a bad situaton developing (I can't believe this is happening to me) and once they do realize things have gone to *#&#&, they don't resist with full force.

I don't believe your contention that women are stronger than men from the waist down. Were you making some sort of sex joke?

mustanger98
January 8, 2006, 09:06 PM
I don't believe your contention that women are stronger than men from the waist down. Were you making some sort of sex joke?

No sex joke. No joke at all. This is something I've heard numerous times in different places, especially at the gym, that men and women have different patterns of strength (different muscle groups in different areas) and if each knows how to use their respective strengths, they can gain advantages in different ways. While some men can pick up and pin down most women with upper body strength, some women (if they develop their lower-body muscle groups as many cannot develop the upper body groups the way a man will) they can rapidly outrun and outdistance some men in a flight situation whereas they might well not win unarmed in a fight situation.

If you had read my entire post, you would probably have realized most of what I just said without me having to re-explain it.

All the above said, the mind is the weapon (Rambo), the gun is a tool (Shane), and it's a hard heart that kills(Gunny Hartman).

GRB
January 8, 2006, 09:18 PM
I guess I never realized before just how anti any form of government is this site and many of its members. I wish you all well after you overthrow the government and have to fend for yourselves each man for himself ebcause you obviosuly will not have any trust in government. I thought this place had been full of practical people not extremists, I have now seen otherwise, and it goes to the very essence of this site. Goodbye.

taliv
January 8, 2006, 09:20 PM
i'm not getting into the political discussion, but about the poster, oleg...

it just doesn't seem to work. i mean, she's holding a gun in a bathrobe with a 'come hither' pose and smile on her face that you'd expect on a dillon catalog cover. she doesn't LOOK like she's fending off knuckleheads or stormtroopers

none of your verbage on the poster indicates your issue is rifle vs shotgun (and btw, i was under the impression that the jackboots wouldn't be too keen on slugs. maybe a single-barrel breakdown shotgun ain't such a hot home-defense choice, but there are plenty of skeet guns that hold 5 or 6 rnds.)


perhaps instead, you could spoof a movie poster and do something like a picture of her in a bubble bath or kids playing with the family dog

coming to a wrong address near you soon...

_no knock warrants_

starring well-meaning LEOs "just doing their job"

directed by the DEA

brought to you by the War on Drugs

"The Constitution ain't what it used to be"

taliv
January 8, 2006, 09:24 PM
I guess I never realized before just how anti any form of government is this site and many of its members. I wish you all well after you overthrow the government and have to fend for yourselves each man for himself ebcause you obviosuly will not have any trust in government. I thought this place had been full of practical people not extremists, I have now seen otherwise, and it goes to the very essence of this site. Goodbye.


don't take it personally. just because we don't TRUST government doesn't mean we're against government. trusting the gov would be pretty friggin stupid, given, oh, say, the last 6000 years of recorded history.

Dave Markowitz
January 8, 2006, 09:27 PM
Oleg,

As much as I like the majority of your work, for me this poster doesn't get across what you're apparently trying to say, based on your subsequent posts.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 09:33 PM
I guess I never realized before just how anti any form of government is this site and many of its members.Um, ok. Actually, I sometimes feel as though this site is overun by big state advocates. Then I realize it's just all the Libertarians and Minarchists are logged off. I've found we actually seem to have large percentages of Republicans, Libertarians and minarchists, in equal amounts, with the occasional anarchist thrown in for good measure.
I wish you all well after you overthrow the government Who said this? I didn't see it.
and have to fend for yourselves each man for himself ebcause you obviosuly will not have any trust in government. Not our current government, no.
I thought this place had been full of practical people not extremists,One man's extremist is another man's moderate.
I have now seen otherwise, and it goes to the very essence of this site. Goodbye.Taking your ball and going home, eh? Too bad. I was enjoying your input. I wish you weren't so quick to cast judgement on nearly 25,000 members due to the posts of a few you disagree with. To each his own.
If not allowing myself and my family to be victimized makes me an extremist, so be it. I do know what a no-knock warrant is, and how it's executed. It has it's place, but the war on drugs has gone a long way toward destroying the bill of rights, and some of us are sick of it.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 09:35 PM
Anyway, back to the topic, which was Oleg's poster, I'd have to agree that it's a little unclear what it is saying. I like the message, but it's a little muddled. That said, I don't have any suggestions for making it better....:confused:

AF_INT1N0
January 8, 2006, 10:11 PM
I didn't have a problem with the message.. Or should I say.

The lady with the shotgun can defend herself against a criminal. = Good.

But the lady who thinks she's protecting herself from a criminal then shot by DEA/ SWAT/ BATFE etc = Bad.

The message---No knock warrants = bad..

Maybe it would help if you added a stack o DEA in the door..

carebear
January 8, 2006, 10:21 PM
Geez, I work with these guys. They don't practice and they are pathetic. Try taking a lot of drugs and then spending money on that stuff instead of decent food or clothing and see what occurs to your physique.

There are reasons these guys go for women. First, women tend not to be alert to threats or potential bad situations. Second, they don't react very fast when things start going badly for them. Third, they are weaker than the guys or at least are conditioned not to fight back very much. Instead, they plead or bargain.

Criminals practicing with weapons? Is this some sort of James Bond scenario? Where do you get your info? It sure isn't from my area.

Not sure which guys you work with. Much of my info comes from serving and former cops in Washington, Cali and up here. Some from my former Company Gunny who is a CO at Folsom. Some from associates of various biker brotherhoods. Some from personal contact during my time as a range officer at an indoor range here in Anchorage. Some from reputable sources here on THR.

Many of these bad guys aren't a problem for "civilians," just cops and others in the life. They operate outside the experience of most of us. But unless I'm being lied to, more and more of the street gangbangers and their extended networks, who do commit crimes on civilians, are taking a leaf from the pro bad guy playbook. The new immigrant gangs from current or recent war zones also tend to come with a better skill set.

I've never been particularly concerned about the odd mugger or crack head, it's getting caught up in the tres rare semi-pro or multiple assailant situation that I train and plan for.

R.W.Dale
January 8, 2006, 10:28 PM
This thread and all of it's nutty contents serves nothing but to give us gunowners a bad name. YOU HAVE TO BE SHURE OF YOUR TARGET ANYTIME YOU USE A FIREARM. Weither it's making shure that a deer is actually a deer in the woods. Or inshuring your long anticipated STHF senerio has a drug crazed bandito as a target or the neighbors daughter who is having a sleep over with your daughter.

Bottom line if that lady does not put down whatever firearm she has really quick in the face of the DEA wrong house or not she is gonna die

How many of you keyboard Kommandos who THINK your ready for everything have a fire extinguisher and smoke dectectors in your home?

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 10:34 PM
YOU HAVE TO BE SHURE OF YOUR TARGET ANYTIME YOU USE A FIREARM.

Absolutely. That doesn't mean I should ask for ID when a man busts down my door carrying a gun. That means I should be sure who or what I am shooting at. A man who breaks down my door,IMO , is threatening my family. He's gonna get shot, no matter what he's yelling. I don't do things to recieve visits from SWAT, therefore anyone who breaks down my door is a criminal, and will be treated accordingly.

Bottom line if that lady does not put down whatever firearm she has really quick in the face of the DEA wrong house or not she is gonna die

I'm not convinced of that. Look at Cory Maye.

R.W.Dale
January 8, 2006, 10:35 PM
If I posted anything close to this it would be shut down in a nano second.

Hypothetically shooting cops? Isn't this the high road?

+1

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 10:38 PM
This thread and all of it's nutty contents serves nothing but to give us gunowners a bad name.

How does calling people "keyboard Kommandos" make it better?

I think I've said all I'm gonna on this topic. If Oleg puts a new poster up, I'll say something, but I don't want to get the thread shut down by conversing with beligerent people.

Malice
January 8, 2006, 10:44 PM
Oleg, I have an idea for a piece in the tradition of the AWB images.

A split-screen. On each side, a guy in black para-military type swat fatigues.

Caption: One of these men is a LAPD SWAT officer. The other is a criminal pretending to be one. Could you tell out of a dead sleep at 2 AM?

Herself
January 8, 2006, 11:03 PM
.

Herself
January 8, 2006, 11:05 PM
I kinda like that suggestion, malice!

Being a middling sound sleeper with a bedroom so located that I have a few seconds to grab my shootin' iron between front door-kicking and being confronted but no extra; and being a non-user of controlled substances, I will conclude persons making any violent entry into my home are bad guys. If it happens to be some level of LEO making a wrong-address no-knock, then there is going to be hailstorm of lead followed by a very embarrassed group of survivors. I may or may not be among 'em. Tough.

I have been held up at gunpoint twice, accosted in public by nutjobs on several occasions, and had strange and dangerous-acting men follow my car and try to run it off the road. (It must be my winning personality? Actually, it's my job, the hours I work and the neighborhoods where my apartments were, along with having lived a lot of years).* I'm not takin' chances. I used up my luck long ago.

As nearly as I can tell, ludicrous arrest techniques like no-knock raids only make life more unsafe for everyone (including SWAT team members) while doing little to curb the kinds of crime they are used against. It might do a little good to remind the LEOs -- and more to the point, their bosses! -- that they are not the only sheepdogs among the many sheep and few wolves.

The poster's semiotically vague, Oleg; I gather that you are trying to reflect the endangered citizen's own uncertainty but the plain truth is, she hasn't any: a man who kicks in the door of a peacable citizen without being invited to is a bad guy, no matter how noble his intentions or how splendid his uniform.

--Herself
_______________________
* Yes, keep on breathing and you, too can have Exciting True Tales to tell. Or, better yet, you can be careful and lucky and not have such experiences.

mustanger98
January 8, 2006, 11:47 PM
Oleg, I have an idea for a piece in the tradition of the AWB images.

A split-screen. On each side, a guy in black para-military type swat fatigues.

Caption: One of these men is a LAPD SWAT officer. The other is a criminal pretending to be one. Could you tell out of a dead sleep at 2 AM?

Now, to me, this post makes sense. I say that because I've read of people being murdered by housebreakers who used this ruse. I've also read of burglars who wore "tactical clothing" and committed murder with so-called "assault weapons" and when caught, they claimed the were "bounty hunters" and had the wrong house. In these scenarios, armed self defense makes the most sense as the way to have a chance to survive if one has the chance at said armed self defense.

chrisTx
January 8, 2006, 11:47 PM
this reminds me of those "blue helmet invasion," "SHTF," and red dawn threads i always see.

in the words of the great captain jack sparrow, "you need to find yourself a girl, mate."

Kodiaz
January 8, 2006, 11:47 PM
A long time ago (before Giuliani) in a galaxy far away (NYC). A new lucrative commodity came into existence(crack). This commidity was sold by the smart and the dumb, the weak and the strong. It was very profitable. Now those that were dumb talked way too much and would have half the known universe know when and where they would count their money. Now those that were smart would pay attention to this information and verify it. And then when the dummy had pounds of untraceable unreportable sums of money lying around these people would run in there like a bat out of hell and have all the money and be gone before anyone knew what was going on. Well other people decided this was a great way to make money so they started busting into every decent looking place in the bad areas thinking they would do the same thing. Needless to say just because someone smashes into your apartment and clears the corners doesn't make them police. Giuliani and Bratton were the best thing that ever happened to that city. But Darwin should get some credit too you can't be a dummy and operate a drug business forever.

Herself
January 9, 2006, 12:15 AM
this reminds me of those "blue helmet invasion," "SHTF," and red dawn threads i always see.

in the words of the great captain jack sparrow, "you need to find yourself a girl, mate."

Ew. I'm not really into girls, mate!

--Hersef

jsalcedo
January 9, 2006, 12:34 AM
The hipocricy of this site and its moderators has gone to the extreme.

I am out of here. goodbye

Zundfolge
January 9, 2006, 12:55 AM
I guess I never realized before just how anti any form of government is this site and many of its members. I wish you all well after you overthrow the government and have to fend for yourselves each man for himself ebcause you obviosuly will not have any trust in government. I thought this place had been full of practical people not extremists, I have now seen otherwise, and it goes to the very essence of this site.
I love how whenever there is a thread questioning some power or behavior of our government there are still people here who get all carried away and read "desire for limited government" as "desire for anarchy".

I'm assuming you consider yourself a "conservative" ... isn't limited government a "conservative value"? Or like a lot of cops who support "No-Knocks", do you think making your job "easier" and/or "safer" is more important than protecting the rights of us proles? (I put easier and safer in quotes because I don't believe no-knocks do either ... they just make cops more powerful).

Goodbye.
So are you leaving because you're afraid if you stay here that you'll end up on some government list (thus validating the fear of too much government power)? Or do you just not stick around where people might have different opinions than you...especially us serfs you're supposed to "protect and serve"?...can't stand it when your lessors get all uppity and question your authority eh?




I guess the real problem I have is with the continued militarization of our police forces.

The primary job of the military is to kill people, however the occasionaly "arrest" folk too (ie take POWs).

The primary job of law enforcement is to arrest people so that they can answer charges of criminal activity in a court of law with due process, and occasionaly are put in the unfortinate position where they have to kill someone. Thus they both protect society from criminals while at the same time protecting the accused from caprecious and unfair prosecution.

Once you start confusing military and police you end up with doing away with both the protection of society and of the rights of the accused ... you end up with Judge Dreds running around offing those they think are criminals and you end up with more "oops ... killed another innocent civilian ... oh well."



As for this poster, Oleg, I think you're trying to oversimplify a rather complex subject ... often that is the point of posters, but in this case I think there's just too little information conveyed (and no real way to convey it ... a picture is worth 1000 words, but this subject requires about 10,000 words).

Is the target of the poster the WOD? No-Knocks? Effective self defense tools? What?

Zundfolge
January 9, 2006, 01:06 AM
Bottom line if that lady does not put down whatever firearm she has really quick in the face of the DEA wrong house or not she is gonna die

I agree 100%. We must be realistic.


However I think its extremely un-American that she should ever have to face that choice.


Yes mistakes happen, but there is no legitimate reason for the large number of "No-Knock" warrants issued and executed. Clearly in a hostage situation, or terrorists setting up a bomb or something it would make sense to kick the door down and take the chance, but there have been plenty of "No-Knock" warrants issued and executed for minor drug posession charges.

Getting drugs "off our streets" is not worth the price of no American being "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

outofbattery
January 9, 2006, 01:21 AM
I'm still wondering about Oleg's pictures of cops with guns that most of us can't own.So are those particular "JBT's" not badguys because they're special and why do they need a SAW or a suppressed M4?To mow down the poor woman with the sXs or to be able to do it in silence?Is it to come take down lawful gunowners or to persecute innocent methamphetamine enthusiasts who happen to also just like to make enough for their friends?

Oleg Volk
January 9, 2006, 01:45 AM
A split-screen. On each side, a guy in black para-military type swat fatigues.

Caption: One of these men is a LAPD SWAT officer. The other is a criminal pretending to be one. Could you tell out of a dead sleep at 2 AM?

Great idea, and more direct than the current poster. Will make it. I bet I can make an outfit that would pass for a cop in bad light for under $20 and ten minutes.

carebear
January 9, 2006, 01:47 AM
Cops aren't bad guys. LE in general is using some (to many minds) needlessly violent tactics to prosecute a WOD that many don't believe needs to be fought. At least not in that manner.

I don't have a problem with police using the guns they're issued. Easier non-LEO access to FA is a different issue.

LE and govt. are not evil, they are simply heading down an unConstitutional path and need to be reined in in some areas and reduced/removed in others.

Oleg Volk
January 9, 2006, 01:52 AM
So on one hand you make posters showing LEO's armed with belt fed weapons and in all sorts of ninja poses and then you show the need to be armed against them.Play both sides against the middle,perfect

I have no problem with LEOs using a .50 rifle to take out a hostage taker or a robber or placing contents of a Beta magazine into a carjacker.

I have serious problem with cops tossing concussion grenades into home of people not guilty of anything (by mistake or through negligence) or shooting at people whose sole crime is growing weed. The zombie manufacturing (meth) has been the unintended consequence of making more behign narcotics (opiates) harder to get...not the cops' fault, rather the fault of the same busy-bodies who brought us the previous Prohibition. The neo-Prohibitionists are the ones playing cops against other citizens, with the bad consequences for both sides.

I like most cops I know. That's what makes America different from Russia, among other factors: cops here are largely decent, resonable people. THR staff has many cops on it. My living room has a lot of cops in in on most days. I just don't think that any cops, including my friends, should be no-knocking people for any reason except saving lives from imminent harm (such as hostage extraction).

STAGE 2
January 9, 2006, 02:14 AM
As someone who has had family who have worked for the DEA I can't say that I am to thrilled about the poster.

It kind of reminds me of the saying that a person is intelligent but people are stupid. A government agency is power hungry and tramples on rights, but the particular agent is just a guy with a family who probably doesn't have a dog in the fight either way.

I'm for the second amendment as much as the next guy, but its really easy to forget that their are wives and children at home waiting for those "jack booted thugs" that some of you are so ready to shoot at.

We always say that a gun is just a thing. I really don't think that any particular thing is worth killing an otherwise worthwhile person over. I can always by another pistol, but I cant give a family back their husband and their father.

Oleg Volk
January 9, 2006, 02:19 AM
I just re-edited that poster for clarity.

carebear
January 9, 2006, 02:56 AM
As someone who has had family who have worked for the DEA I can't say that I am to thrilled about the poster.

It kind of reminds me of the saying that a person is intelligent but people are stupid. A government agency is power hungry and tramples on rights, but the particular agent is just a guy with a family who probably doesn't have a dog in the fight either way.

I'm for the second amendment as much as the next guy, but its really easy to forget that their are wives and children at home waiting for those "jack booted thugs" that some of you are so ready to shoot at.

We always say that a gun is just a thing. I really don't think that any particular thing is worth killing an otherwise worthwhile person over. I can always by another pistol, but I cant give a family back their husband and their father.

And I'm all for enforcing laws. BUT I really don't think that any particular drug evidence is worth killing any person over. Law Enforcement can always find another opportunity to catch a suspected criminal in possession of drug evidence, but it can't give an innocent family incorrectly no-knock raided with tragic result back their husband and their father.

Even the suspect has not been convicted of the charge the evidence is being sought for. They are therefore as innocent in the eyes of the law as the officers executing the warrant. No evidence is worth an innocent death on either side. (however certainly scummy on the one)

Eisande
January 9, 2006, 03:27 AM
Oleg, I really like your skills and concepts. I also must agree that this poster is maybe a little controversial and probably points towards more of a WOD issue than it belies.

That said, as a fellow who is currently active LE in the Los Angeles area and also on SWAT I can tell you with all honesty that I have not known of or seen a No-Knock warrant in 15 years. Not with our agency, albeit a small one, or any other. Of course I am talking local police, it would seem that maybe the feds apply for this more often?

Our teams thinking is this..if the amount of drugs the BG has can be flushed in the 30 seconds or so it takes us to comply with knock/notice then it really ain't that big a case is it? If it is a sizable quantity of drugs, well, he won't be able to get rid of them anyway.

The only time we could imagine, ever, just going in, no notice, etc. is obviously hostage type stuff and/or obvious intel (using our own ears) that someone inside is in danger based on screams or what have you or making it obvious that we were observed approaching, e.g. "COPS! RUN! Get my gun, etc." Those seem pretty far fetched though.

(i like you photo work as well, I do a little dabbling with my Nikon D2H on occasion)

carebear
January 9, 2006, 04:12 AM
Eisande,

And that's exactly the thing a SWAT entry should be for and why I'm glad we do train guys to that standard. If you have to go in, I want you to win and go home safe.

Thank you for your service.

LAK
January 9, 2006, 04:59 AM
I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door is as silly as needing a 14 shot semi-auto handgun in a street confrontation.
Actually this kind of thing is not that uncommon. Dark clothing and hoods are not expensive, hard to find .. or an uncommon sight on the street.

And everyone knows - even the "dumbest" thugs - that the rabbit people throw themselves prostrate on the floor when the masked men burst in ... shouting the magic words.
-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

fjolnirsson
January 9, 2006, 05:25 AM
Eisande,

And that's exactly the thing a SWAT entry should be for and why I'm glad we do train guys to that standard. If you have to go in, I want you to win and go home safe.

Thank you for your service.

+1

LAK
January 9, 2006, 06:54 AM
I agree 100%. We must be realistic
Not realistic, perhaps more assumption.

Realistic may pertain to the average.

But there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of ex-cops, military veterans, and other professionals - many of who happen to be women these days. The mechanics involved, from psychology, skills to gear (in one form or another) is not especially sophisticated, and man nor woman need have been on a payroll to learn and know what can be done. Making home an extremely difficult, very unpleasant and deadly target for anyone.

The poster may not have been an accurate literal representation, but symbolically yes. And I think that was the original point.
------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Zundfolge
January 9, 2006, 10:16 AM
I just re-edited that poster for clarity.
I think it makes your point a little better now ... although its not just the DEA who uses "No-Knocks".

GEM
January 9, 2006, 02:40 PM
I'm sorry - but I don't think this poster aids in the RKBA issue.

The issue is more a civil liberties issue and one of correct police procedure than a fantasy of resisting a mistaken raid.

slide
January 9, 2006, 03:18 PM
Actually this kind of thing is not that uncommon. Dark clothing and hoods are not expensive, hard to find .. or an uncommon sight on the street.

And everyone knows - even the "dumbest" thugs - that the rabbit people throw themselves prostrate on the floor when the masked men burst in ... shouting the magic words.
-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

That's not my experience except for one weird incident where a guy and a bunch of cronies dressed up like Ninjas to kill everybody save one at a dinner party. The one to be saved was the hostess. The chief perp figured that he'd have a chance at her if her hubby was dead. He was a lovestruck computer programmer. The plan failed.

We do have a duty to know what we're shooting at including who is there. I don't see a bunch of guys breaking in a door and yelling "police" being mistaken for regular criminals. Now you may say that criminals can do this too, but I don't think they have the organization to pull it off. Also, if we have an incident or two of ACTUAL behavior, I'd retract my skepticism.

Dr.Rob
January 9, 2006, 05:32 PM
The original (and I just re-read it) seems to violate the four rules, ie know your target and what's behind it.

She had BETTER take those extra seconds.

Something to think about.

Granted at 3am someone kicking my door in would be assumed to be hostile, as would most people. Your point seems to be at 3am she MIGHT NOT know the difference--but that's a different statement altogether.

Arguing the validity of the policy (pro or con) isn't easily done with an agit-prop poster.

Oleg Volk
January 9, 2006, 05:54 PM
I'll have to turn this into an illustrated article with more explanations. I agree that this isn't the best poster.

Alex45ACP
January 9, 2006, 05:57 PM
I'm for the second amendment as much as the next guy, but its really easy to forget that their are wives and children at home waiting for those "jack booted thugs" that some of you are so ready to shoot at.

We always say that a gun is just a thing. I really don't think that any particular thing is worth killing an otherwise worthwhile person over. I can always by another pistol, but I cant give a family back their husband and their father.

Well that's just too damn bad, isn't it? No one forced them to work for the government, and calling it your job doesn't make it right. And maybe I have a family I need to protect with my guns.

NineseveN
January 9, 2006, 06:32 PM
How would you know, at the moment of breech, if the group was DEA/SWAT or criminals?

mustanger98
January 9, 2006, 06:37 PM
This image changed a lot based on the feedback I received.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/whatif_L9L5798.sized.jpg

Verbose, but more clear than the shorter captions I considered.

I think the point is clearer now. While we don't want the cops getting killed, or private citizens getting killed, the citizen's right and necessity to defend oneself must be upheld because mistakes happen and criminals can and do mimic. ("Mimic" has been a tactic of predators for thousands of years- us deer hunters do it all the time with calls and scents with some degree of success.)

NineseveN
January 9, 2006, 06:47 PM
I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door is as silly as needing a 14 shot semi-auto handgun in a street confrontation.

We're not facing a 'determined enemy' but instead weak often badly debilitated losers who aren't in for a fight. They are easy smash and grab types. When they meet resistance, they flee. No whacked out druggie is like portrayed on TV as supermen able to run through gunfire to get their fix.

They are, as a class, pathetic and weak.

Then perhaps you are not familiar with this particular element.

The Crips in my old neighborhood were doing the "DEA or Task Force dress-up home invasion as far back as the 1990's". Before I was a well-adjusted adult, in my youth I used to hang with such folks (partly because that was one of the only ways to keep from becoming a target in a Crip-run area of town) and I can tell you not only do they do this (sometimes not even dressing up, after all, who can tell in the dark 90% of the time) but that some of these criminals are he real deal, and can execute you or a criminal plan with astounding precision and not think twice about it.

NineseveN
January 9, 2006, 06:56 PM
Oleg, I have an idea for a piece in the tradition of the AWB images.

A split-screen. On each side, a guy in black para-military type swat fatigues.

Caption: One of these men is a LAPD SWAT officer. The other is a criminal pretending to be one. Could you tell out of a dead sleep at 2 AM?

Now that's a good caption!

NineseveN
January 9, 2006, 07:24 PM
That's not my experience except for one weird incident where a guy and a bunch of cronies dressed up like Ninjas to kill everybody save one at a dinner party. The one to be saved was the hostess. The chief perp figured that he'd have a chance at her if her hubby was dead. He was a lovestruck computer programmer. The plan failed.

We do have a duty to know what we're shooting at including who is there. I don't see a bunch of guys breaking in a door and yelling "police" being mistaken for regular criminals. Now you may say that criminals can do this too, but I don't think they have the organization to pull it off. Also, if we have an incident or two of ACTUAL behavior, I'd retract my skepticism.

Arizona Department of Public Safety - page 7:
http://www.azdps.gov/digest/DataFile.asp?FileID=221

Las Vegas -Third Story Down
http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2000/Dec-15-Fri-2000/news/15043076.html

Partial Story from San Diego:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1993/is_200211/ai_n7275779


Oh, and Canada too (I found quite a few from Canada):
http://www.nsnews.com/issues00/w041700/focus.html

There were a few reported in Texas this year I believe, I cannot find the links right now though.

You're welcome...though I am guessing you meant if you had them locally.

slide
January 9, 2006, 07:53 PM
Well, that's news to me. Even so, and to slant things another way, remember Waco. No matter if every Crip in your area is dressed like a Ninja, if you shoot at one of these DEA guys, you are dead, dead and even deader.

I'd love to see a no knock which resulted in a few unintentional LEO deaths be waived, but it won't happen short of the next American Revolution.

NineseveN
January 9, 2006, 08:03 PM
Well, that's news to me. Even so, and to slant things another way, remember Waco. No matter if every Crip in your area is dressed like a Ninja, if you shoot at one of these DEA guys, you are dead, dead and even deader.

You're dead either way in some cases. Arguing agast that kinda precludes the justification for a gun for home defense now doesn't it?


I'd love to see a no knock which resulted in a few unintentional LEO deaths be waived, but it won't happen short of the next American Revolution.

I'd rather see no unintentional deaths, but hey, I'm a dreamer I guess. However, I thought there was a case brought up in this very thread where that very thing did in fact happen...I am sure ther are others, but we both have Google, maybe you could save me the trouble and find a few yourself? I'd be interested to know about them, let me know what you find?

Fed168
January 10, 2006, 01:25 AM
Thanks Oleg, as an officer, I am offended by that poster. Not too cool about advocating shooting at the police.

Herself
January 10, 2006, 01:37 AM
Perhaps the police shouldn't be doing things that cause peaceable citizens to shoot at them?

I'm quite offended to think of anyone being shot who doesn't need to be -- and the high probablility of that happening in the course of a no-knock raid is one of the best arguments against them.

One should bear in mind, too, that a thing is not automatically right simply because a LEO does it.

I know a fair number of cops. Most of them are good guys, who look before they leap and are anything but the "jackbooted thug" of modern myth. But they are mortal men and women, neither better nor worse than the noncops I know. And they know there is a price to be paid for kicking in my door. Yours, maybe not; that's your choice.

--Herself

NineseveN
January 10, 2006, 02:04 AM
I know a fair number of cops. Most of them are good guys, who look before they leap and are anything but the "jackbooted thug" of modern myth. But they are mortal men and women, neither better nor worse than the noncops I know. And they know there is a price to be paid for kicking in my door. Yours, maybe not; that's your choice.

--Herself

I couldn't have said it any better myself. +1. :D

LAK
January 10, 2006, 04:09 AM
That's not my experience except for one weird incident where a guy and a bunch of cronies dressed up like Ninjas to kill everybody save one at a dinner party. The one to be saved was the hostess. The chief perp figured that he'd have a chance at her if her hubby was dead. He was a lovestruck computer programmer. The plan failed.

We do have a duty to know what we're shooting at including who is there. I don't see a bunch of guys breaking in a door and yelling "police" being mistaken for regular criminals. Now you may say that criminals can do this too, but I don't think they have the organization to pull it off. Also, if we have an incident or two of ACTUAL behavior, I'd retract my skepticism.
Read and heard many reports over the years of such things living in one of the largest cities in the country. No surprize to me - due points I mentioned.

It doesn't take much in the way of "organization" to put on dark clothing and hoods, kick in a door yelling "police" - and pile on inside.

As far as a duty to know who we are shooting at; my first duty is to the protection of myself and family. And anyone not positively identified before entry is going to run into a hailstrom of storm of lead - in addition to some other obstacles.

It is the first duty of government to honor and protect the rights of it's citizens. That is why for instance public officials swear oaths to that effect. That includes the sanctity and security of their own homes.
-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Ryder
January 10, 2006, 05:00 AM
Better Oleg. Sometimes you just have to work things out by trial and error. It's nice that you don't take the criticism badly.

It is true that not only the DEA does these. Also true that they don't always come busting in, or shouting, or do it in the middle of the night. If you're looking to whittle down the wordiness you might start there.

Little story about no-knocking:

Two plain clothes detectives entered the front door of a home one afternoon without a warrant a few years back. Landlady let them in with a key. They believed the house was empty. They wanted to search for evidence on the location of two guys wanted in another state for drug violations. The two detectives surprised and killed one guy in the hallway. The other dove out a window and got away. News footage showed them dragging their trophy across the front lawn by his heels. Well that turned out nice for them but some people don't want to be surprised by strangers in their home. I think I am kinda like that.

Bust open my front door while I am sleeping and I will have 10 seconds to react. I will use that time to arm myself. That is not variable.

Stiletto Null
January 10, 2006, 08:57 AM
Thanks Oleg, as an officer, I am offended by that poster. Not too cool about advocating shooting at the police.

Fourth Amendment.

No-knocks on a confirmed target are a grey area (pretty clean cut in even of hostage situations and such, but drug raids are harder to discuss), but let's put that aside for now. No-knocks on a WRONG target are totally unacceptable, and the entry team (and backing organization) must be held accountable for that kind of mistake. Remember Cory Maye (http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/12/knock-knock-bang-bang/).

Being a police officer does not give you a halo allowing people to telepathically discern that you are a Good Guy (hell, in the case of New Orleans, the cops often weren't) and that they should not shoot at the scary man breaking into their homes. Castle Doctrine and all.

Nothing personal, but if you're offended, too bad. Our Second Amendment rights might be in bad shape (c'mon, it's supposed to be a doomsday clause so the citizenry can resist the government in event of the government overstepping its bounds), but at we still have our First Amendment rights. Mostly (http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html).

Fed168
January 10, 2006, 09:15 AM
And those first amendment rights are one of the things I will fight for, whether I like them or not. The glorious thing is that we can agree to disagree.

I agree, someone messes up, they should be held accountable for it. No other proper way to answer to a mistake. Putting the no knock issue aside, knock and announce raids on the wrong location are not correct, either. Just about all that is reported are the ones that go bad, they make the press, not the ones that go smoothly, they are not newsworthy.

roo_ster
January 10, 2006, 12:41 PM
Fed168 (Glen & others):

I can understand your discomfort with the ideas expressed in the poster. It is an uncomfortable topic to discuss. Maybe after Bob Dole does a commercial about it, we can talk about it with less tension? ;)

It is not some sort of anarchist's ravings to be concerned with such controvesial practices.

Perhaps you might want to walk in "the other guy's shoes" for a moment. A good proportion of us here (at THR) & in the USA are quite ambivalent about the War on Some Drugs (WoSD).

It is pretty easy to see why those against the entire WoSD folks are against no-knock raids...they don't want anybody raided for drugs. In their view, no-knocks are just an especially egregious example of the tactics used in the WoSD.

Then there are those who support, more or less, the WoSD who see the tactics being used as offensive and dangerous to law-abiding citizens. They are not blind to the loss of liberty that has occurred as the WoSD winds on...and they don't like it.

Neither of the above groups think the risk of not finding evidence (small enough to flush down a toilet or otherwise dispose of) is worth the risk of executing a no-knock on a law-abiding citizen. Why is that?
1. It is not like there are no other options (usual warrant)
2. As Eisande wrote,
Our teams thinking is this..if the amount of drugs the BG has can be flushed in the 30 seconds or so it takes us to comply with knock/notice then it really ain't that big a case is it? If it is a sizable quantity of drugs, well, he won't be able to get rid of them anyway.
3. There is no immediate, inherent danger to innocents (as would be the case in a hostage, barricaded & irrational guy, or whatnot) to justify such tactics.

My own SOP in the case I am wakened in the night is as follows (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2090684&postcount=82):
I sleep very well & am not some sort of tactical superman, always sleeping with one eye open.

But, my dogs (which are in the house) are much more alert than I could ever hope to be. Misty, the early warning system, growls or barks if folks are as close as across the street at night. Ten, the close warning system, usually waits until he knows they are on the sidewalk.

So, Misty wakes me & by the time Ten signs out, I am alert. Thye have it down pat, since we used to have neighbors that had social gatherings at all hours of hte night.

Now, given proper knowledge that the breakers-in are LEO-ninjas, I will...comply. Problem is, by that time I am armed. (My rule is if Ten signs out, I open the quick-safe & clear the house with Mr. 1911. Also, all windows & doors are checked.)

I sure hope the tacticool LEO types are as discerning and have as much forbearance as myself, when I look out the window & shine my Surefire in his ninja-masked face. Just what is SOP in such an event? Is it now open season on jfruser, since I checked hte bumps in the night equipped with Surefire & 1911?

It would be a whole lot safer for us solid citizens if no-knocks we outlawed.

Personally, no amount of drugs and no cop's or solid citizen's life is worth the risk that no-knocks present. So, the meth is flushed? I have a feeling that Mr. Scumbag will mess up again in the future.

The only time a no-knock is, ahh, warranted, is in a hostage-type situation, IMO.

I generally make the assumption that both peace officers and solid citizens are doing the best they can and do not wish to needlessly harm another.

A solid citizen, as such, knows they don't sell drugs or otherwise swim in the drug sub-culture. If the police knock and present Mr. Citizen with a warrant, he may be angry, but he's not likely to start blazing away, especially if he has no controlled substances. OTOH, Mr. Citizen knows that there is no good reason for whomever it is to to kick down his door without warning.

In such a situation, where lies the moral right? With the folks busting down the door of the wrong house or Mr. Solid Citizen? My thinking is that Mr. Solid Citizen is in the moral right and that he should treat violent intruders the same until he is absolutely certain he knows they are not a threat to him and his family.

Also, the expectation that Mr. Solid Citizen should automatically fall into "grovel" mode if there is even the slightest chance that those who bust his door down are agents of the government is wrong-headed. He's not the one who had relations with the pooch...and it is HIS house.

Optical Serenity
January 10, 2006, 01:23 PM
Shooting honest citizens is A-OK, just make sure to have an entry team, so they die properly!:rolleyes:

How is one better than the other? If a federal officer breaks into my home, he deserves to be shot, same as any other goblin. Make no mistake, without a proper warrant for my residence, it is a crime, no matter what the misguided citizens are told.
http://www.combatcarry.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/vol_1/dedhorse2.gif
Sorry for the thread drift, there. And the beating of the horse, as well...

I have never seen law enforcement on any level do any kind of entry or no-knock into a house or anywhere else for that matter without a warrant.

I simply do not understand the LEO bashing that exists on gun forums. Us cops are the most pro-2nd amendment bunch out there. Its not us that passes laws against you owning guns, its YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. Stop whining about how we are bad, its who YOU put into office that you should whine about, or better yet, save your effort and vote differently.

A poster saying its ok to shoot a federal agent? Or any LEO in that case, is absurd.

I have been present for plenty of DEA and other agencies that made entry into people's homes, and you better believe the warrant (and the provision that is REQUIRED to make it a no-knock) were checked and double checked by every superior officer.

And what the poster suggests is, if I read it correctly, odd at best. With the poster's example, and analogy, we should no longer pull over anyone either, because serial rapest have installed blue lights in the past and imitated cops to stop women and rape them. So should every so called honest citizen out there shoot anyone who pulls them over?

And by the way, almost every time we know of someone who is armed, instead of kicking down their doors at 3am, we simply wait till they are either at work or in McDonalds or something to approach them. Sometimes a very smooth approach works just fine. 3 men who take you down and cuff you while you are eating to serve a warrant is way more effective than letting you go and arm yourself at night.

And folks, remember that warrants are served for a reason. Don't break the law, and most likely you will not have a SWAT team making entry on your house. I've never seen our agency or anyone else's for that matter around here make a wrong entry.

Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.

NineseveN
January 10, 2006, 01:33 PM
And what the poster suggests is, if I read it correctly, odd at best. With the poster's example, and analogy, we should no longer pull over anyone either, because serial rapest have installed blue lights in the past and imitated cops to stop women and rape them. So should every so called honest citizen out there shoot anyone who pulls them over?

No, but we should and are legally able to drive to a well-lit public area when being lit up by the police lights. There is a difference, the danger is not imediate until you pul over. Your example is more like one where people identifying themselves as police come to your door and ask to search the place. You should check the warrant to make sure it is a real document first.

The example of people busting down your door at 3:00AM and yelling something that you may or may not even recognize coming out of a dead sleep with guns in your face is about the same as someone running up to your car at a traffic light, breaking your window or yanking your door open and trying to drag you out of your car yelling "police, on the ground".

Yes, I would advocate driving away or shooting the person doing the yanking (shooting if one could not get away or was taken far enough out of the car that driving was not an option) if your life seemed in danger and you culd not be sure that the attackers were really police officers, or if you did not know or understand what the hell thy were yelling with broken glass in your ear or because you are groggy at 3:00am.

As far as Second Amendment support, I can agree, but what about the Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Having a warrant does not make a search impeccably reasonable.

Stiletto Null
January 10, 2006, 01:36 PM
Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.Except that when they do, the odds are terribly stacked against them.

Given, it's probably more a symptom of local degeneracy than anything else, but still.

carebear
January 10, 2006, 01:37 PM
Wrong. Flat out wrong.

Do a search on how many warrants (no one is suggesting no knocks are done without one) are given for the wrong address or name. It's a list that would be too long at even a single incident.

Raids go down on the wrong people at the wrong address frequently enough that it starts calling into question the whole practice.

Your agency may be the exception to what is all too often happening.

As far as the "pulling over" straw man? If there has been a series of that happening , most times the police will tell drivers to be sure it is really a cop before stopping, to call for confirmation or to feel comfortable in driving to a well-lit public area or police station before actually stopping.

Sindawe
January 10, 2006, 01:41 PM
Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.Horse Puckey! Tell that to Donald Scott (http://www.fear.org/scott.html). Oh, wait, you can't. He'd dead.

Maybe Ishmael Mena or John Scott (http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/ray/edrt062800.htm) can weigh in and offer support for your position. Opps, nope. They are dead too.

Heck, why not make ALL warrant defacto No-Knocks? Save time and trouble for the LEOs. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jan-10-Tue-2006/opinion/5284041.html

Peace officers presenting a warrant for inspection and verification will be treated with the utmost civility. Door kickers get to eat lead.

Optical Serenity
January 10, 2006, 01:47 PM
Well, I'm just expressing my opinions on what I see. Perhaps here in Georgia things are different, but getting warrants is not easy. One of the first things the judge asks us is how we know the address to be correct. Getting a no-knock provision is about 200 times more difficult than even that.

Secondly, the law here in GA simply says you have 300 feet to yield when blue lights are activated. Now, myself and every officer out there will be fine with someone who puts on their hazard lights, turns on the dome light and slows down till in a well lit area. Actually I much prefer that. It gives me plenty of time to know who you are (tag check, owner check) and secondly, more lit up area is better for my video tape of the incident. Also its safer on everyone.

But anyway, back to warrants...All I'm saying is I have never been present or even locally heard of a warrant at a wrong house. Perhaps it is just here, but also, perhaps on the other angle, there are those out there that blow things out of proportion. Why a bunch of law abiding citizens are so concerned about warrant service is beyond me. But then, there are those posts here I see where someone is asking "I don't have a CCW, but i'm going to carry anyway." so...

Seriously guys, there is no hard feelings, and remember its about opinions. But as much as I love Oleg's work, I simply don't like this poster.

And to answer the one question, most officers I know are also very Pro-4th amendment. What do you think we do? We are out there to enforce & defend the law (which includes the constitution.) Most cops I know have a strong belief in this:

I'd rather let 20 murders walk, than arrest an innocent man.

Sindawe
January 10, 2006, 01:53 PM
Why a bunch of law abiding citizens are so concerned about warrant service is beyond me. It because warrant service gets done on the wrong people. It may be due to simply misreading the house address, it may be due to bad intel, it may be due to shear laziness. And sometimes that warrant service on the wrong person gets that wrong person dead. But still, Mr. Officer gets to go home to his family, and thats what REALLY counts, right? :rolleyes:

Optical Serenity
January 10, 2006, 01:57 PM
But still, Mr. Officer gets to go home to his family, and thats what REALLY counts, right? :rolleyes:

No one ever said that... To err is human, of course...But no one ever says LEO's lives are any more important than anyone else. Its typically only a misconception that anti-LEO people (well, just about everyone on gun forums) have.

How many times in your jobs or lives do you make mistakes? Most sheriff's offices serve somewhere around 100 warrants a day around here, and you know what? I can't think of the last time an incident like that occurred. People shouldn't drive because everyday I work an accident? Everyday there is an innocent person killed in a car wreck? Oh, its not the same? Sure it is...

This is the same thing as saying, people shouldn't have guns because some abuse gun rights. Guess what, no-knocks are important in some cases...and sure, a mistake will be made, doesn't mean you have to get rid of it. It will only put more criminals out there, and more danger to LEO's who are simply trying to remove a badguy from the streets because your ELECTED judge has decided to do so. And 99% of the time, its a grand jury of NON-LEO citizens who decides on no-knocks around here.

But hey, lets start banning everything because a few make mistakes. Where do I turn in every piece of property I have?

NineseveN
January 10, 2006, 02:01 PM
And to answer the one question, most officers I know are also very Pro-4th amendment. What do you think we do? We are out there to enforce & defend the law (which includes the constitution.) Most cops I know have a strong belief in this:

I'd rather let 20 murders walk, than arrest an innocent man.

And to be honest, you are in the majority with the Officers I personally know, however; there does exist both a law enforcement and political faction that likes to stretch the rules and sometimes even obliterate the 4th Amendment. I am more concerned about what folks even such as yourself would do with the power that could be given to you under an obliterated 4th amendment than I am with individual officers taking that matter into their own hands...though the latter is still a small concern.

I wouldn't mind being arested if I were innocent, it's the guilty verdict that scares me. Of course, being accidentally killed by a cop due to an error or mistaken identity (on my part, theirs or both) simply terrifies me when we're talking within the boundaries of my own home. The prospect of shooting an LEO because I thought he or she was a home invader or attacker doesn't sit very well with my bile either.

MrTuffPaws
January 10, 2006, 02:50 PM
I liked the first one better.

Stiletto Null
January 10, 2006, 02:59 PM
Well, I'm just expressing my opinions on what I see. Perhaps here in Georgia things are different, but getting warrants is not easy. One of the first things the judge asks us is how we know the address to be correct. Getting a no-knock provision is about 200 times more difficult than even that.See, that makes a huge difference. I suspect most of the cop-bashing is because of much less scrupulous practices in places like, say, Philadelphia and Chicago.

Oleg Volk
January 10, 2006, 03:23 PM
Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.

Except that we are all criminals in some way. For example, you could become a criminal by improving your home (http://mises.org/story/2007) or by giving prescription medicine (such as migraine headache pill) to a friend. So, until the number of laws in the US is whittled down closer to the basics ("shall not steal, murder, defraud or rape"), I am not in favor of aggressive enforcement of anything.

That said, I welcome the input from the cops, local or federal on this. I am sure they don't want to be seen as the enemy, either. That can be modified largely by their own actions and also by their statements in regard to the few bad apples. I am not comfortobale with the possibility that my own posters might accidentally reflect media stereotypes about police or the three-letter friends of the people.

Optical Serenity
January 10, 2006, 03:40 PM
Except that we are all criminals in some way. For example, you could become a criminal by improving your home (http://mises.org/story/2007) or by giving prescription medicine (such as migraine headache pill) to a friend. So, until the number of laws in the US is whittled down closer to the basics ("shall not steal, murder, defraud or rape"), I am not in favor of aggressive enforcement of anything.

That said, I welcome the input from the cops, local or federal on this. I am sure they don't want to be seen as the enemy, either. That can be modified largely by their own actions and also by their statements in regard to the few bad apples. I am not comfortobale with the possibility that my own posters might accidentally reflect media stereotypes about police or the three-letter friends of the people.

Oleg, with all due respect (and I am a huge fan of your work), there is something to be said about what you are trying to say here. Think about it, your elected officials have decided to make prescription medication transfer illegal between two parties. Or for example having Rx meds not in original container, or past expiration date. This is done by YOUR elected officials. And honestly, I simply do not violate the law (or try not to at least). Instead of saying "lower enforcement" how about say "People should obey the law, if they don't like it, CHANGE the law...but don't break it."

The difference between here in the United States and the rest of the world is we do have the authority to petition govt to change laws, and we can vote whichever way we want. What you may believe is "over" enforcement is just one perspective, and a respected one.

I don't presume all NON-LEO to be criminals, and you should not assume all LEOs to be corrupt either. Like I said, for the time I've been in law enforcement I have yet to see anything I would deem incorrect done on purpose. There have been times of course when a CI (confidential informant) passed us incorrect information. But that does happen. Anytime humans are involved mistakes are made. And actually, the majority of "injustice" does not occur on the streets, it occurs in courtrooms.

Changing law enforcement is really not the answer, or at least not the big answer...Its changing the way courts and politicians do their job.

That being said, what is beautiful about this country, is that the constitution I defend and enforce everyday allows all of us to disagree. :)

Oleg Volk
January 10, 2006, 03:55 PM
Instead of saying "lower enforcement" how about say "People should obey the law, if they don't like it, CHANGE the law...but don't break it."

Not enforcing unreasonable laws is not the solution, but it is a stop-gap solution while the laws are being repealed. Some people (politicians) are paid to spend their lives peddling influence and deciding, for good or bad reasons, to restrict the lives of others. I can't devote all of my life to countering them -- it took efforts of millions just to prevent re-passing of AWB and we can't drop everything and fight every single bad law...and we don't even know all the laws on the books.

The medication example I used was a real case: I gave 10mg of Loratidine to help a friend with a sinus headache. Several years ago, when that medication was by prescription only, it would have been illegal. Today, the same action is legal. The ethics of it never changed, it was relief from suffering...but it was only recently illegal to do so. In case of other medications (by prescription or restricted by WoD, such as THC), it is still illegal.

TallPine
January 10, 2006, 03:59 PM
The difference between here in the United States and the rest of the world is we do have the authority to petition govt to change laws, and we can vote whichever way we want.
Yeah, but until "we" can convince a majority of voters (rather than the govt) that as bad as some drugs are, the War on [people using] Drugs is worse, then nothing is going to change. But just look at the catfight that that issue starts on THR :rolleyes:

And yeah, I have the freedom to "throw my vote away" on those "wacky, drug-smoking" Libertarians :p

Unfortunately, there is a circular (non)logic going around: "drugs are illegal so they must be bad so therefore they must stay illegal" :rolleyes: What really burns me is that during the last election in MT there was a federal agent going around (on taxpayer money, I presume) speaking out against the "medical marijauna" ballot issue. Talk about a "campaign finance" violation - what right does the govt have to "lobby" the voters about an issue...?:fire:

I'm not too worried about the local sheriffs and deputies around here (though our county's SO has some "issues"). I know and respect some of them. And the Montana tradition of armed citizens I believe makes them be very respectful of citizens' rights - even if only for their own safety.;)

It's the federal TLA's that I'm worried about .... :uhoh:

Sindawe
January 10, 2006, 04:06 PM
Yeah, but until "we" can convince a majority of voters (rather than the govt) that as bad as some drugs are, the War on [people using] Drugs is worse, then nothing is going to change. But just look at the catfight that that issue starts on THRYes, and the politicos STILL refuse to listen.

Several States have voter approved Medical Marijuana laws. The Feds have taken the stance that THEY know better and have promised to prosecute individuals using MJ in a medicinal role, despite State sanction.

Denver voters recently voted to decrimmininalize possesion of MJ for personal use in quantities up to one ounce. Denver "Leaders" have vowed to prosecute under STATE law. Now the folks who got the Denver law passed are working on making it a STATE law. Care to wager what the Feds response will be?

You and I likely concur on this issue TallPine, so don't construe this as an attack on your position.

STAGE 2
January 10, 2006, 05:10 PM
It always cracks me up when people on gun boards whine about the war on drugs. I don't know about you but I can't remember the past time I saw a crack addict hit the 10 ring.

Oleg Volk
January 10, 2006, 05:23 PM
I know plenty of recreational drug users who compete. Those who use pot tend to have fewer problems than those who use caffeine. However, the reduction of this issue to drugs (which, to me, have no appeal) is skirting the real problem of excessive regulation of everyday life and of occasionally overly harsh enforcement of those regulations.

Zundfolge
January 10, 2006, 05:31 PM
It always cracks me up when people on gun boards whine about the war on drugs. I don't know about you but I can't remember the past time I saw a crack addict hit the 10 ring.


STAGE 2 wins the award for the biggest non-sequitur posted in these forums in a LONG time. :scrutiny:

The Real Hawkeye
January 10, 2006, 06:28 PM
I like the poster a lot, but you should redo the picture. Make her appear frightened (even terrified) rather than self-assured. This will have much more of an emotional appeal in favor of your message.

The Real Hawkeye
January 10, 2006, 06:43 PM
The answer to the question in the picture is that she has zero chance of stopping them and as such this does not advocate defending yourself against no-knocks (rightly or wrongly) in my opinion.

Problem is not everyone knows she has no chance. Perhaps you could show her and a SWAT team on the poster to help them reach the right conclusion?

:)You're not getting the point of the poster, which is that there should not be no knocks precisely for the reasons you've specified, i.e., that people might mistakenly confront a door crasher who happens to be a DEA SWAT entry team and get themselves, and perhaps one or two cops killed too. You see, it's a bad thing. That's the point. Unless you have a known hostage situation, where quick entry and resolution is determined crucial, there is no need for crashing in like that in the middle of the night. For what? Evidence of a drug crime that might or might not have been committed? Are the lives of innocent civilians (and remember, we are all presumed innocent until AFTER a conviction) and/or cops really worth losing so you can get some dope for a drug conviction? Dope use and sale is not even a capital offense, for crying out loud. Do you really want to kill someone, even a suspect, over it? What would be wrong with waiting for them to leave, and snapping the cuffs on in the morning? This is really insane!

MikeK
January 10, 2006, 07:10 PM
Another winner Oleg! I like the latest version the best.

I respect most people in Law Enforcement. As far as my personal experience with no-knocks the closest I can get is my mothers best friend - mid-seventies with one leg amputated.

She is visiting her sister and brother-in-law. BIL in eighties, bad heart, WWII vet, sister too sick (permanent condition) to walk upstairs. Middle of the night the door comes crashing in, surrounded by armed LEO. They live at xxx West anywhere st and apparntly the warrant was for xxx East anywhere st. Since these are obviously hard core drug dealers they keep them at gunpoint for over an hour before admitting they might have the wrong house. At least they didn't use flash bang grenades.

That's the kind of stuff that makes me really like this poster.

jeepmor
January 10, 2006, 07:18 PM
How is one better than the other? If a federal officer breaks into my home, he deserves to be shot, same as any other goblin. Make no mistake, without a proper warrant for my residence, it is a crime, no matter what the misguided citizens are told.


Honest citizens don't break into private residences, government employed citizens or not. However, should you try to combat a well trained entry team, tell Jesus I said hello personally would ya....

Like Reagan said, "the government is the problem."

jeepmor

jeepmor
January 10, 2006, 07:39 PM
Thanks Oleg, as an officer, I am offended by that poster. Not too cool about advocating shooting at the police.

But it's okay for them to come in unannounced? Is my inference of your statment correct?

I don't think Oleg's advocating the shooting of police, he's advocating that the authorities ID themselves before entry. Something at the very core of our individual rights as American citizens. If they do not ID themselves, they take their chances just like typical thugs. You enter like a thug, you're responded to like a thug. I understand the police need the element of surprise on some of these drug perps, however, you don't ID yourself as a LEO WITH a warrant, your chances of confrontation go way up. Entering a private residence unannounced, without a warrant, and with an entry team is reminiscient of the Nazi Germans in WWII, not Free Americans who sacrificed life and limb to insure this wouldn't happen.

Which is obviously why most authorities come in overpowering numbers, well armed, and well armored. Some policies are just too far to the right in my opinion. I don't mean to disrespect the Lawmen, but we are discussig a violation of constitutional rights here, not advocating that we confront the law enforcement with arms.

I interpret Oleg's message that this womans rights are being violated and she is allowed to handle it appropriately. If she lacks the proper information, how is she to know who is coming into her home?

jeepmor

Herself
January 11, 2006, 12:25 PM
Very on-point for this thread, look here: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060110/NEWS06/601100466&SearchID=73232240791574

Court Debates Search Case

By Gina Holland
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Detroit police did not bother knocking on Booker Hudson's door when they arrived with a warrant to search for drugs.

They found crack cocaine, but the Supreme Court debated Monday whether the drugs can be used as evidence because officers were wrong not to knock and give Hudson time to come to the door.
The case is being closely watched by law enforcement groups -- and justices seemed so divided that the outcome may turn on the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Senate confirmation hearing for Bush nominee Samuel Alito began on Monday.
Justices could use the case to make it easier for officers to execute search warrants. Or they could tightly enforce previous rulings that say police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
The state of Michigan, which is backed by the Bush administration, argued that even though officers made a mistake by rushing into Hudson's home, the blunder should not require a judge to bar that evidence.

O'Connor seemed ready to rule against police.

"Is there no policy protecting the home owner a little bit?" O'Connor asked David Salmons, a Bush administration lawyer.

She said that the Detroit officer testified that he routinely went into houses without knocking and giving the homeowner time to come to the door. She predicted that policy would be adopted by "every police officer in America" if the court said there was no penalty.

--Herself

GEM
January 11, 2006, 12:46 PM
Looking at the last version of the poster, I will still opine that it is ineffectual for the proposed message, even if well intended.

1. The issue is a civil rights issue and not an RKBA issue but the poster still doesn't focus on that.

2. The facial expression is inappropriate as mentioned by others and that negates the content.

3. There is still the clear implication that the said woman will fight it out with an entry team. Given she is standing there with what looks like a light gauge double barreled shotgun, she is going to be vaporized and the gun is going to be ineffective against vests. Fighting an entry team is a difficult thing and this poster has an implied threat against the police and some indication of implied success. That detracts from the core of the message.

If you want such a poster - focus on the issue which is the harm that such an entry would do an innocent.

Have said woman, lying shot with the gun next to her and say something like she thought it was a burglar but it was a no knock raid that went to the wrong address.

Focus on the civil rights issue and the aftermath - not a mistaken gun fantasy of suspect efficacy.

Don't want to offend but that's the way I see this one. A wrong focus. Debating the issue of raids and warrants detracts from evaluating the poster.

Sorry to be a downer again.

Oleg Volk
January 11, 2006, 12:51 PM
GEM,

Which is why I took photos just for this topic late last night. Hope to make the new poster by the weekend.

Next topic to cover: roadblocks and "safety/sobriety/drug/contraband/etc." checkpoints.

STAGE 2
January 12, 2006, 11:19 PM
STAGE 2 wins the award for the biggest non-sequitur posted in these forums in a LONG time. :scrutiny:

How so. Show me a heroin addict and I'll show you someone who cannot observe the traditional rules of gun safety. I'd venture to say the same applies to other narcotics as well including pot.

Oleg Volk
January 12, 2006, 11:45 PM
My observation of numerous narcotics users (most of them legal, even) shows that thair functionality isn't impaired. I could not be spending time around them if I felt they were unsafe. My experience is limited to people useing opiates, hemp. That's not even the main topic of my poster though.

mustanger98
January 12, 2006, 11:59 PM
How so. Show me a heroin addict and I'll show you someone who cannot observe the traditional rules of gun safety. I'd venture to say the same applies to other narcotics as well including pot.

The ability to be safe with a gun has little or nothing to do with being a criminal with a gun. You make enough mistakes and a talented amatuer can kill you from close in. Whether said talented amatuer is on a chemical high/low/whatever is mostly irrelevent.

STAGE 2
January 13, 2006, 03:24 PM
My observation of numerous narcotics users (most of them legal, even) shows that thair functionality isn't impaired. I could not be spending time around them if I felt they were unsafe. My experience is limited to people useing opiates, hemp. That's not even the main topic of my poster though.


I know that the poster really wasn't addressing the drug issue, however I just find it find it completely disingenuous when people raise hell about someone taking a picture of a pistol with a round in the chamber or their finger on the trigger of an unloaded pistol and then in the next sentence either say nothing about drugs or write a long statement about how its completely irrelevant.

I'm sure everyone here already has their own preconcieved notions about narcotics and thats fine. However I don't know of anyone who ever became successful in shooting or in life who was an addict.

Oleg Volk
January 13, 2006, 03:37 PM
You are probably right. I do, however, observe a many more users of addictive substances (alcohol, narcotics, web forums :) ) than actual addicts. Most people have no trouble functioning even if they like to alter their minds or moods on occasion.

Sindawe
January 13, 2006, 03:46 PM
Oleg is correct. There is a fundamental difference between occasional use of an external chemical substance and addiction to that same substance. Compare the person who enjoys a snifter of scotch and a cigar (both narcotics in YOUR vernacular), to the fifth a day of Mad Dog 20/20 rummy living in a box down by the river. The latter is an addict, the former is not.

And I'll tell you straight up, you're conversing with one of those "addicts" right now, and I'm rather successful at my chosen tasks in life. My addiction happens to be to caffeine, but it is STILL an addiction.

Threaten my supply of beans, and bad things will happen to you. :D

STAGE 2
January 13, 2006, 06:21 PM
My addiction happens to be to caffeine, but it is STILL an addiction.

Threaten my supply of beans, and bad things will happen to you. :D


(As I put down Juan Valdez and slowly back away) I know that most anything can be a "narcotic" but I think its clear that when I use that word I'm referring to the "typical" illegal drugs such as crack, heroin, pot, opium, etc.

Herself
January 13, 2006, 07:01 PM
In the original sense of the word, pot, coffee and tobacco aren't "narcotics," and I suspect cocaine and speed aren't either. The root word means "sleepy," doesn't it? So that would mean opiates and downers.

I don't use drugs and illegal herbs recreationally, and hardly drink intoxicating beverages. Fought my way off cigarettes five years ago and refuse to give up coffee and tea. But to the extent anyone uses such things without doing harm to others, I don't care. I frown on it, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Humans have been playing with their own minds since the dawn of time.

While drugs and guns are a very bad mix, at least one of the times I have had a gun pointed at me, the bad guy was either on a drug, or a riding an adrenaline high so strong it had the same effect. Bad guys, it turns out, are not especially concerned about gun safety! (Who'd've thought?)

Bad guys who do home invasions may or may not be high. It makes very little difference to their victims. It might help the bad guys -- "hashish" and "assassin" come from the same root word -- or not.

A problem with drugs is that it is not at all clear why some are thought "bad" and others "good" (it turns out many of Carrie Nation's Temperance crusaders were fond of laudnum -- an opiate -- and cocaine-based patent medicines, both legal at the time). Addiction is generally bad in and of itself, but it looks to me like that's a medical problem. The social effects of uncontrollable addiction are clearly bad for others as well as for the addict, and often a matter for the criminal justice system. But recreational use under controlled cirumstances? We find that okay for alcohol, have even fewer laws and customs restricting tobacco use, and nearly none for coffee and tea; it's not clear why those are "better" than marijuana, amphtimines or barbituates. They're not illegal because they're bad, they are bad because they are illegal.
Unfortunately, such drugs are also at least as appealing to some people as coffee, cigarettes and alcohol are to others.

It is that situation that gives us no-knock raids and gang wars over drugs: there's a huge market out there, all of it doing business in cash and offering amazing profits for high risks. The payoff is so big that it always attracts new producers and suppliers no matter how many are caught and shut down, which in turn brings in ever more intense enforcement. The DEA and local police are trying to do the best job they can against impossible odds. But it's unwinnable.
The story of Hercules and the Hydra comes to mind: for every head he would cut off, two more would spring up in its place.

The wave of alcohol-related crime was only ended by ending Prohibition. Oddly, there was not a huge increase in the number of alcoholics once the bars were open. Nor was drunk driving any less a crime after alcohol was legally available than when it was not.

--Herself

Sindawe
January 13, 2006, 07:26 PM
Humans have been playing with their own minds since the dawn of time. Interesting wrinkle on this (at least to me). Many many years ago in Jr. High I did sample C. sativa and knew the shoals hidden in those flowers, so I know what the effects are like. About 18 months ago I discovered I could mimic those effects when I dream, and have been able to incorporate that in my lucid dreaming. :D I suppose I may be producing endogenous cannabinoids when this occurs, or just similar patterns of neural activity. Either way, the sensations are the same when in REM sleep as what I experienced in Jr. High. Think I could be subject to legal sanction for crimminal intent in manipulating my own neurochemistry simply by shear force of will?

I've not been able to duplicate THAT phenomena while awake.

Yet.In the original sense of the word, pot, coffee and tobacco aren't "narcotics," and I suspect cocaine and speed aren't either. The root word means "sleepy," doesn't it? So that would mean opiates and downers.True, and that is what I was alluding to when speaking of STAGE 2's vernacular. Calling all currently illicit drugs "Narcotics" is as sloppy as calling as semi-automatic military pattern rifle an "Assalt Rifle"

Want to help save lives of decent Peace Officers and end the unwarranted use of "No-Knock" warrant service and at the same time cripple the crimminal gangs who make $$$ moving/selling drugs? Bring the traffic BACK into the sphere of the honest business man. Like the guy who runs the liqour stores or the tobbaconist. Impose harsh penalties for those who sell to minors and hold accountable those who injure others while under the influence.

mustanger98
January 13, 2006, 07:43 PM
[QUOTE]In the original sense of the word, pot, coffee and tobacco aren't "narcotics," and I suspect cocaine and speed aren't either. The root word means "sleepy," doesn't it? So that would mean opiates and downers.

That, IIRC, is true about the root word of "narcotic". I don't really know which effect pot has though, and I've heard which ever way you are, pot will make you the opposite. But whoever it was I heard that from may have been wrong. I agree about "narcotics" being opiates and downers though because if somebody smokes opium they generally get sleepy. Anybody here ever read "The Quiet American"?

I don't use drugs and illegal herbs recreationally, and hardly drink intoxicating beverages. Fought my way off cigarettes five years ago and refuse to give up coffee and tea.

Me neither and I'm not inclined to want to be around people who do for a variety of reasons. A friend of mine quit smoking after he had a heart attack a couple of years ago... he said it's different when the doctor asks you whether you'd rather have a cigarette or your life.

Tea and coffee... don't give 'em any ideas. I drink both and sometimes I like to spike my coffee with 7 year old Jim Beam. The politicos better not start messin' with my favorite drinks to have with my Mexican food and cheeseburgers and whatever else I choose to eat. What's next? They start telling us what we can and can't eat? Thinking of that, I'd like to have seen 'em tell my Grandpa and his brother and some of their friends about what they can and can't cook because they were liable to be BBQing anything and my great uncle even made his own white corn hominy complete with soaking/washing in Red Devil brand lye. Don't give 'em any ideas or they'll legislate us out of everything while they're at it.

While drugs and guns are a very bad mix, at least one of the times I have had a gun pointed at me, the bad guy was either on a drug, or a riding an adrenaline high so strong it had the same effect. Bad guys, it turns out, are not especially concerned about gun safety! (Who'd've thought?)

That's what I was getting at in an earlier post. An amatuer criminal can be generally very un-gun-savvy and still kill you with one. I made a comment about a "talented amatuer", but in reality, they don't really have to be all that talented either.

Bad guys who do home invasions may or may not be high. It makes very little difference to their victims. It might help the bad guys -- "hashish" and "assassin" come from the same root word -- or not.

Yeah, it again, does come from the same root word, IIRC. I'm reminded of the Moro Juramentados in the Phillipine Insurrection... they were really doped up and they kept coming despite being shot to dollrags with US .30-40 Krag rifles (after the .38LC revolvers failed to stop/neutralize). Those original doped up assassins got in close and went berzerk with a knife too, IIRC reading, much like I recall reading about the Moros and their Kris knives- they'd take a man's arm off as clean as if a surgeon had amputated it, but a lot faster.

A problem with drugs is that it is not at all clear why some are thought "bad" and others "good" (it turns out many of Carrie Nation's Temperance crusaders were fond of laudnum -- an opiate -- and cocaine-based patent medicines, both legal at the time).

This shows the hypocrisy of the Temperance movement. This also probably explains why Carrie Nation herself was so berzerk while busting up saloons. She probably got away with it because nobody knew how to handle her.

We find that okay for alcohol, have even fewer laws and customs restricting tobacco use, and nearly none for coffee and tea; it's not clear why those are "better" than marijuana, amphtimines or barbituates. They're not illegal because they're bad, they are bad because they are illegal.

Again, don't give 'em any ideas about messing with my coffee and my sweet tea. I live in the South. You don't mess with a Southerner's sweet tea.

The story of Hercules and the Hydra comes to mind: for ever head he would cut off, two more would spring up in its place.

The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head again.

The wave of alcohol-related crime was only ended by ending Prohibition. Oddly, there was not a huge increase in the number of alcoholics once the bars were open. Nor was drunk driving any less a crime after alcohol was legally available than when it was not.

The alcohol-related crime wave that existed during Prohibition shifted to the WoD because BATF had to have a reason to exist. In order to exist, they needed a new "public enemy #1". But the real reason pot is illegal is the cotton farmers decided to knock out the competition from the hemp farmers.

CAPTAIN MIKE
January 14, 2006, 02:05 AM
Wait .. Don't shoot ...It might be the Pool Guy or an Appliance Man making an unannounced delivery. :rolleyes:

NineseveN
January 14, 2006, 04:29 AM
Wait .. Don't shoot ...It might be the Pool Guy or an Appliance Man making an unannounced delivery. :rolleyes:

Your pool guy kicks in your door and carries a firearm? Where do you live, Lebanon? :rolleyes:

Herself
January 15, 2006, 01:17 AM
Your pool guy kicks in your door and carries a firearm? Where do you live, Lebanon? :rolleyes:
No, his company is just that serious about clean pools!

--H

NineseveN
January 15, 2006, 01:35 AM
No, his company is just that serious about clean pools!

--H
Hehe.

Omni04
January 16, 2006, 12:16 PM
there isn't by chance an ETA for the new version of the poster is there? sorry for being impatient :)

Group9
January 20, 2006, 05:04 PM
So on one hand you make posters showing LEO's armed with belt fed weapons and in all sorts of ninja poses and then you show the need to be armed against them.Play both sides against the middle,perfect:cool:

Giving his customers what they want to see. It's like when G. Gordon Liddy was giving advice on how to shoot federal agents. But, when he got arrested, he went quietly.

middy
January 20, 2006, 05:48 PM
There is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread, and I don't understand why it isn't more thoroughly clarified. Maybe I have it wrong, but here is my take.

Oleg is NOT advocating shooting a no-knock warrant team. The point of the poster is that civilians are endangered by home-invaders pretending to be no-knock warrant entry teams, thus, several bad things could happen.

1. The real police shoot and kill the homeowner when she points a rifle at them.
2. Home-invaders shoot and kill the homeowner when she hesitates because she is unsure whether they are really police.
3. Homeowner shoots a policeman thinking he is a home-invader.

Again, Oleg is NOT saying that the police should be shot at for serving a no-knock warrant. The point is that both the homeowner and the police are put at risk by the use of no-knock warrants.

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 06:10 PM
There is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread, and I don't understand why it isn't more thoroughly clarified. Maybe I have it wrong, but here is my take.

Oleg is NOT advocating shooting a no-knock warrant team. The point of the poster is that civilians are endangered by home-invaders pretending to be no-knock warrant entry teams, thus, several bad things could happen.

1. The real police shoot and kill the homeowner when she points a rifle at them.
2. Home-invaders shoot and kill the homeowner when she hesitates because she is unsure whether they are really police.
3. Homeowner shoots a policeman thinking he is a home-invader.

Again, Oleg is NOT saying that the police should be shot at for serving a no-knock warrant. The point is that both the homeowner and the police are put at risk by the use of no-knock warrants.


Well, some of us thought that to be obvious. :D

Carl N. Brown
January 26, 2006, 07:36 PM
I have read part of this, gone back to the original poster,
and the poster is NOT about killing cops:

We had an incident (I can dig it out of the newspaper
archives if I have time) where bad guys did a raid disguised as
bounty hunters: simulated badges, ninja suits and all.

But this is something that could be taken out of context.

tom barthel
January 27, 2006, 02:13 PM
A few years back, a young girl was kidnapped in Texas. She was taken to Arkansas, raped repeatedly and buried alive. She did try to get help by calling 911. The recorded 911 call indicated the bad guys were calling out FBI. These types of forced entries are becomming somewhat common. Identifying yourself as a police officer seems to work well in causing your mark to hesitate. I don't give LEF any reason to make a forced entry on me. If someone choses th fircibly enter my home then, that person just may get shot. If it is a mistake, I'll be sorry.
There is NO excuse for getting the wrong address. There will be no time to read ANY signs or labels on the intruder's clothing. I don't like the poster but, as a retired LEF I will allways be ready. I will also not give anyone reason to raid me.
Tom

If you enjoyed reading about ""War on drugs" poster, edited 1/9" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!