Obama '08?

@hawkeye10,

No, you're missing the whole point of my argument; it's how the cops would treat me as a criminal without first finding proof I'm the owner of my home.

Then still treat me as a criminal after I've produced my ID.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

If you think I made up what happened at Waco, then prove it.

I just provided a list of the personnel that were at Waco, and if it was wrong, prove it.

Even the ATF and FBI admit they used a tank at Waco.
And since they dont have them, they had to get the tank from somewhere.
So they got it from the Texas NG.

You are letting your own ignorance lead your thinking, instead of actually trying to learn the truth.

you are the one letting your ignorance get in the way of your thinking MM. You claimed Clinton ordered it.
1. The use of the national guard was by the state of Texas, not Clinton.
2. There is no evidence that Clinton was even aware of the intended police action by the ATF before it happened.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You're not following along CI.

Do you think it's totally out of the question that the officer asked Gates to step outside so that he could confirm that he was alone in the house, and the 2 reported 'burglars' weren't still in the home?

Do you really think that Gates shouldn't have been required to show his ID to the officer when the officer is responding to a burglary 911 call?

Do you really think that the officer should not have treated the initial contact with Gates at high alert and with a mindset that he needs to control the situation, given the fact that he was alone, it was reported that 2 large men were breaking into the house, and officers are trained to assume that everyone is armed?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

1. The use of the national guard was by the state of Texas, not Clinton.

It was a federal operation, led by and conducted by federal agents.
Also, why were there foreign troops there, even as "observers"?
The state of Texas doesnt have diplomatic relations with foreign countries.

The feds were responsible for what happened, and for everyone there.

Quote:

2. There is no evidence that Clinton was even aware of the intended police action by the ATF before it happened.

It was ordered by his Attorney General, during his administration.
As such, even if he wasnt told in advance, since he is the President he is still responsible for what happened.
I happen to believe that he did know in advance about the plan.
And I have never seen anything to the contrary.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Then still treat me as a criminal after I've produced my ID.

if during the investigation to see if you are a criminal you are hostile towards the cops then the cops have cause to impose behaviour upon you. Whether criminality took place before or not does not effect hostility towards a cop who is legally conducting his job needing to be addressed. This is behaviour must be countered with a penalty, in order to discourage the practice..

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

This is not about race, this is about the relationship between the cops and the citizens. Cops routinely impose their dominance upon the citizens, they claim that they must in order to do their jobs effectively. They claim that to not create a D/s dynamic puts their lives at increased risk. If they are correct (and I think that they are) then what do we do with citizens who refuse to submit?

I think that physical restraint is the first step, and only if submission does not follow should charges be filed.

We are probably arguing on the same side of the fence here.

Responding to a possible emergency, the first step is to ask the person inside to verify that he is indeed the owner of the house rather than somebody pretending to be the owner of the house. So the police ask for positive identification.

The second step is to make sure that the owner of the house is not under threat by somebody who broke in. So the police ask the owner to step ouside.

Up to this point, the police 'demands' were not only appropriate but necessary. If the police had not done this and the place was burglarized or vandalized and/or Gates was harmed, the police would have justifiably been guilty of negligence.

Whether or not the police 'overreacted' to Gates' unsupportable outbursts, verbal abuse, and disorderly conduct is probably open to speculation. But any citizen ordered by the police to cease and desist such behavior in a public setting and/or to leave the situation and refuses to do so is subject to arrest. I believe that is true in all 50 states.

The police have to have the authority to control a potentially dangerous or disruptive situation or they are useless.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Yeah, but what if there was a criminal with a gun who told Gates to "get the cops out of here our I'll kill you" on the other side of the door.

The officer asked Gates to step outside because of this possibility.

Bullshit, he did. According to the officers' own report, he asked Gates to step outside 'due to the acoustics of the residence' making it difficult for him to communicate on his radio.

Don't make stuff up, just b/c it sounds logical... the officer would have included this info in his report if that had been the case.

Cyclotpichorn

0 Replies

Someone said that Gates threatened the officer near the end of the confrontation. That, I think, would warrant an arrest.

The reason Asians are called Asians is that they get all A's. And CI is no exception to the rule. However, he has an honesty problem when it comes to Israel and illegals.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Hasn't it been reported that that is standard police procedure when dealing with a B&E case?

Has it? I have been studying this extensively and I have never seen this mentioned once.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The second step is to make sure that the owner of the house is not under threat by somebody who broke in. So the police ask the owner to step ouside.

Once again, this is bullshit. You guys are simply making up justifications to try and make it seem as if the cop did his job correctly, when he clearly didn't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Someone said that Gates threatened the officer near the end of the confrontation. That, I think, would warrant an arrest.

The reason Asians are called Asians is that they get all A's. And CI is no exception to the rule. However, he has an honesty problem when it comes to Israel and illegals.

Neither Gates nor the police report indicate that Gates threatened the officer. Where do you guys get your info from?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Behavior depends upon many circumstances. What can be considered criminal behavior depends upon many things including how the police treats an innocent man.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Quote:

The reason Asians are called Asians is that they get all A's

Are you really as racist as this comment makes you appear to be?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Neither Gates nor the police report indicate that Gates threatened the officer

everyone is in agreement that Gates verbally assaulted the officer. Gates put himself in opposition to the officer, and the officer had no choice but to behave as if the situation was confrontational. When citizens confront and resist the will of a legal police action the citizens must always lose the battle, in order to discourage the practice.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Neither Gates nor the police report indicate that Gates threatened the officer

everyone is in agreement that Gates verbally assaulted the officer. Gates put himself in opposition to the officer, and the officer had no choice but to behave as if the situation was confrontational. When citizens confront and resist the will of a legally police action the citizens must always lose the battle, in order to discourage the practice.

No, everyone is not in agreement on what you state. Gates was rude and insulting to the officer, but that didn't threaten the officer in any way; he didn't physically threaten the officer in any way. There was no reason to restrain him based upon the speech he chose to engage in within his own home, and certainly no reason to arrest him for 'creating a public disturbance.'

Gates was not resisting the will of any legal police action; he provided ID showing that he was the legal resident at the house. At that point, the police action was over.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
The reason Asians are called Asians is that they get all A's

Are you really as racist as this comment makes you appear to be?

Oh yeah. He totally is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Clinton did not order the tanks or anything else. From Wiki:

Quote:

The Waco Siege[11] (also known as the Waco Massacre)[12] began on February 28, 1993 when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, a property located nine miles (14 km) east-northeast of Waco, Texas. An exchange of gunfire resulted in the deaths of four agents and six followers of David Koresh. A subsequent 51-day siege by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ended on April 19 when fire destroyed the compound. Seventy-six people (24 of them British nationals)[13] died in the fire, including more than 20 children and two pregnant women, along with Davidian leader Vernon Wayne Howell, better known as David Koresh.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I like your use of the word "assulted" in your post; it shows how you are trying to justify what the police did in that situation. Words spoken during their exchange do not harm and is not in any way a crime.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

His attorney General did, and since the AG works for the President, Clinton was ultimately responsible.

Or, are you saying that the President is NOT responsible for the actions of those under him or who work for him?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

But, words spoken CAN be a crime, under certain circumstances.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know