Leaderboard

Next time ,there is a tragic event...have them call you so you can do better.....   :rolleyes:

Christie doesn't have to do anything new to show he's no friend of gun owners --  New Jersey has very repressive gun laws, and Christie has said on interviews more than once that he thinks NJ's gun laws are "about right". That's all ya really need to know.   - OS

If you go to a new barber and he had trouble shaking your hand, don't follow through, just go ahead and leave. Gave the benefit of the doubt & am now at barber #2 to get fixed lol

Many times local law enforcement is not made aware of intelligence acquired by the feds or the state.  Many other times, the intelligence is so weak that it simply doesn't justify putting people on a watch list.  Also, just a quick look at the Internet reveals how many people think all Muslims are terrorists, so I'd think it's a safe bet that law enforcement agencies are so buried in crappy intelligence that it's tough to weed through it all.  To illustrate this, back in the late 1990s there was a Mexican serial killer named Angel Resendiz (The Railroad Killer) who had some relatives (including his mother) in the town I was working in as a police officer.  When the public became aware of this fact and were asked by the State Police to keep an eye out for him, we were inundated with calls about possible sightings of him for over a week.  If you were a Hispanic/Latino male in that city, you were almost certain to have the police show up to ID you.      The bombs were made of gunpowder and a pressure cooker.  Is that really all that suspicious?   You are assuming that they were constantly walking around with bomb sniffing dogs, and even if they were, there's no way the police could have a dog at every single place at every single moment.   I assume you are talking about the bombers.  Consider the thousands of people in the area when these bombs went off.  It was total chaos.  Thousands of people were running everywhere, nobody was aware of what was going on, nor did they have a suspect description at that point.  Tack on the fact that dozens of people were seriously injured.  What's the priority for law enforcement at the scene?  To render aid and control the crowd so other first responders can get in to help the victims, not search for suspects.  From what I understand, the bombs had crude timers on them, so between the time the bombs were placed at the scene and detonated, the bad guys were likely far enough away from the scene for them to not even be noticed by anyone.   OK, and?  If that was the only eyewitness who could provide any sort of detailed description, there's no way for the police to get a description of the suspects.  The victim who gave the description was in shock and in very critical condition.  Again, priority is getting this victim medical aid.  The police are not, and should not, interfere with this to get a statement.  Even if they tried, a guy in shock likely isn't in a condition to give a description anyhow.     OK, and?  A physical description does not a positive ID make.  They were looking for two guys in a metropolitan city who did not particularly stand out.  Take a description of "two young men, white or of eastern European ethnicity, one wearing a black ball cap and one wearing a white ball cap" and go positively ID two specific individuals with no other information or evidence.  By the time the police got any description, these perpetrators could potentially have already been out of the United States had they tried to do so.  It's hard enough to find my wife in the grocery store and I know exactly who I'm looking for and what building she's in.  Now consider two unidentified men in a city of millions of people.   OK, and?  This is not something unique.  Police can't crap a positive identification of two unknown people.  Cops have been doing this for decades in wanted posters.   None of us know exactly what the situation was related to the pursuit, but we do know that the MIT police officer was killed in his patrol car.  I speculate that the officer had either tried to approach these suspects or the suspects thought they were about to be stopped.  After killing one LEO, they carjack someone, get in a high speed police pursuit, throw explosives at the police, at the conclusion, a large gun battle erupts, another cop is shot and seriously injured, one of the bad guys is shot and killed possibly by one of his own explosive devices, and in the chaos, the other suspect manages to slip away.  Were there "a thousand LEOs" at the scene of that pursuit?  I seriously doubt it.     And if it had not been for the large concentration of police covering the area, I think it's a safe bet the bad guy would not have just crawled up into a boat and hunkered down.  He had slipped away twice so certainly he'd have done it a third time if he could have.  Yes, perhaps Barney Fife could have caught the guy hiding in the boat, but it was the massive law enforcement response that led to a positive identification of the suspects and made the captures possible.     Yes, I think you are being too hard on the police in this case.  I am actually impressed with how quickly they solved this one.   Lucky would have been if the suspects had both dropped their wallets at the scene with receipts for the bomb-making materials and a to-do list with "bomb the Boston Marathon" in the money compartment.  What you are criticizing is actually police work.  Taking a chaotic crime scene full of unknowns and putting together the pieces to identify a suspect while gathering enough evidence to get a conviction in court.  Think about how many unsolved murders there are and many times they have a known suspect, but not enough evidence to prove it.  Now imagine doing this with two unknown suspects with no obvious motive or clear connection to the victims.

  Gotta love all these arm chair quarter backs   Have you ever been in a gun fight? what about a gun fight when you also had bombs thrown your way? I bet all your shots would be spot on.

No one is asking to violate your rights. That would only be the case if you said “No” and they entered anyway. Allowing a search for terrorist does not put any of our rights in danger, and does not put a checkmark anywhere that someone has given up their rights. If I’m a Police Commander and my Officers are going door to door checking houses, and they have someone refuse, I have a duty to protect both the occupants of that house and other citizens in the area. I would not need to violate your rights to make the area as safe as I could. I would secure the perimeter of your house with Officers and it would stay that way until I had a warrant, permission to search, intel that the suspect was not there, or the suspect was in custody. Saying “Oh gosh this guy knows his rights” and telling my Officers to move on and possibly leave the suspect holding a family hostage would not an option for me. Your rights have not been violated and I would have done all I could to make the scene secure. No slippery slope, no rights violations; just good Police work.

Open field vs Urban environment are too different things. Urban environments (based on my Infantryman training circa 90-95) are the most dangerous working environment, because around every corner their could be a shooter or device waiting on you, so you have to be methodical when in this environment. I think the US Army FM on this is available and not classified, you should get it and read up on it. Keep in mind this was more of a Cordone and Search operation, they had no intel on where he was exactly till the tip after they told everyone they could go outside their homes.    They did good by flooding the area with LEOs, but they did it in a methodical way, K9, SWAT, and other units to back them up, to include EMS.    Keep in mind this all started with the FBI showing the pictures and video of them, which caused them to panic and want to flee, could they have had intel on where he was prior to the press conference and wanted to keep it a secret in case, he was using his phone to get police updates or someone was assisting him via phone. We will never know, but one thing is for sure, that kid is lucky, that he didn't try to go out pointing a weapon at the officers when surrounded..     So I say Bravo Zulu to the LEOs, the surrounding States that provided resources, the Federal agencies that were involved. less than 5 days after the bombing to capture or kill is pretty impressive. And should sent a message to wannabee terrorist that the US will not play.. 

Gun Show this weekend...I went with this.... [url=http://s587.photobucket.com/user/ren1795/media/rem4_zps63edb497.jpg.html][/URL] And came home with these.... Camp .45 [url=http://s587.photobucket.com/user/ren1795/media/m45_01_zps8bdadea8.jpg.html][/URL] Ruger .44. What's amazing is I traded a .44 for a 788 back in '74. What goes around.... [url=http://s587.photobucket.com/user/ren1795/media/rug01_zps3c784631.jpg.html][/URL] Uberti 1871, open top, .38 Special [url=http://s587.photobucket.com/user/ren1795/media/u1_zps40b22429.jpg.html][/URL] [url=http://s587.photobucket.com/user/ren1795/media/u2_zps7c4e4498.jpg.html][/URL] May they rest comfortably, forever more in my safe...Until I take them out for a walk. :D Lp

I moved to Kentucky over a year ago. There are a couple of Kentucky sites, but I only use them to browse the Classifieds.   TGO is by far the best firearms enthusiast site I have ever found.

Black powder is useless without a pressure cooker. I say go after pressures cookers first.

Welcome to TN.  Make sure to leave everything you've learned growing up at the border.  We'd like to keep things as is down here.

Christie is no friend of ours.  And Pro 2A people should never support him for any office.

I love the Monday morning quarterbacking from people who have never worked a criminal investigation, or hunted a dangerous fugitive hiding in an unknown location who is intent on killing you. I know nothing about the storing of fertilizer, so I will leave criticism of West, TX to people with more knowledge than me. Regarding Boston, the JTTF spoke with the older brother after his return from Russia, but what were they supposed to do, put him under 24 hour surveillance? I keep reading on here about the police/feds abusing their power but now they didn't do enough to stop him. Its OK for LE to question someone returning from Russia, but not OK to question someone with an AR strapped to their chest walking down the street. With hindsight, anything can be improved upon. Overall, I think they did pretty good Id'ing/capturing/killing both terrorists in less than a week.

Often it is not what you eat, but where you eat that adds to the experience. A nice french dinner doesn't really taste as good if it is eaten out of tupperware and pixie cups off the trunk of your car.   Prince's also follows that rule.  While enjoying your meal...the potential hail of bullets from a pimp beating down a strung out midget/amputee/methhead makes that chicken a very rewarding meal. Kinda like parachuting in that the real possibility of death makes the experience much more exhilarating.      

They would be looking for murders that killed and maimed my fellow citizens. They would not be violating my rights by asking to look and I would not be giving up any rights by agreeing so as to not impede their investigation. I doubt many people turn them down and if someone did and I was an Officer I would be concerned that the guy may be standing on the other side of the door holding a gun to their head. I would secure the house with Officers to wait for a warrant and move on to the next house. Even with a warrant they can only look where the items they are searching for could be; in this case a person. They aren’t going to go rummaging through drawers. And no, when searching for suspects they don’t have to be accusing you of a crime to search your property. This is all assuming no Officers were chasing the suspect or saw him in your home. If that is the case hot pursuit and plain view could kick in and no warrant would be needed.

You have the right to protect yourself and others from eminent bodily harm and that is about it. You can't even shoot him fr threatening to beat your a**. You can't shoot because he took $200 from under granny's pillow. You can only shoot if you, her, or someone is getting ready to suffer severe injury or possible death from him. In TN, people read too much into the Castle Doctirine. Know you can protect yourself and others and that you do not have an obligation to retreat, all this assuming you have a legal reason to be at the dwelling.

  Here's your problem, and you've already paraphrased part of what I'll say.   The only time you can use deadly force to protect yourself or another is when you have a reasonable fear of imminent (immediate) death or serious bodily injury.   When someone forcibly enters your home (and they don't have to "break in" for it to be "forcibly") TN "castle law" gives you the presumption that you had that fear.   However, that doesn't mean it gives you the absolute right to do it. For example, it doesn't give you the right to off someone who you knew was really not posing the deadly threat mentioned above. And here you have the problem that it is the lady's grandson, who has a long history of being there, etc, so in no way is this going to be seen the same as some stranger appearing in your bedroom in the middle of the night.   In short, that "presumption" in the law is just that. It's not a absolute license to execute someone, and the long precedence of his non-violent appearances would not be a factor on your side by a long shot.   And always remember, it's not only YOUR call as to whether you had that "reasonable fear".   If it were me, I'd try to convince her to get an order of protection ("restraining order") against him if he just won't follow her wishes. Then when he shows again, it's an arrestable offense, etc, and see how that goes.   Seriously, I'd try every legal recourse to change the situation.   - OS

I love it. Sticking up for your 2nd Amendment rights makes you a patriot of the highest order, worthy of praise, medals, and parads. But stick up for your 4th Amendment rights and you're paranoid. You win. The argument is not worth having if you're not willing to hear. 

I can't even read this thread anymore. It is like deja vu all over again.   So I will just post my 2 cents and move on, LOL.   I figure if someone is riding my ass and driving aggressive they must have a good reason to do it.  Maybe their house is on fire, or their mother just had a stroke or something.  I give the benefit of the doubt and get the heck out of the way.  Just let them go on.   Slowing down to the point people get pissed off has no real purpose.  Just seems like a dick measuring contest or something.     Carry on.

Eh, I want this bastard caught. Dead or alive is fine with me. If me allowing the police to come into my house, open all my closets and shine lights under my beds helps them catch him, c'mon in.   If I tell them no, they can't come in without a warrant, they go get a warrant, and then they come in, open all my closets and shine lights under the bed. I just cost them valuable time, and considerable stress in a pretty bad situation and all it did was prevent the inevitable for an hour, maybe two.   This is a stressful situation for everyone involved, those officers are looking for a terrorist. A killer who doesn't care about anything. They aren't jack booted thugs come to haul me off to an extermination camp for being a free thinker.   Remember, the question was about this scenario.   If the police showed up unannounced at my door tomorrow, without a valid reason, and wanted to come open all my closets and shine lights under my beds, yeah, I would ask for a warrant. But there isn't a terrorist running around my neighborhood throwing bombs at anyone with a badge. I think some of you might want to remember the circumstances in Boston right now.

I couldn't care less how Giffords or her husband feel about the legislation yesterday. She's a pawn being trotted out for the cameras to elicit emotion, just like the Newtown parents. Without manipulating emotion Obama has no platform AT ALL.

Ladies and gentlemen, I purchased my 1st rifle precision bolt gun weeks ago and she is finally complete (with the exception of a new trigger and suppressor). I had the opportunity of putting her through her paces over the weekend and what a delight she was! Without further ado, my new rifle. Remington Model 700 SPS Tactical AAC-SD .308 Winchester Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x50 - .1 Mil-Radian - Mil-Dot. Accuracy International (AICS) Fixed Stock in Dark Earth (Many a thanks to SigKev for the sale this morning!) Harris Bipod BRM-S 6-9"

The use of drones for random surveillance was just outlawed in TN a week or so ago.  Court order now required.  :up: 

I sometimes get frustrated by the fact that republicans will eat their own sometimes with a scary quickness meanwhile democrats will line up lockstep behind people that say the most ridiculous, unconstitutional & absurd things. Then I remember conservatives actually have a principled ideology & are generally logically consistent. Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

Well .50bmg's are skarry! So regardless of the fact that they're never used to commit crimes, they're too skarry to be legal! *sigh* we are quickly becoming a nanny state for hand-wringers & bed-wetters, instead of the land of the free, home of the brave ...

A poncho liner on the other hand is worth it's very light weight in gold.

New Jersey banned Hollow Point ammunition.  I never understood the reasoning behind that so I have presumed that the law makers in New Jersey don't know anything about firearms. They think a Barret .50 is an anti-aircraft rifle that shoots heat seaking missles.

Does this suggest that one can currently buy a gun with something such as a student ID? Seems unlikely.

I had a 150# rottie and the longest lasting toy he had was one of the rubber balls with the handle on it made for horses, it lasted a few months and after he destroyed that he went back to playing with the 15" car tire, ran all over the yard with that tire on his head, almost looked like he was smiling while he was doing it to.

No actually feinstein says it would be legal to hunt them provided you were sure to use your 30,50 or 100rd magazines. Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

I would have let them search my home in this case. Of course where I live everyone is armed, we all have dogs, we look out for each other.  We have each other's phone numbers. 

I saw a video of what appears to be the bombers carrying back packs that I guess it’s safe to assume contained the bombs. I didn’t see any bomb sniffing dogs following them. I wasn’t aware they shot a cop while he was sitting in a car. But the California cop killer did that also. How would you suggest they should have stopped that? I suspected they would be IDed by video. Thousands of video cameras were filming. They sifted through that and came up with suspects; apparently the right suspects. They put all the information out to the public and the public responded. You are correct that whoever did the background check prior failed. I am also surprised that in this day and age at an event like that someone could set a back pack down, walk away, and no one noticed it or became suspicious enough to call police. We arm chair quarterback; that’s what we do. Sure its easy to say a lot of resources were used. But it worked; what would you have done?

Walk a mile in their shoes.

I would guess the interrogations will begin as soon as a Doctor clears the cops to talk to him. That is what I have seen when a suspect is hospitalized.

Saw the title and thought this was gonna be a Woody Allen thread.

Sometimes I think we take this "rights" thing a bit too far...we take it to far in that some are ONLY concerned about THEIR  rights while ignoring the very simple truth that no one's "rights" exist in a vacuum.   The "rights" we insist our ours because we are endowed by our creator (or if you prefer, simply by the fact that we are human beings) also, I would suggest, carry responsibilities to our fellow-man; something I believe our founders understood well.  In this case, that responsibility is to not be a pompous ass by refusing to let police search our home/property to look for a terrorist that planted bombs at a sporting event which killed three (including a eight year boy) and horribly maimed many others while you pontificate about your "fourth amendment rights".   I also think that some folks have an inordinate fear of law enforcement and assume that every LEO is going to screw us given any opportunity.   Just my opinion of course.

What the hell is wrong with the dad? It sounds to me like she needs an order of protection for BOTH of them.  Any "man" and I use the term loosly here, that would let his son treat his mother that way is a POS, just like the son is. 

  However many they have on hand.

There are a couple of issues here. One being that Miranda only protects a defendant against his own words being used to prosecute him without waiving his/her rights. They have all the evidence they need to prosecute and they are still gathering it. Any words he says without being questioned wil be used against him. The Supreme Court says in today's age any reasonable, mentally competent adult knows spontaneous statements to police are incriminating. They should just question him all they want. Miranda warning is so over thought, half the time I don't care what try have to say, so I don't read them. Normally it is detectives that want to question not patrols making arrest for crimes we saw happen.

If the police didn't "lock down" the town & do exactly what they did the punk would probably still be out there & you would be griping that the cops were not doing enough to catch him!     Now correct me if I'm wrong. Who is wrong & who is right?

Miranda Rights , really , did anybody get them read to them before their legs were blown off ? Don't think so.... You have the right to keep your legs , you have the right to keep on walking ....

If I remember my model 29 from the 70's, it came with an aluminum cleaning rod, brush, cotton swab and a flat blade screwdriver with a silver handle. Here it is:

I may hold an unpopular position here, but here it is. He is a US citizen and needs to be treated as such. That includes being afforded all the rights and protections thy citizenship brings with it. Remember all of the "what if" discussions over the nasty provisions for declaring citizens apprehended on US soil as an enemy combatant thus denying them their constitutionally guaranteed rights? Remember the worry about DHS letters calling folks like us possible terrorists? Anything they do to this guy, they can do to you or I. I want my pound of flesh as much anyone else, but I want it done the right way. We must ensure that in our search for justice today that we do not lay the foundation for injustice tomorrow.

It ain't about answers just for the sake of answers. There is likely a network of folks who need to get a hot lead injection and he may be the key to making that happen.

Fine looking dogs you have there I tried this with my Pekingese but got tired of sweeping up metal shavings

Would you want someone to follow you around with a camera and record you all day whether you're doing anything wrong or not?   If I'm not doing anything wrong you have no reason to record me.   It's all baby steps. This is being watched closely as a trial run to see just how much liberty the citizen-sheep with trade for the veil of security.

RWF, you are absolutely right:  You cannot spell and your grammar is piss poor.  You also give some good advice.

Definitely recommend John H. Daniel. There is nothing like a custom tailored suit, especially if you are not "standard size"

The writers for The Walking Dead need to change the intro  Erik Calderone ROCKS!!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUTei9nywY0&list=UUtJVZjY6xsZUV-sYdcIFpZw&index=1

"Ninety-two percent of the American people want universal background checks."   What a HUGE lie. But then, I don't expect any politician who likes to trample on the American people's constitutional rights to have integrity.