Sunday, December 22, 2019

The Headline Tells the Whole Story

12/19/19 Fox News channel 10:
Wanted man was already in jail when agents raided his former home and shot woman inside

Why the government needs a monopoly on deadly force.


  1. If you read the article, the girl was pointing a shotgun at the officers and *did not put it down* when instructed to.

    When you are facing a police officer who suggests you put your weapon down you are in the moment of making a serious choice. I suggest that you either put the firearm down, or commence, don't hesitate.

    But understand that the only thing more likely to get you shot than pointing a gun at a cop is shooting a cop.

    So choose wisely.

  2. Bull schiff. Notice the article only mentions 'investigators' and 'agents'. Where were the Sheriff's deputies in all this? Oh wait, did the Sheriff give up responsibility to fedgov? What the heck kind of Sheriff is that!!?

    And now DHS is busting in doors of civilians. Who knew it would come to this.

    Okay, may more will come out, maybe the 19 year old gal was fully armed with an 'arsenal' (more than 2 firearms) and shouted out something like, You'll never take me alive, coppers'. Ok, in that case, she def deserved it. I mean you can't have ordinary citizens disrepectin da law.

    Ok, ha ha.

    Know what I really think, every single one of them should be named as individual defendants in a legal action against the respective departments, agencies, individually, departmentally, corporately. Qualified immunity and such BS don't exist. Lacking legal action, they be hunted down where they live. Wives, children in the way, tough Schiff. Its a price to pay and that's what they signed up for. God's mercy upon the children. The People are superior and thus it shall remain, at any cost. Next time asshole G-men, be damned sure for there is a price upon your head and any two toothed hillybilly can afford it.

    How often do we read of these such things? 10, 20, 50 times per year? Exactly when do The People say that is enough?


  3. Of course there should have been no raid for someone in custody.

  4. Why was this a no-knock raid?

    Why not just ring the bell, politely?

    Because their target was dangerous? Perhaps he was, and perhaps a no-knock raid to take him into custody. But he wasn't there.

    It's not just that he was already in prison, it was that they clearly had no reason to believe that he would be present, and they have no business engaging in non-knock raids at old addresses on the off chance that the person they were looking for might be there.

    I don't know that I'd blame the cops, but I'd really like to see whoever it was who approved this raid to suffer some real consequences.

  5. No-knock raids should be extremely rare. A hostage or a terrorist with a radioactive signature. The excuses made for them in the 1980s were bogus, usually around the danger of drugs being flushed. If the quantity is small enough to flush, it isn't worth gatting anyone killed.