San Bernadino shooting

[213374U]

 

 

Well, we've seen the result of the "right" atmosphere. Edit: Yes, working in their garage building pipe bombs.

Sadly that is the price of a free society, though. No one wants to live in a place where you have to live in fear of your neighbours ratting you out to the State, I would hope. I feel that regardless of who ever the target might be. Hard to believe getting a lot of packages and working in their garage alone is suspicious, no ?

 

No, it's a price of a stupid, PC society. You live in fear of your neighbor? You think this is Stalin's Soviet Union, where the next day you're reported you disappear forever? At most the FBI would run you through their database, and probably not even that. The neighbor thought it was suspicious, you don't need to have iron clad proof to be suspicious, it's not the same as a conviction.

 

Ah, of course. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Nothing to hide from whom, your neighbor? I've never heard of reporting suspicious activity being some kind of violation of civil rights. If the neighbor broke into his house or set up a hidden camera then yes, but it's nothing like that here.

[213374U]

Oh, so is my neighbor going to investigate it now? Or is he going to call the cops so they break into my house or set up a hidden camera? Which one is it?

 

I guess it's the second. But we should worry not, because they "probably aren't even going to run it through their db". Then, what is the point of reporting it to begin with, other than fostering even more mistrust?

 

In retrospect, all sorts of everyday mundane stuff is "suspicious" in the aftermath of such an event. This is hindsight, not prescience.

[Gromnir]

cops can't break into your house here unless they got a warrant or exigent circumstances.  proof needed by cops to search your home is considerable higher here in the US even though some similar language is used by many european and US courts.  neighbor calls and says you is fiddling in your garage and getting many packages delivered is not gonna be anywhere close to enough evidence to be getting any judge anywhere in the US to grant a search warrant.  so, worst case scenario is cops come to your door and ask you some questions. is not exactly 1984.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

No, it's a price of a stupid, PC society. You live in fear of your neighbor? You think this is Stalin's Soviet Union, where the next day you're reported you disappear forever? At most the FBI would run you through their database, and probably not even that. The neighbor thought it was suspicious, you don't need to have iron clad proof to be suspicious, it's not the same as a conviction.

Well, is why I am not a fan of people getting others fired because of stuff they think or said on Twitter. Funny how we turned Big Brother into our neighbour, heh. Reasonable suspicion is what vigilance is, rather than acting wary of brown people, that right wing guy down the street and telling the cops as they were getting parcels and using power tools. Dude was right to be concerned as that being racist because it was, immaterial of it turning out to be correct.

 

It would be different if he sees the guy uncrating tonnes of ammo or finding out about that some other way. I think one guy planning some attack was stopped by a gunshop owner wondering what some guy relatively new to guns wanted with thousands of rounds and told the cops. that was reasonable.

[213374U]

 so, worst case scenario is cops come to your door and ask you some questions. is not exactly 1984.

 

No, looking at traffic stops, that's not a worst case scenario at all. Worst case scenario is cops show up, ask if they can come in first thing, I say no, but they come in regardless to make an "officer security sweep" of the entire house. They make a tenuous or outright bogus probable cause claim, I object, things escalate and I'm arrested or shot because they considered me a threat. And all because my neighbor figured it's suspicious to receive parcels, or work in my garage.

 

What you described is a best case scenario if cops start investigating every call they receive for "suspicious" (read: everyday) home activity. Do you really want to have cops on your doorstep at the drop of a hat? Enjoy your police and surveillance state, I guess. All in the name of security!

[Gromnir]

how are you comparing traffic stops to search o' a home?  and no, a cop cannot enter your home to without a warrant, exigent circumstances or permission... period.  

 

you are imaging problems into existence.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps there were a limited amount o' time before Court clarified the scope o' searches o' a residence incident to arrest during which some cops abused perceived loophole.  *chuckle*  cops would drag a suspect through his entire home and search any place the suspect could possibly reach, but that got nixed by Chimel in... 1969?

 

oh, and the defendant's best friend is a bogus probable cause claim.  we got the exclusionary rule here in the US.  cops don't have genuine probable cause but search anyway?  cops find evidence stemming from knowingly bad warrant?  the GUILTY defendant goes free.  fruit of poisonous tree. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

Police don't sadly always follow law as strictly as they probably should. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-woman-esmeralda-rossi-sues-chandler-police-officers-violation-naked-arrest/

[Gromnir]

Police don't sadly always follow law as strictly as they probably should. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-woman-esmeralda-rossi-sues-chandler-police-officers-violation-naked-arrest/

but again, US Courts is almost unique (australia has a lite version o' exclusion) in that if cops do bad and find evidence that proves guilt of a defendant, we don't simple punish the cops... we let the defendant go free.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

as an aside, one ' the few things crime tv shows seems to get right is that the typical cop sees almost everything as being sufficient for probable cause.  our criminal law experience were brief and almost comical given the office we worked-- virtual 0 drug cases.  even so, we did work with law enforcement officers and even the feds who were highly educated and trained had a very loose notion o' probable cause.  acted surprised every time they were told that they didn't have no probable cause and that they would needs go out and do their job and get some actual evidence if they wanted us to even try an get 'em a warrant.  act like it is attorney's fault for not magically bootstrapping their bare suspicion up to probable cause?  am glad we don't leave probable cause determinations in the hands o' law enforcement.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

 

Police don't sadly always follow law as strictly as they probably should. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-woman-esmeralda-rossi-sues-chandler-police-officers-violation-naked-arrest/

but again, US Courts is almost unique (australia has a lite version o' exclusion) in that if cops do bad and find evidence that proves guilt of a defendant, we don't simple punish the cops... we let the defendant go free.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

That is quite well working system in most cases. But even it can fail to protect innocents when their neighbors start to act too paranoid, as police officers and those whose behavior their neighbors find suspicious are humans and when there are influx of cases where polices are called to check those more or less suspicious people there is increased change that in some cases people (police and/or those under suspicion) don't act as well as they should in such situation that can lead altercation that has unwanted consequences.

 

So it isn't law that is problem, it is the inevitable human element. And more there are distrust between people more likely it's that human element comes into the play. Which is why some people find neighbor watching/stalking problematic, which I think was the original point/thing that was objected

[Gromnir]

 

 

Police don't sadly always follow law as strictly as they probably should. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-woman-esmeralda-rossi-sues-chandler-police-officers-violation-naked-arrest/

but again, US Courts is almost unique (australia has a lite version o' exclusion) in that if cops do bad and find evidence that proves guilt of a defendant, we don't simple punish the cops... we let the defendant go free.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

That is quite well working system in most cases. But even it can fail to protect innocents when their neighbors start to act too paranoid, as police officers and those whose behavior their neighbors find suspicious are humans and when there are influx of cases where polices are called to check those more or less suspicious people there is increased change that in some cases people (police and/or those under suspicion) don't act as well as they should in such situation that can lead altercation that has unwanted consequences.

 

So it isn't law that is problem, it is the inevitable human element. And more there are distrust between people more likely it's that human element comes into the play. Which is why some people find neighbor watching/stalking problematic, which I think was the original point/thing that was objected

 

thankfully we don't leave up to neighbors or cops to issue warrants.  we do understand police frustration given what a difficult standard is probable cause.  cops know that a suspect is doing wrong but cannot do anything 'bout it?  must be infuriating.  so many crimes is unsolved, but when cops know who the bad guy is and cannot do anything... am certain it gnaws. 

 

am convinced that there is a disconnect for europeans who is not genuine familiar with US law beyond tv or youtube snippets taken outta context.  Constitutional protections ain't no joke.  

 

individual bad cops doing bad things is always gonna be a problem.  bad people doing bad to their neighbors is always gonna be a problem.  the thing is, our system makes it very difficult to prosecute bad people.  is kinda a double-edged sword, no?  we make it very difficult for cops to do their job, but when cops or witnesses do bad, it is equal hard to bring'em to justice.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 6, 2015 by Gromnir

[213374U]

how are you comparing traffic stops to search o' a home? and no, a cop cannot enter your home to without a warrant, exigent circumstances or permission... period.

 

you are imaging problems into existence.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps there were a limited amount o' time before Court clarified the scope o' searches o' a residence incident to arrest during which some cops abused perceived loophole. *chuckle* cops would drag a suspect through his entire home and search any place the suspect could possibly reach, but that got nixed by Chimel in... 1969?

 

oh, and the defendant's best friend is a bogus probable cause claim. we got the exclusionary rule here in the US. cops don't have genuine probable cause but search anyway? cops find evidence stemming from knowingly bad warrant? the GUILTY defendant goes free. fruit of poisonous tree.

Several points. How am I comparing traffic stops to what WOD suggested? Because traffic stops involve cops routinely interrogating citizens about everyday activities. In this case, driving around.

 

I'm not a lawyer (not even American), but since you are, I'd like you to explain this to me:

 

"We turn initially to the primary issue now before us, namely whether there is an across-the-board, hard and fast per se rule that a protective sweep can be valid only if conducted incident to an arrest. We hold there is not."

[...]

"Buie makes clear that that worthy principle does not preclude application in the in-home sweep context of the general reasonableness standard calculated by balancing the intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests, including those of officer safety. Indeed, Buie expressly noted and rejected the Maryland Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply the reasonable suspicion standard of Terry and Long on the ground that “the sanctity of the home” required a more demanding standard."

[...]

"Applying this balancing principle, and mindful of Buie’s heavy reliance on Terry and Long, neither of which involved an arrest, we hold that arrest is not always, or per se, an indispensable element of an in-home protective sweep, and that although arrest may be highly relevant, particularly as tending to show the requisite potential of danger to the officers, that danger may also be established by other circumstances."

[...]

Several decisions of other circuits have upheld an in-home Buie protective sweep even though not incident to an arrest. In United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the D.C. Circuit dealt, as we do here, with a consent entry case and upheld the protective sweep of a bedroom in the apartment which the party authorizing entry (the court assumed arguendo) had no right to authorize search of, even though the sweep was not incident to an arrest.

[...]

"We recognize that protective sweeps following a consent entry may in certain circumstances pose Fourth Amendment concerns not present in cases where the initial entry is pursuant to a warrant. For example, concerns might arise respecting a consent to entry requested for a stated common purpose but actually intended not for that purpose but rather for the purpose of gaining access in order to then make a protective sweep of the entire home for unrelated reasons and thus circumvent the warrant requirement"

[...]

"In this case, however, the officers conducted an intrusive search of a bedroom with neither consent, nor search warrant, nor arrest warrant, nor any exigent circumstances. The majority has created an exception that permits an officer to ask for permission to enter a home from a third party who may have authority to consent to only part of the home but not all of the home and then immediately contend that he, the officer, is so apprehensive about his own safety that he must conduct a protective sweep of areas where he has no consent to be, when the officer had no obligation or duty to enter the home in the first place. This new exception is really a “knock, enter, maybe talk, and search” police investigatory tactic, all conducted without a warrant, and resulting in an end-run around the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment."

 

etc.

 

So no warrant, no exigent circumstances or consent. I might be missing something, but that sounds a lot like the worst case scenario I described earlier. The first part seems to be the court leaving the door open for sweeps at the officer's discretion, which is a concern expressed in the dissenting opinion.

 

But I've probably read that wrong, I'm imagining things, and cops can do nothing beyond knocking and politely asking some questions. How does that prevent terrorism?

 

Cops' "probable cause" being declared bogus in court post hoc doesn't help me much if I'm beaten up or shot in the process. Of course, that shouldn't happen because I'm not supposed to resist, but then we are back to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", and puts citizens in a situation where they have to defend their rights in court against a doctrine that encourages government agents to encroach on them systematically. And... for what? Because receiving parcels is suspicious and anyone could be a communist terrorist.

[Gromnir]

delete... gomma explain more fully rather than flippant, but did you even read the facts?  cops were admitted to trailer with consent.

 

Indeed, Buie expressly noted and rejected the Maryland

Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply the reasonable suspicion

standard of Terry and Long on the ground that “the sanctity of the

home” required a more demanding standard.

 

"In United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the D.C.

Circuit dealt, as we do here, with a consent entry case and upheld

the protective sweep of a bedroom in the apartment which the party

authorizing entry (the court assumed arguendo) had no right to

authorize search of, even though the sweep was not incident to an

arrest."

 

but again, court states multiple times that officers had consent to be in the home.  is a serious threshold that you keep ignoring.

 

"First, it is at least implicit in Buie that although the

protective sweep may extend to areas of the home where the police

otherwise (i.e., apart from the protective sweep doctrine) then

have no right to go, nevertheless when undertaken from within the

home, the police must not have entered (or remained in) the home

illegally and their presence within it must be for a legitimate law

enforcement purpose."

 

your silly hypothetical o' cops forcing way into a home and then doing a sweep is therefore no more than fantasy.

 

ok, am not gonna spend too much more time on this as this all should be obvious if you bothered to read the case.   in present situation we got cops who were admitted into the home by other resident than the defendant.  the court makes clear that protective sweeps must be reasonable given circumstances, but that still not gain the cops entry to the home w/o, as we stated earlier, a warrant, exigent circumstances or CONSENT.

 

once in home a balancing test is applied :  “[t]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined ‘by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’”

 

facts show that the defendant has a history o' violence and guns were in plain view as part o' their legal entry.  the resident did not have power to consent to access o' the bedroom, but court observed the balancing nature o' the test to explain why sweep would allow entry in present context.

 

the court makes clear via dicta that not every protective sweep is gonna be valid, but "We decline to adopt any across-the-board rule that a protective sweep can never be valid where the initial entry to the home is pursuant to consent, even where the consent does not of itself legally authorize the entry into the area swept."  the protective sweep needs be of reasonable time and scope and must be supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion o' danger.

 

so, you got lawful entry and a suspect who has stated he is gonna kill judges and cops.  furthermore, you got numerous weapons in plain sight.

 

*shrug*

 

honest, read the case.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 6, 2015 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

What exactly is your argument numbers? Cops are more dangerous than terrorists? Don't ever call the cops until after a crime has been committed? I don't know how it is where you live, but here I live in a fairly orderly society, and I'm pretty confident that cops aren't going to turn on me for no reason, and I count on them to protect me, and I'll call them if I think there's a problem. You may not like that, but so what?

[213374U]

delete... gomma explain more fully rather than flippant, but did you even read the facts?  cops were admitted to trailer with consent.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yep, I read it. From what I understand the guy who gave consent couldn't legitimately do so, and:

 

"Buie is about a reasonable, articulable suspicion “that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 337. Here, there is no such fear, and the majority opinion allows the officers to do something they normally would need a warrant to do, search a residence which they do not have consent to search and where the resident is either not present or not interested in talking to them. Again, the majority’s neglect of this requirement leads to an overly broad new exception to the Fourth Amendment."

 

Go flippant if you want, but I'd appreciate a serious take.

 

 

 

What exactly is your argument numbers? Cops are more dangerous than terrorists? Don't ever call the cops until after a crime has been committed? I don't know how it is where you live, but here I live in a fairly orderly society, and I'm pretty confident that cops aren't going to turn on me for no reason, and I count on them to protect me, and I'll call them if I think there's a problem. You may not like that, but so what?

 

You are far more likely to die in an altercation with a cop than in a terrorist attack. Does that mean cops are more dangerous than terrorists? But that's beside the point; I couldn't care less if you call the cops when your neighbor looks at you sideways. I'm just saying that doing so and expecting law enforcement to act on every instance of mundane stuff sounds a tad unreasonable. Knock yourself out, though.

Edited December 6, 2015 by 213374U

[Wrath of Dagon]

I guess it depends on what you consider mundane, granted it's a judgment call.

[Cantousent]

I've been reading these exchanges.  I'm going to relate something in which I was personally involved.  I'm sure some folks will read this and think I'm a real tool.  Of course, I'm sure plenty of people already do.  I'll have to explain a few things first, so please bear with me.

 

What kind of guy is a volunteer mod?  Someone who likes an orderly society?  So it shouldn't be a surprise that I like to feel that my neighborhood is a safe and orderly place.  Now, I'm a friendly neighbor, and I'm a helpful neighbor, so my first recourse if I think there's something weird going on with my neighbors is to strike up a conversation and get a feel for them.  I also believe you shouldn't blindside neighbors without addressing your issues with them before taking some sort of drastic action.  For that reason I have had very few problems with my neighbors over the years.  I have had a couple of instances of harsh words, but those were resolved to mutual satisfaction with a couple of exceptions, and I figure that over four decades of being a neighbor to one person or another, that's not such a bad track record.

 

Some ten years or so ago, one of our neighbors had people coming and going at all hours.  A lot of doctors around here and a big hospital, soooo, that's not in and of itself a reason to worry.  Maybe late shift at the medical center?

 

A lot of cars of various states of repair and disrepair and makes and models out in front of the house, sometimes with people sitting in them literally for hours at all hours, such as... say... 3am to 4:30.  I didn't notice these things at first, but after I noticed it the first time I ended up going out to inspect a noise in my back yard in the wee hours of the morning, I started paying attention.

 

Still, I don't like to make assumptions.  Soooo, I went out and talked to one of the folks one night.  Not at 3am, but around 11pm.  The response was unfriendly and, when it became clear that I wasn't just going to go away, the driver drove off.  Went to knock on the door and no answer.

 

Now, at this point, I start wondering what's going on.  Soooo, I called the police.  I carefully mentioned that I wasn't sure something was wrong.  There were a lot of people in medical school in the neighborhood and maybe it was just some crazy study sessions or some such and maybe shift work, but I figured it would be prudent to let the authorities know.  I detailed my contact with the people.

 

The police asked if I would give my name.  I did.  They asked if they could call me back or call on me if they needed to come to my house to speak with me.  They could.  I never saw the cops go to my neighbors, but the car visits stopped and my neighbors must have moved soon thereafter because I suddenly had new neighbors.

 

Now, maybe I was wrong, but I am convinced I took reasonable action.  It seems to me that I'm not engaged in some sort of draconian 1984-esque big brother mentality.  I'm just looking out for my community.

 

Luckily for me, the neighbors were white, but I imagine a scenario in which my neighbors were a minority group and I would be accused of some sort of bigotry for doing the exact same I would have done anyhow.

 

I don't know the specifics of the terrorists from Redlands.  I know that probably sounds a bit odd considering how close I lived to them, and I pass by that neighborhood at least once or twice a week, but I just haven't had time to scour the news about them.  If they just had packages delivered a few times and worked a bit out of their garage, I wouldn't have called the police or thought much of it period.  If they had a *lot* of people coming and going at odd hours, were secretive, and their activities in the aggregate were sufficiently suspicious, I would have called.  ...And for that minor inconvenience for me and a few minor questions for them, 14 people who were murdered might still be alive.

[Gromnir]

"Louisiana deputy sheriffs, having received on October 17, 2000, a telephone warning that Gould, known to be a convicted felon with a reputation for violence, was planning to kill two local judges, went that same evening to the approximately 14 x 60 foot trailer where Gould lived to talk to him, not then intending to arrest him. The officers, who had neither a search nor an arrest warrant, were admitted by another resident of the trailer, Dennis Cabral, who said Gould was asleep in his bedroom."

 

is facts at the very 1st page, no?

 

1) the guy who gave acces did have the right to consent to the entry of the home, but not necessarily the bedroom itself.  even the portions o' the DISSENT you quote observe "The majority has created an exception that permits an officer to ask for permission to enter a home from a third party who may have authority to consent to only part of the home but not all of the home."  cops were lawfully in the home.  legal resident can give access to home.  

 

2)  the DISSENT contends that there were no reasonable articulable suspicion, but, officers observed that

 

"When we got to the bedroom, the door of the bedroom was open; so looking for him strictly for officer safety reasons, due to the allegations of wanting to kill police officers, and judges, and those – also the incident that occurred in the courtroom or the Judge’s office earlier that day, officer safety was, you know, a predominate issue in our mind."

 

am flippant 'cause you ain't reading and you is ignoring your own previous posts. there were no forcible entry in the present case. 

 

also,  the case you are quoting is NOT SCOTUS, so at best you are talking 'bout rule o' law in one circuit.

 

so, let's compare to your hypothetical.

 

"Worst case scenario is cops show up, ask if they can come in first thing, I say no, but they come in regardless to make an "officer security sweep" of the entire house. They make a tenuous or outright bogus probable cause claim, I object, things escalate and I'm arrested or shot because they considered me a threat. And all because my neighbor figured it's suspicious to receive parcels, or work in my garage."

 

sorry, is not at all similar.  are you a convicted felon with a history o' violence? even if you were, if you did not give CONSENT, the cops could not enter your home. the case you cite would not allow entry or search.  am being flippant 'cause you ain't being reasonable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

am also feeling the need to reiterate that the notion o' cops random shooting folks just for being argumentative is almost entire mythical.  cops ain't gonna force their way into number's home 'cause if they do, exclusion results in complete fail o' all evidence gained from such a search, but let's say cops is in numbers home 'cause his roommate let 'em in and then numbers comes out of his boudoir to speak to them.  situation escalates.

 

...

 

is it possible that numbers gets arrested in such a situation?  yes.  is very likely.  is too likely.  you fail the attitude test, and many cops will look for an excuse to arrest you.  if you then resist arrest, there is good chances that the cops will then wrestle you to the ground or taser you.  so, let's assume numbers did nothing wrong but his nosy neighbor complains and next thing you know, numbers is on the floor of his bathroom, drooling into his bidet as the cops taser him repeatedly.  is bad cops, but is only occurring if numbers is stoopid.  

 

arguing with cops is not gonna end favorably for you, so why do folks do so?  Gromnir's father had the talk with us when we were young, and am certain many minorities had the talk from their folks as well.  it never ends well when you argue with cops, so, why?  most o' us know better or has been specific schooled not to do so by parents or family, so why? be polite and if cops is wrong, you straighten things out AFTER you is no longer in a situation where you are facing an armed person... particular if there is few/no other witnesses.  would Gromnir fight cops in some situations regardless o risk?  sure.  is very few such situations.  cops beating a child for no reason is one such example, but is not many for which we would risk our own life.

 

the number o' unarmed folks who is shot by cops yearly is relative small, and a significant number o' such victims is mental handicapped.  you gotta be very angry, very dumb or mental handicapped to attack a cop, so is not surprised that so many victims o' cops is indeed mental handicapped. we got much less sympathy for the fatally stoopid and terminally angry.  fleeing felon rule also makes numerous unarmed folks reasonable targets for police shooting.  

 

armed folks shot by cops?  that number is big.  is too big.  am thinking that cop training needs some changes.  any guy--white/black/latino/indian/whatever-- w/i 20 feet o' a cop who does not immediate release his 'weapon' when ordered to do so is considered an imminent threat  by most law enforcement agencies-- gotta pocket knife or a assault rifle not matter.  the training says that such a guy can be shot, and cops is trained to shoot center mass.  am realizing that cops is trained to act according to what they has been taught rather than to overthink a situation, so am not necessarily blaming individual cops. cops react according to how they were trained, and current training has 'em shooting at any possible threat.  so, if numbers comes outta his boudoir wearing pink robe and bunny slippers, he may get arrested if he argues, but if he is brandishing a butterknife and does not immediate drop it, police training ays that numbers should be put down.  am not certain we agree with that outcome.  we really gotta examine cop training if we wanna stop some o' these senseless tragedies.

 

'course we ain't talking 'bout socal shooting no more.  we are talking 'bout numbers ridiculous and implausible hypo.  with significant changes, we made the hypo more likely and more entertaining.  

 

*shrug*

 

hopeful things get back on track.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is no reason to feel guilty 'bout calling cops if you see suspicious activity.  calling cops 'bout suspicions is not a violation o' anybody's civil liberties.  "worst case" is not numbers hypo but rather another san bernardino shooting that mighta' been avoided if neighbors had said something to cops.  cant or other nosy neighbors ain't gonna violate any fundamental rights by calling with concerns and letting police/law enforcement handle.  we spend much time in airports and we actual feel guilty 'bout a couple situations wherein we were too busy to report minor suspicious behavior.  am having a hard time imaging how guilty we would feel if one o' our ignored opportunities had led to genuine tragedy.  some innocent guy gets pulled outta boarding line 'cause Gromnir were over-sensitive.  yeah, that sucks.  plane blows up over scranton pennsylvania 'cause we didn't say nothing...

Edited December 6, 2015 by Gromnir

[Barothmuk]

\Extremism ove ranything is bad. PERIOD.

That's a rather extreme opinion.

[ktchong]

If it looks suspicious, better safe than sorry. It's a Homeland Security slogan : "If you see something, say something", then they threaten to prosecute you if you do: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/loretta-lynch-muslim-group-doj-investigate-arrest-clock-boy-ahmed/

 

Actually, liberals (which  I used to consider myself as one) are starting to have a backlash against "regressive liberals" who are Islam apologists - the "liberals" who would sacrifice and compromise liberal principles to defer to Islam:

 

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by ktchong

[Blarghagh]

What kind of guy is a volunteer mod?  Someone who likes an orderly society? 

Judging by our roster I'm not entirely convinced of that.

[Meshugger]

FBI baffoonery aside, this article gives a good insight on the upbringing, mind and ideas of the radicalisation of a teenage jihadist.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/nicolasmedinamora/did-the-fbi-transform-this-teenager-into-a-terrorist#.ggkpW1DW5

[HoonDing]

"Ahmed the Clock Boy"

 

just read up on this

 

hilarious