-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
SWAT standoff in Billerica
- Thread starter abomb60
- Start date
- Status
There is no making you people happy, no one got shot or roughed up. No dogs got shot. Situation resolved peacefully. People still all waaaaaaaarrrrrgle.
Maybe swat was overkill, hindsight being 20/20 it turned out to be a BB gun but the information at the time is what it was.
Maybe swat was overkill, hindsight being 20/20 it turned out to be a BB gun but the information at the time is what it was.
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
You're missing the point. He didn't just refuse to speak--he refused to have any interaction that would dispell the accusations against him and took active measures to against doing so, to include holing himself up in his house.
Sure, there's nothing illegal per se about doing that, but don't be surprised when people think your actions suggest consciousness of guilt.
On that narrow point, would one be more likely to "hole up" / not respond if innocent or guilty? Say a SWAT team rolled up on your house right now. Would you go out and say hi? Some might, some might not. If I trusted the law to be fair and just, while also trusting the police to apply that law appropriately then I would trust my innocence to protect me from getting my dog shot, myself shot (or beaten or maimed), etc. As it is, any interaction with police carries risk, regardless of innocence, and an interaction with a SWAT team is taking that risk to another level. So, it's perfectly understandable to me why an innocent man would be hesitant to open the door. And, therefore, I don't see that reaction (or lack thereof) to be indicative of guilt at all.
DrRansom
Instructor
lol. don't agree with me == irrational. point that out in front of others == trolling.
maybe when i get to a thousand posts, i'll have been around long enough to not be a troll, eh?
You and TReischl are like little fudd peas in a little fudd pod.
The SWAT team didn't just "roll up to his house". He shot at his neighbor's house and the Billerica police showed up. He then holed up in his house instead of talking to them. THEN SWAT showed up, and he talked to SWAT.
- - - Updated - - -
lol. don't agree with me == irrational. point that out in front of others == trolling.
maybe when i get to a thousand posts, i'll have been around long enough to not be a troll, eh?
You and TReischl are like little fudd peas in a little fudd pod.
Keep following the sheep, troll.
I don't have any desire to argue with you, but I'll just point out that I began my post with "on that narrow point" -- i.e., the question of whether not talking or opening the door can be judged reasonably to indicate guilt.
lol. don't agree with me == irrational. point that out in front of others == trolling.
maybe when i get to a thousand posts, i'll have been around long enough to not be a troll, eh?
You and TReischl are like little fudd peas in a little fudd pod.
WOW! Haven't made a post since like 8:30 this morning, and this dude is raving about me almost 6 hours later? Fudd? Really? Like to label people? Is THAT what you do? Is that all you got? Pitiful....just pitiful, go play with the girls, sheesh.
Sorry, that wasn't fair to the girls, then they would have to slap him down.
Last edited:
Your "narrow point" was followed by a broad question and example. SWAT rolling up to your house is much different than an officer knocking at your door.
Someone tossed in a definition of Anarchy a while back, here is how Merriam-Webster defines it:
And here is how Merriam-Webster defines Anarchist:
Thought I would just toss those in here, so everyone knows how the word CAN be understood and used.
And here is how Merriam-Webster defines Anarchist:
Thought I would just toss those in here, so everyone knows how the word CAN be understood and used.
So what we have here is:
This:
"Nanny nanny boo boo"
Plus This:
"Ve have ways to make you talk and ve vill use them eef necessary"
Equals This:
OMFG
Thank god you guys are all safe and warmy in Billerica...Whew!
This:
"Nanny nanny boo boo"
Plus This:
"Ve have ways to make you talk and ve vill use them eef necessary"
Equals This:
OMFG
Thank god you guys are all safe and warmy in Billerica...Whew!
Those definitions don't describe anyone in this thread or anything they are advocating. No one here wants no government or no authority. No one here is wanting to rebel against any and all authority. People are advocating abolishing an unconstitutional government so that proper order may be restored.
- - - Updated - - -
Poopy Pants.![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
The government is unconstitutional? Just how do you figure that? The government we have is established by the constitution.
Thank you Merriam Webster...By the way - you dropped your bankie...
You need to read the constitution, it provided for the government to grow as the country grew. You may have missed the part where the constitution grants congress the power to make laws. It also allows states to make laws.
That said, I would agree that a lot of things have gotten out of hand, but the government unconstitutional? no F***ing way. Have certain parts of the government overstepped their authority under the const.? Yup. But it is up to us, the people, to remove those people, not remove the entire government, and install a "proper" government. It appears to me that you would like to rewrite the constitution, is that the case?
Do you honestly think that's true? I think the majority of people just like being taken care of.
Yeah - that's what's happening. Nice to be called out by the CEO of Full Retard Inc...Carry on Mr. President...
Actually, it does mean they are the law of the land, until such time as they are challenged in court and a determination is made, it it is called checks and balances. You may not like it, but it is the way our country works.
Governments have ALWAYS been for themselves! It is called "power". As for the media, what would you like to do? Create a law that forces them to do what? What happens to the 1st Ammendment? Or should the taxpayer be forced to fund some kind of government channel that is "fair and balanced"?
Nope, I do not want you or anyone else "modifying" or "rewording" the constitution. Here is why: Once that starts, who says that the libtards you so despise will not reword our Bill of Rights?
Further, the "movements" you spoke of above may or may not have been shut out by "the media". Even so, it is THEIR constitutional right to do so. Some of the folks on this forum only view constitutional rights as they pertain to themselves, never from the viewpoint of everyone else in this country. They quickly label them "sheeple" as if they should not have a say, or a vote. Too bad, so sad, that is the way OUR country works, even the "sheeple" get to vote, and if you do not like it, find a different country, but you certainly have no right to dismantle the constitution and rewrite it to your own narrow purposes in the belief that YOU and a relatively small group of individuals have the perfect solution for about 300 million other people.
I give them out when someone feels the need to be insulting or acts like a child.
ANARCHY FOR ALL! We don't need no stinkin' cops. Shoot the hell out of your neighbor's house.
Right. You're not just the Full Retard Club President, you're also a client.
Boo Hoo. I got a neg rep.
Please.....
Point out where I have ever called for anarchy? Please. Keep trolling prez..
So you think it's rational for the police to respond to a complaint of a man shooting at a woman's house, after making threatening gestures? You think it's rational to to call SWAT if said man retreats to his house and refuses to come explain his shooting to the police?
I'm glad we agree. There are those here who think the matter should just have been handled between the neighbors.
After you get 50,000 positive reps, you can turn them in for a stuffed teddy bear, of your color choice.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
I just discovered this site today, i think most have been used in this thread...
you don't think the .mil should be used against citizens= ANARCHY
Well, actually, there are those here who think this is a PRIME example of why we should dismantle the entire Federal government, install a new one, and go to work on rewording the Constitution of the United States.
But! Make no mistake about it, they are NOT anarchists, no sir!
And I agree, they are NOT anarchists, they are UTOPIANS!
Never really imagined Utopia as a place where everyone needed to be armed though ::::scratching head::::::
Last edited:
Who said anything about .mil?
- Status
Similar threads
