Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams

[Will E Worm]

Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams

Watch as police order people of out their homes at gunpoint, without a warrant, and then search the residences.

Article

The new 'normal' in police state America: SWAT teams order innocent Americans out of their homes at gunpoint

In a police state, citizens have no rights and can be ordered around at the whims of a militarized police force whose goons run around in black uniforms, terrorizing the populace. Welcome to Boston, 2013. The police state is running wild in this city, and it has reached the point where innocent families are being ordered out of their own homes by screaming, aggressive, 'roid-head SWAT teams armed with overwhelming firepower.

This is what has emerged from a secret YouTube video that had to be covertly filmed while ducking behind a window.

But this was only the beginning of the police state action. In a desperate manhunt for the suspects involved in the Boston marathon bombing, Boston police rolled down neighborhood streets in armored assault vehicles, aiming guns directly at citizens and completely abandoning every applicable provision of the Bill of Rights

As this one photo shows, one member of the local police aims his M4 rifle directly at the homeowner taking the photo from a second-story window:

This was all done under the justification of "exigent circumstances," which means, according to the police, that the government can ignore ALL laws and ALL due process and simply do whatever it wants.

If the police wanted to loot all your jewelry, steal your car and rape your cat, they could have gotten away with it by claiming "exigent circumstances."

The media reported that all these searches were "voluntary," but the truth is that this is raw tyranny, unfolding right here in America, where the government does whatever it wants because it has all the guns and the population is completely defenseless to say "No!" (And with this in mind, the government now wants everybody across the country to be completely defenseless and disarmed!)


Why Bostonites welcome police state tyranny
Of course, these people who live in Watertown, Massachusetts love to live under police state tyranny. They hate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and personal privacy. They hate private citizens owning guns to defend themselves, and they love to see ultra-militarized police pointing guns at them and ordering them out of their homes.


That makes them feel "secure." As long as the government has all the guns, it's all okay, you see: breaking an entering, kidnapping of homeowners, the threat of the use of violence against those who refuse to comply... these are all signs of "security," according to Bostonites.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg couldn't agree more. In a frightening statement that seems yanked right out of "1984," Bloomberg now says the interpretation of the Constitution will "have to change" to allow for more security and less privacy:

We live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

Keep in mind that Bloomberg surrounds himself with armed guards when he's out in public, but he doesn't believe in your right to defend yourself with armaments. It's just one small example of the runaway hypocrisy being shoveled at the highest levels of government.


"Lockdown" means martial law
During all this, the city of Boston was in an undeclared state of martial law. The government tried to put a nice-sounding spin on it by calling it a "lockdown" that urged residents to "shelter in place." What they didn't explain, however, is that anyone who refused to comply could be arrested, detained and interrogated.

Remarkably, the local residents complied! Hiding in their homes, shivering with raw fear, 400,000+ Bostonites were scared out of their minds by one armed teenager! So they let the police take away all their rights and turn their city into a Constitution-free zone.

They probably loved it, too, as some can be seen on local news reports worshipping the police and thanking them for trampling all over their rights and freedoms.

Why not just bow down and lick their paramilitary boots? Why not launch a new "Church of Government" and perform worship services every Sunday that depict the local police as gods?

These people are beyond pathetic. They are the antithesis of what America was founded on. They are, literally, anti-Americans.

And it's not surprising that they were harboring a couple of terrorists, too. They were popular guys, partying with the locals and reportedly having a lot of local friends. That's not surprising because terrorists and socialists go hand in hand. They agree on almost everything: freedom is bad, killing people is good, and the rules and laws don't matter. Both terrorists and socialists agree that carrying out their agenda is far more important than abiding by any laws, rules or "rights" of citizens.

So I'm actually not surprised the Tsarnaev brothers were recruited and trained in Boston. It's hard to think of a better example of a city where the people are just begging to be overrun by violence in one form or another.


What happens when "exigent circumstances" goes national?
There's a bigger question in all this, by the way: What happens during an economic collapse or larger-scale event that impacts the entire nation? Does the federal government just declare "exigent circumstances" on a nationwide basis, then start yanking families out of their homes anywhere it wants?

Is this proclamation -- "exigent circumstances" -- supposed to magically nullify all laws, rules, due process and rights of private citizens? Because it DOESN'T. The Constitution does not become null and void solely because a bunch of armed goons are chasing down one armed teenager. The Fourth Amendment is not nullified just because a bunch of people (allegedly) got their legs blown off by some mad bomber.

The government cannot pick and choose when the Constitution applies, yet with each passing day that spineless people like those in Boston roll over and let the police state bully them around at gunpoint, our freedoms erode just a little bit more.

That's exactly what people like Bloomberg, Biden and Obama really want, of course. And that's why the more bombings occur, the more government grabs power and turns the citizens into slaves.

Article


All unconstitutional. :nono:

Even without the Constitution this would be wrong.
No one has the right to order anything like this.

 

[xfire]

Way to root for the bombers, Asshat. Not surprising considering your hopes for mass murder and crime.

 

[Will E Worm]

Way to root for the bombers, Asshat. Not surprising considering your hopes for mass murder and crime.

Why do you love Fascism?

 

[xfire]

Why do you love Fascism?

I don't. How would you suggest they conducted the hunt for the bomber?

 

[Will E Worm]

I don't. How would you suggest they conducted the hunt for the bomber?

You do. They don't have the right to order people at gunpoint out of their homes and conduct illegal and unconstitutional searches.

Fourth Amendment for example.

 

[xfire]

They don't have the right to order people at gunpoint out of their homes and conduct illegal and unconstitutional searches. Fourth Amendment for example.

Again, how do you suggest they should have handled to search? I haven't heard anyone from Boston complain about how the search was conducted. Explain what you would have done if you had been a resident and the cops knocked on your door.

 

[Johan]

Again, how do you suggest they should have handled to search? I haven't heard anyone from Boston complain about how the search was conducted. Explain what you would have done if you had been a resident and the cops knocked on your door.

He would have gathered and load all his guns, and would have shot everything that would have passed his doorway. :ak47:
Or maybe he would have hide in a closet and wait, shitting his pants as he would have hoped not to be found...:lurk:

 

[xfire]

He would have gathered and load all his guns, and would have shot everything that would have passed his doorway.
Or maybe he would have hide in a closet and wait, shitting his pants as he would have hoped not to be found...

People like Worm are too stupid to understand that the police were doing their job, not trying to take away anyone's rights. If the cops were just going around ordering people out of their homes on a normal day, without extraordinary circumstances, I could understand why these fruitcakes might be protesting.

 

[Elwood70]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/boston/milkdelivery.asp

 

[eric2136]

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Ben Franklin

http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/Quotes.html


Democratic constitutional rights represent the protections of the interests of the common man (99% of all people). The superwealthy controllers of the military industrial complex have no use for it and will always try to find ways to destroy it so as to grant themselves ultimate power and control of the masses.

The hegelian dialectical (http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm) approach is the favorite tool of facist government entities because it is extremely effective, and thus has and will repeatedly be used to generate fear within the masses so that the military industrial complex may subvert all human rights and destroy the constitution for good.

Under Obama, the military industrial complex will not likely try to seize full power over the nation, but this bombing plot is a test for their ability to institute and utilize military police state powers. Once Obama is gone, they will try harder to extend this police power over the entire nation be creating the necessary "exigent circumstances" for subversion.

Most people don't know what it means to live in a police state, but alot of people do, as one of those people who do, I strongly suggest you not take the point that the article makes lightly.

People get killed and die everyday. There is NEVER any reason to suspend constitutional rights because of it. In fact, at times of supposed terrorist attacks, Amercians constitutional rights should be protected even stronger by the government.

 

[Jagger69]

Wrong, Will, although I do admire your continued questioning and mistrust of those in authority.

It's called the "exigent circumstances" exclusion. Read about it here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm

I don't much like it either but when lives are at stake their protection has to be the utmost priority.

 

[xfire]

this bombing plot is a test for their ability to institute and utilize military police state powers

Proof?

 

[eric2136]

Proof?

What proof do you have that they did it other than some bogus sensationalist media coverage...they were easy marks that were either put up to it, or, more likely, hand-picked by the Feds to take the fall.
http://screen.yahoo.com/father-bombing-suspects-asks-proof-011123695.html

If you choose to beleive the media mouthpiece of the military industrial complex in identifying the suspects and their motives, then that's up to you. I'm not going to debate that because it's pointless.

In this situation it doesn't matter... as I said before, people get killed every day....some nerd kid goes on a shooting spree at his high school, some disgruntled employee goes postal because he got a bad job evaluation and blows up his bosses Escalade with his boss in it...shit happens, but it is NOT an excuse to suspend the Consititution, in any way, and, just because you're scared, allow the government to turn America into a militarized police state where no man has rights and is afraid to walk down his own streets.

 

[xfire]

What proof do you have that they did it other than some bogus sensationalist media coverage...they were easy marks that were either put up to it, or, more likely, hand-picked by the Feds to take the fall.
http://screen.yahoo.com/father-bombing-suspects-asks-proof-011123695.html

If you choose to beleive the media mouthpiece of the military industrial complex in identifying the suspects and their motives, then that's up to you. I'm not going to debate that because it's pointless.

In this situation it doesn't matter... as I said before, people get killed every day....some nerd kid goes on a shooting spree at his high school, some disgruntled employee goes postal because he got a bad job evaluation and blows up his bosses Escalade with his boss in it...shit happens, but it is NOT an excuse to suspend the Consititution, in any way, and, just because you're scared, allow the government to turn America into a militarized police state where no man has rights and is afraid to walk down his own streets.

So you don't believe these Tsarnaev brothers perpetrated the bombing? Let's be clear. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

What some people don't understand it's not the act in itself, it's the creation of a precedent. Today is the Boston bomber, tomorrow is a neighbor who called police stating that he saw you carrying something highly suspicious in the house. That's why there is a law which requires a warrant which summed to the right to equality before the law shouldn't even bring the hypothesis of a search without a warrant by anybody into discussion. I don't pay taxes for being searched in my property at gunpoint without a warrant. Don't forget that a warrant also serves as an identification and as an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the action to be taken and to just dismiss it as not necessary in certain matters from time to time simply breaks the equality before the law principle and it violates my rights which cops, paid with my taxes, sworn to protect.

I might be wrong, but i believe that if you trespass my property without a valid authorization (mine or of a warrant) i'm entitled to shoot you, in the US, and then i wonder what would happen if that was the case. How do i know that you are swats when i see you approaching my property at gun point? Just because you have rifles, machine guns and a black jacket with written swats on the back? That would be a good suggestion to criminals for a kidnapping plan or a robbery or something...dress like a swat and avoid a citizen's reaction and self defense. I don't think so.

 

[xfire]

What some people don't understand it's not the act in itself, it's the creation of a precedent. Today is the Boston bomber, tomorrow is a neighbor who called police stating that he saw you carrying something highly suspicious in the house. That's why there is a law which requires a warrant which summed to the right to equality before the law shouldn't even bring the hypothesis of a search without a warrant by anybody into discussion. I don't pay taxes for being searched in my property at gunpoint without a warrant. Don't forget that a warrant also serves as an identification and as an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the action to be taken and to just dismiss it as not necessary in certain matters from time to time simply breaks the equality before the law principle and it violates my rights which cops, paid with my taxes, sworn to protect.

I might be wrong, but i believe that if you trespass my property without a valid authorization (mine or of a warrant) i'm entitled to shoot you, in the US, and then i wonder what would happen if that was the case. How do i know that you are swats when i see you approaching my property at gun point? Just because you have rifles, machine guns and a black jacket with written swats on the back? That would be a good suggestion to criminals for a kidnapping plan or a robbery or something...dress like a swat and avoid a citizen's reaction and self defense. I don't think so.

The precedent was set a long time ago, but I agree with you under normal circumstances. I'll ask you the same thing I asked MP, since you disagree with how the manhunt was conducted, how do you suggest future manhunts of this nature be conducted?

 

[eric2136]

What some people don't understand it's not the act in itself, it's the creation of a precedent. Today is the Boston bomber, tomorrow is a neighbor who called police stating that he saw you carrying something highly suspicious in the house. That's why there is a law which requires a warrant which summed to the right to equality before the law shouldn't even bring the hypothesis of a search without a warrant by anybody into discussion. I don't pay taxes for being searched in my property at gunpoint without a warrant. Don't forget that a warrant also serves as an identification and as an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the action to be taken and to just dismiss it as not necessary in certain matters from time to time simply breaks the equality before the law principle and it violates my rights which cops, paid with my taxes, sworn to protect.

This.

 

[xfire]

This.

That is an uninformed opinion about a law that's been on the books for years, and it evades my direct question- how would you suggest future manhunts of this nature be conducted? Manhunts happen all the time, fortunately, not all fugitives throw bombs at the cops.

 

[Rey C.]

I might be wrong, but i believe that if you trespass my property without a valid authorization (mine or of a warrant) i'm entitled to shoot you, in the US, and then i wonder what would happen if that was the case.

I'm not aware of any state in the United States where can you shoot someone who is simply trespassing on your property. Under some castle doctrine laws (which are state based and not federal), if someone illegally enters your residence, that may be a different matter. But someone who simply comes on your property... no, you can't (legally) shoot them.

Like Xfire, I'd like some of the dissenters to answer the question about how they think this manhunt should have been conducted.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

The precedent was set a long time ago, but I agree with you under normal circumstances. I'll ask you the same thing I asked MP, since you disagree with how the manhunt was conducted, how do you suggest future manhunts of this nature be conducted?

Well, it's not my job and i don't have the competence to suggest how a manhunt of this nature should be conducted; i'm afraid that whatever i suggested could scream failure from any cardinal point. However, i can tell you what i would prefer for myself and what i would expect to be done, if i was the family in question: speakers outside of my property, if no bell available (i say this because houses in Europe are all fenced and you can find a bell to ring outside of the property) and tell me that someone is coming to my door to show me a warrant and identification and that the property is surrounded. At the end of the day, if i'm the terrorist or if i host the terrorist in my house, i or he are either going to surrender or start shooting either you come into my property at gunpoint or call me out to show me a warrant. Trespassing my property at gunpoint without a warrant doesn't seem to avoid fire back by a terrorist, to me, more than asking for cooperation in advance from the outside of my property.