Are we becoming a police state?

[redhen]

Quote:
Too true! I have worked with Alzheimers/dementia patients for many many years. And although i LOVED working with them the most.... man.. they have knocked me on my butt a time or 2 and i've gotten punched i cant even remember how many times..
Taught me how to take a punch though..

The police were called there for a reason...

One memorable moment when I was working at the group home (a group home for developmentally disabled adults) - our oldest resident, in her late 70s, attempted to sneak an entire pie to her room one night. This was a problem because she was diabetic. When I attempted to stop her and take the pie away from her, she shoved me hard enough with her walker to knock me back. It took me and the other house manager and some quick thinking to get that pie away from her without any of us getting hurt.

Never underestimate an elderly person on a mission.

OOh yeah..i can tell ya some stories..

Sweet little Italian lady... had alzheimers. Carried around a baby doll.. (thought it was one of her children).
Man.. if you EVEN tried to touch that baby... (to do care on her.. bathe her..etc..).... that lady would whip your butt all over the place. And she was STRONG! KInda embarrsing to have 90 yr old lady be able to take you down!

Then there was this SHORT little old man with a wooden cane... he main goal was to ESCAPE that place... windows..... one CNA tried to stop him from getting out a window. ( WHY they had an alzheimers unit on the second floor with accesable windows, is another rant..).... anyways... he beat the crap out of her with that cane... she was cornered in the shower room with him, where he was trying to get out of the window. Anyways...if i remember correctly, he broke her arm and a rib.... something like that. And he was TINY... shorter than me, And i'm only 5'2...

 

[gritsar]

Quote:
One memorable moment when I was working at the group home (a group home for developmentally disabled adults) - our oldest resident, in her late 70s, attempted to sneak an entire pie to her room one night. This was a problem because she was diabetic. When I attempted to stop her and take the pie away from her, she shoved me hard enough with her walker to knock me back. It took me and the other house manager and some quick thinking to get that pie away from her without any of us getting hurt.

Never underestimate an elderly person on a mission.

OOh yeah..i can tell ya some stories..

Sweet little Italian lady... had alzheimers. Carried around a baby doll.. (thought it was one of her children).
Man.. if you EVEN tried to touch that baby... (to do care on her.. bathe her..etc..).... that lady would whip your butt all over the place. And she was STRONG! KInda embarrsing to have 90 yr old lady be able to take you down!

Then there was this SHORT little old man with a wooden cane... he main goal was to ESCAPE that place... windows..... one CNA tried to stop him from getting out a window. ( WHY they had an alzheimers unit on the second floor with accesable windows, is another rant..).... anyways... he beat the crap out of her with that cane... she was cornered in the shower room with him, where he was trying to get out of the window. Anyways...if i remember correctly, he broke her arm and a rib.... something like that. And he was TINY... shorter than me, And i'm only 5'2...

Any LEO will tell you, mental illness frequently gives an individual super-human strength. Dangerous situations for everyone involved. There's a reason they put heavy duty locks on the house managers bedroom door at the group home.

 

[bucky52]

yes.my husband preaches it all the time.

 

[ivan3]

Police State: 1.A totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

Not so's you'd notice. Nothing very secret about it...

No, the current situation is not the result of conspiracy and Big Government (though the malignancy spreads nicely, don't you think?), it is purely a bottom up/voter driven phenomenon that has at its evil root nothing more than fear. The War on Some Drugs and the War on `terror' (both, mind you, DEMANDED, by the voter) have created a nasty mix that results in innocent citizens feeling guilty for buying cold medicine (occasionally eating a bullet meant for someone else: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/ ) and then submitting to a grope and feel before catching their flight.

I rarely agree with Justice Thomas, but his dissent, in Gonzales V. Raich, is spot on:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Respondents' local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents' conduct, however, is not "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" Congress' restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents' conduct.

In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general "police power" over the Nation. 514 U. S., at 584, 600 (concurring opinion). This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause. When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson's home, they seized six cannabis plants. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers--as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause--have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring).

The substantial effects test is easily manipulated for another reason. This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U. S., at 613 ("[T]hus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature" (emphasis added)); Lopez, supra, at 560. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the " 'the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.' "7 Ante, at 23 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966) (hereinafter Webster's 3d). This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 8-9 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1454#opinion1

`illiberty' brought to you by a fear of a substance that has no history of killing a single human being unless, of course, one is swung off into eternity from a twisted length of the fibers of the plant - enjoy the ride...​

 

[33yardbirds]

BECOMING?? Your a little late.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Semi-auto weapons are entirely capable of firing massive amounts of bullets in a short time. I'd guess that the SWAT team was probably equipped with a couple of AR-15s, and a few MP5 submachine guns, in addition to sidearms. Both of those weapons can fire extremely quickly, even without full auto - I've used an AR-15 before. I've also used a 9mm handgun, and a full-sized MP5 would be even easier to fire quickly, even on semi-auto. Full auto is 800 rounds per minute.

BTW, though, only about 21 of the shots hit, putting this particular SWAT team's marksmanship about on par with Imperial Stormtroopers.

If Guenera had intended to shoot on sight, he would have had the safety off and would have been in a much more strategic position. He was a former Marine, after all. Want to know why the SWAT team fired? The lead guy slipped and they thought he'd been shot, never mind the complete absence of any gunfire before that - and last time I checked, an AR-15 was pretty loud even with something over one's ears. "Oops" is not an acceptable excuse when a man is killed. I've seen the helmet cam video (taken from a SWAT member still inside the vehicle), so I can safely say that the SWAT team never clearly announced who they were. Sequence of events: the team gathers around the door. A few seconds later, they kick in the door. Few more seconds and you can barely see a guy slip, then they all start spraying bullets. I'll see if I can find the video for you.

If they were on full auto then 21 was pretty good. That's why the Army switched over to 3 round burst. After 3 rounds you are up and to the right. I've never seen anyone hold a full auto on target. At least not in the Army.

I don't believe the ARs were full auto - I don't know a whole lot about SWAT tactics, but I'm fairly sure that the rifles are typically semi-auto. MP5s, not sure. I know I saw AR-15s in the helmet cam video - I'll double-check it and post a link.

 

[Q9]

Here's the video - I think I also saw a shotgun. No MP5s, and it sounds like semi-auto.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Note that the "siren" sounds exactly like a car alarm, and that not once do you hear anyone yell "POLICE!" You do hear a guy say "Bang, bang, bang," though. Who knows what that's supposed to mean.

 

[Q9]

Found this article entirely by accident. It's older, but it's scary. You guys want bipartisanship? Here you go.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory117.html

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Mencken

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Ivan said:

Police State: 1.A totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

Not so's you'd notice. Nothing very secret about it...

No, the current situation is not the result of conspiracy and Big Government (though the malignancy spreads nicely, don't you think?), it is purely a bottom up/voter driven phenomenon that has at its evil root nothing more than fear. The War on Some Drugs and the War on `terror' (both, mind you, DEMANDED, by the voter) have created a nasty mix that results in innocent citizens feeling guilty for buying cold medicine (occasionally eating a bullet meant for someone else: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/ ) and then submitting to a grope and feel before catching their flight.

I had to comment on this - I agree with one very serious caveat! Much of this "demand" was created by fomenting a sense of fear in people. There is good work done out there studying media coverage of various events since 9/11 and it is clear that the media has played a very large role in creating the sense of fear that created the so-called demand from the people for protection. How do you get people to willingly give away their rights? Make them afraid enough of freedom that prison seems safer.​

 

[vanilla.exe]

It's all a chess game and we're the pawns. Be careful what you say online though, it can get you into trouble.