I Nearly Lost It On FaceBook.

[10Seconds]

You people arguing for these searches being legal clearly feel that then ends justify the means in this case. But that is not a constitutional standard.

I thought about this before. I would not consent to a search. I know I am not harboring anyone but I do not want a bunch of adrenaline-hype up cops in my home.

 

[jcizzle]

WOW! Very disappointing how few there are willing to stand for the principles this country was founded on. Sheeple!

JC, I'm with you. The video you posted makes me sick. Shared the same video on facebook earlier this morning.

On another note, do you remember helping a guy in a black SUV with a flat tire in the snow about 6 years ago in Edmond? I still owe you one for the help. Give me a yell if you need anything.

Heyyy, I actually do remember that. Must be that I haven't helped many people in the last 6 years so it sticks out in my mind. You owe me nothing. (unless you are looking to give away a nice handgun).

 

[jcizzle]

So, by all accounts and excuses given for this. It's because they thought him to be an imminent threat to do more killing and possibly have explosives planted around or on him. If he was in one of those houses, wouldn't the agression used in the evacuation and searches have probably caused him to detonate?

If not, why didn't they take the same "barge forward" approach once they knew where he was. They knew it was a fat chance he was in an occupied house. It was a show.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

You people arguing for these searches being legal clearly feel that then ends justify the means in this case. But that is not a constitutional standard.

I thought about this before. I would not consent to a search. I know I am not harboring anyone but I do not want a bunch of adrenaline-hype up cops in my home.

I haven't stated it to be legal, just that it was a logical course for that particular situation.

We do the same thing in Afghan, works well over there.

 

[caojyn]

I haven't stated it to be legal, just that it was a logical course for that particular situation.

We do the same thing in Afghan, works well over there.

then we should have just drone struck the area and been done with it.

If we're so worried as to allow/accept the violation and suspension of our American Rights, and so afraid of the big bad t-t-t-ttterrorist boogieman that we allow/accept wartime tactics to be in place in the United States then the Constitution really is dead.

 

[caojyn]

This was not the police state in action, this was a real search for a known killer and not just a normal murderer but a terrorist. Like I said, this is just fear and paranoia. It is also playing into the far lefts hands. I would also bet the founding fathers would have sided with the police doing the searches for this guy.

There is a fine line but I do not believe this crossed it.

”They who can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” Ben Franklin

yep I bet old Ben Franklin would have sided with them

 

[10Seconds]

I haven't stated it to be legal, just that it was a logical course for that particular situation.

We do the same thing in Afghan, works well over there.

I have no problem doing it in Afghanistan but there is a difference when we are at war and the targets are not American citizens protected by the constitution.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

I have no problem doing it in Afghanistan but there is a difference when we are at war and the targets are not American citizens protected by the constitution.

In other words, despite all men being created equal, these "god" given, undoubtedly inalienable rights, only apply to those who a born on a certain continent or apply for the certificate?

 

[caojyn]

In other words, despite all men being created equal, these "god" given, undoubtedly inalienable rights, only apply to those who a born on a certain continent or apply for the certificate?

You're confusing our natural/god given rights and our social contractual rights as Americans. Natural rights belong to everyone that is alive (life, liberty, property/happiness). People all over the globe have these rights. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights and other amendments are ours as part of the Social Contract our founding fathers agreed to, and do not belong to anyone other than Americans. That is why if the government denies us our rights (breach of contract) we have the right/obligation to overthrow the government.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

You're confusing our natural/god given rights and our social contractual rights as Americans. Natural rights belong to everyone that is alive (life, liberty, property/happiness). People all over the globe have these rights. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights and other amendments are ours as part of the Social Contract our founding fathers agreed to, and do not belong to anyone other than Americans. That is why if the government denies us our rights (breach of contract) we have the right/obligation to overthrow the government.

So you're stating the right to defend and express yourself aren't god given inalienable rights?