Soju

And the tap out.

Again, I did not suggest you did anything. I simply posted my views, in response, to your post. But as you said in your post, "you apparently seem", you are suggesting I said something I did not. I don't think that cops break more laws per capita. Could you indicate where I suggested that? Because I didn't. What I did suggest is that cops get away with more violations of the law than others. Actually, not just cops, but lawmakers (ie. politicians, government) as well.

"Quick quick! I have no legitimate point, so deflect! Deflect! Umm.....make some quip about wearing tin foil hats to redirect! Yeah, that should do it! Maybe people will get caught up on that and forget about facts!" So to some up: BlueLineFish & KpdPipes argument tactics: 1. Write in crayon 2. Make quips about tin foil hats or something 3. Repeat #2. 4. Post incorrect assumptions as if they are facts. 5. Ignore actual facts. 6. Refuse to acknowledge the oppositions points. 7. Repeat above steps in random order.

Who enforces laws? Those with guns. Who seemingly gets away with more and more violations of laws? Those with badges and guns. Rule of law holds no meaning unless there is a means to enforce them. So if those who have the power, have the authority, and have the guns, are also the ones making bad laws, what is your recourse, other than to match them with arms? So how does this "rule of law" work without "not who has the guns"?

So basically you are saying, as long as you don't have the money, it is okay to not follow the law. Cool. I suppose I don't have to register my vehicle, pay any traffic fines, pay taxes, etc, if I don't have the money. That seems fair. But I digress. And I'll type this is Times New Roman so it doesn't look like a 5-year-old is saying it. THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOVE IT AND THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY. So they don't have money to be able to file a small amount of paperwork within the month timeframe as outlined in law, but they have money for... http://www.utsandieg...police-vehicle/ That is a $250k armored vehicle with a $2700 maintenance cost a year. But have no problem allowing them to use and I know it is different, but wait! http://www.miaminewt...ady-for-action/ Miami-Dade police already got approval to use them... http://www.click2hou...ez/-/index.html And Houston... So much for that too much liability theory.

Probably because my logic is the opposite of what you are saying.

The only threats DHS makes public are the 'threats' they themselves made up, in order to force these restrictions and procedures that Shane is talking about on us. If they didn't, there shenanigans would be more transparent. That isn't to say it isn't already, but obviously some people still have their blinders on. I see where I went wrong Shane. I was operating under the assumption we were both talking about real threats, and real problems, and not that you just believe everything that DHS and other government agencies tell you. I on the other hand, believe what I see and confirm. I'm glad you absorbed their whole report so well. The non-credible threats you refer to, are from people like me, and you in fact, as a gun owner. You lost me there. It seems you confused yourself too. As you were quick to jump on earlier (even though it wasn't what I said, but I digress), there is a difference between things. Those things in this case mainly being, the government and their control and power, and individual freedom. I have the right to be able to protect myself. You have the same right, as does Billy Bob and Suzy Mae. And if I want the governments help, I'll ask them. But because they are the government, doesn't mean they can do whatever the heck they want. It is clear your view on government and my view on government are opposites. I posted the definitions of both the word 'credible' and the word 'threat'. Your confusion on what they mean is not my problem on your inability to properly express what you meant. Don't take things the wrong way, I can only respond to what you say. If that is different than what you mean, it makes it quite hard to distinguish online...

Hopefully I would have shot them first. Based on the video shown, if you didn't know these guys were supposedly cops, it would look like a home invasion and a murder. So had I been in said situation, would have treated it that way. I know you said it was a joke, but often times things said in jest are merely a masking of a harsh truth. To put it simply, a truth put lightly. Is this the case? Not sure. But there is no sense ignoring what we have just because it might not be everything. I'll try not and miss-characterize his character if you agree to do the same, as well as not miss-characterize my post. I am not saying you did so intentionally, I think you just misinterpreted what I meant. I read your post, and never took anything you said to mean it justified the killing of the individual. I was referring to the fact they DID kill him. It was a statement of fact rather than a justification for it. I apologize if it seemed contrary. Often times the intended tone of a post comes off differently to the reader than from the writer.

I'm confused what you guys are trying to do right now. This wasn't even the debate to begin with. Your debate was that this was a standard procedure and due to the size of the event justified. I can at least understand that, though I may not agree. But now you are arguing something different, that is also not the reason you gave, or DHS would argue. Because what DHS said themselves, is that there is NO CREDIBLE THREAT! They didn't say there was no specific plot. They said there was no credible threat. Credible: Capable of being believed; plausible; believable, of sufficient capability. Threat: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage. So if they did not believe that it was even plausible for there to be an intention of causing injury or damage, why would they need any additional precautions? Sure, there doesn't mean there couldn't possibly be a threat. But that threat is admittedly not there. There probably isn't a threat that someone is going to attack my office, but that doesn't mean there couldn't maybe be one. I'm not going to hire a sniper to sit across the street and scan it the whole day. I'm not saying there is no need for any precautions, but extra, excessive, non practical ones? Nope. No need. None. Why must you continually try and make up stuff to justify a point, that doesn't need to be justified further...

I hope this isn't the other side. Because being a "suspicious" person and not engaging in a conversation with police is not a crime, doesn't allow police to break into your home, and certainly doesn't give them the right to kill you. I sure hope there is another side then this, because that still makes it sound like murder (in addition to a number of other things). Shy of the guys who chased and shot him having seen him murder, assault, or commit another violent crime on someone or themselves, I am having a difficult time envisioning a scenario that justifies what happened. I sure hope there is though.

I did some research myself, and like you, also failed to find anything else. The lack of details and lack of any mention makes this seem fishy to me.

True. Unless I am mistaken, they is called exigent circumstances. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means: An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

They mentioned that. I quoted that. But I can quote it again for your viewing pleasure. Straight from DHS that is.

If your only defense or evidence on your position is a quip about a tinfoil hat, you probably don't have much. Try using real points when you attack someones position. Thank you. To be clear, I am not arguing with or against you, just making an observation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkEE5FTeSg8&feature=related http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/fatal-shooting-unarmed-bronx-teen-cops-conjures-amadou-diallo-shooting-galvanizes-a-community-article-1.1018075 No search warrant. Not armed. Broke into a home. Lied about seeing a gun. Sounds like murder to me?

Well that was much easier now wasn't it. It was clear to both of us we disagreed on the issue. I got that. I was trying to find out why you disagreed, which is why I made comparisons and asked those questions. You seemed reluctant to answer and in fact deflected and avoided. I wasn't sure why, as you last post did well in explaining to me your views. Two things still. You still avoided my initial questions. I take issue with this statement. "This topic is simply to large for the focus of this discussion." That issue, IS the issue. It isn't too large for any discussion. To avoid discussing it is an avoidance of the entire issue. Your agreement with me is not a requirement for the discussion. I'll say this. I understand not everybody is going to agree with what I say. That is why I take part in these discussions, and these debates. I want to see why people disagree. There is often another side to things I may have overlooked or not thought of. Sometimes in these discussions, my opinion is strengthened. Sometimes I actually have a change of opinion. That is why we have them. It helps both sides be more informed and enlightened. To avoid them and ignore talking about controversial things is detrimental to everybody.

Hannah? Is that you?

I'm going to tread cautiously, because I think I may not be understanding your intent properly. If you mean by saying I am heading down a path sarcastically I am saying the opposite, then yes, you are correct. I don't think anything should be done for the 'greater good'. That is usually an excuse to take away liberties. To your comment about not being applicable, I am not going to argue with your view on why it isn't, but rather I will ask you a question. Who determines what is a "qualifying" event? Who determines what is "standard procedure"? If those "standard procedures" violate peoples liberties, or violate state or federal law, are they still ok? I'll give you an example you may be familiar with. It is real. There is a lawsuit in relation to it. It deals with firearms, and NJ. There are many threads on this forum about it. Are the NJ State Police 'standard procedures' that are mentioned when handling FPID applications in 'The Guide', that are known to violate the NJ Statues, ok? After all, they are standard procedures. So good or no? Well actually... "So if the procedure was to periodically to enter and inspect public businesses, for terrorists, that would be ok too then? " "That is fine then right? " I didn't get an answer, even if as simple as a yes or no, so how did you not ignore that...

I think people get confused about what this means. Here is the correct, NJ translation

Also, combat zone tax exemption.

You still failed to comprehend my post, so I have edited it for you. In fact, I realized as soon as I wrote "door to door" that you would say what you are saying, which is why I corrected it. And then mentioned it a second time. You failed to comprehend that. You then go on this rant about the difference between a private home and public place, contrary to me talking about other public places as reason to assert how what you said doesn't apply. So if you want to think I was applying what you said to private homes, okay. Now I am applying it to public businesses. Again, using what YOU said. So if the procedure was to periodically to enter and inspect public businesses, for terrorists, that would be ok too then? I mean, it is just procedure. Just because there is "no credible threat" (you know, what they said), doesn't mean THERE IS NO THREAT (what you said). That is fine then right? It is as "simple as that". I am finding it increasingly more difficult to try and discuss things with people when they ignore their own posts, and try and divert and deflect...which I'm sure you will do again. 3.2.1...

I think a better comparison would be to them flying VFR when they can't see anything that isn't below them. I bet lots of pilots are going to be filing lots of HATR's... +1000

Well, income that would ordinarily be taxed, but it wasn't...because I'm special...

75% of my taxable income was tax free this year, down from 100% last year. Fortunately that value was low enough that I am getting all I was taxed back. Four years in a row with a net of $0 paid in income tax.