Deadly force

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 07:29
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
44,863
The agents who conducted the raid on Mar-a-Lago were authorized to use deadly force. How was that supposed to work? Start a showdown between the FBI and the Secret Service? Who thought that was necessary and why would a judge ever sign off on the concept?

Defund the FBI.
 
From the FBI statement rebutting that sensationalist nonsense that this was a special case: "The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force." ... “No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter" (Don't they carry guns in every raid? What happens if someone resists and they have guns?)
Dump tRump
 
From the FBI statement rebutting that sensationalist nonsense that this was a special case: "The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force." ... “No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter" (Don't they carry guns in every raid? What happens if someone resists and they have guns?)
Dump tRump

The whole raid was ridiculous and should never have happened. The warrant was flawed as it authorized them to look at everywhere, rather than just where they believed documents were stored.

Many things the FBI does standard are ridiculous, and shouldnt' have happened. Your argument that it was the norm means nothing.

The FBI also stormed the home with tanks and swat gear of the woman accused of selling coupons online in Phoenix. Does that make it 'normal' ?

Right now you love the 'norm', but if the American police shoots someone, you'll say it's awful, right? So why does the norm happen?
 
Question:
How did the FBI search through all of these documents to find ~10 to put "TOP SECRET" cover sheets on? How long did they look? Did those agents have top-secret clearance?

Answer:
Stop noticing ;)
 
How did the FBI search through all of these documents to find ~10 to put "TOP SECRET" cover sheets on? How long did they look? Did those agents have top-secret clearance?
No one will answer that question. We do know that they brought their own "top secret" covers to Mar-A-Lago with them. They did NOT come from the boxes!!!!

They finally admitted that THE photo was staged. The talking heads presented it as if a billionaire's office had paperwork all over the floor. Tell me please, anyone - do you actually think Trump was down on his knees on the floor looking at those documents? how about anyone who worked for him? I'm sure he has a conference table the length of a football field if he wants to spread out documents.

Defund the FBI.
 
Context folks. Trump gets (illegally) raided with the full swat treatment. Furthermore, the Biden administration knew that Trump possessed these documents and the question of the legitimacy of retention was under civil review, not criminal review. Never was never a need for the raid.

On the other hand, Biden knowingly (illegally) took classified documents while a Senator yet was never given a raid with the full swat treatment. Not only that, but Biden (like H. Clinton) received the "no rationale prosecutor" excuse would file criminal charges for Biden's blatant criminal act.

This is another case of a banana republic dual justice system aimed at crippling Trump's attempt to regain the White House.
 
It is both funny and sad to read your responses. I note that from the initial claim of the authorisation that use of deadly force was specifically raised for the Mar a Lago raid only one response somehow claims that my assertion that it was the norm is ridiculous (Aligns with Majorie and Rudi grasp of logic?). It is not so much my claim, as the fact that the FBI has standard operating procedures, and it was the deliberate or mischievous use of the words regarding use of deadly force (the operating procedures) from the Mar-a-Lago warrant that led to the ridiculous assertion put out in the first place. Just say yeah - that was stupid and move on .. Jeez ....

The rest of what is claimed in terms of the legitimacy of the raid will be settled in the courts ultimately I hope (will tRump testify?). The grasping at straws to distract from the core of the charge is amusing speculation as is the but look over here argument with Biden - those types of arguments don't stand up in law.

Re the use of guns - yes I hate them. Through whatever history you have evolved a culture in which it seems as if you are scared of each other. Your fear of criminals having guns, of the law having guns means you must have a gun. It is like an arms war within the community, fed by fear, stoked by .. who benefits? It was terrible to read on a thread here the assertion that if someone had a gun that the knife attack that resulted in killing 6 injuring 12 in Sydney earlier this year would have been over sooner with fewer deaths/injuries. So many inane assumptions in that.

The US has an appalling record and seems incapable of meaningful reform - limiting the capabilities of firearms available and how to regulate access to them even after the relatively recent horror of mass shootings of children in schools. Suffer the little children, but we must have our guns. But then you lie in the bed you make for yourself.

Dump on tRump
 
@GaP42: As an added thought. The real purpose of deploying a full swat team, was for the optics. To phrase it slightly differently, it was a publicity stunt inspired by the Biden administration to provide the anti-Trump media with extensive video footage of the "criminal" Trump getting "busted". This was all done for show to taint Trump as a lawbreaker.
 
@GaP42 - You dump on guns but don't acknowledge the times when having a gun saved someone's life. I personally knew a fellow who came home one night and was immediately approached by a gun-wielding person who demanded their money. But B. was legally carrying a concealed weapon. When the perp's attention was diverted to B.'s wife on the other side of the car, B. shot and killed the perp.

Why is this anecdote important? Because it was relegated to the back pages of the newspaper. It was because a black man shot another black man in order to protect his wife from a twitchy gun-carrying junkie. It wasn't headline-worthy. And it didn't fit the "moral outrage" model through which so many newspapers filter their headlines. Nobody could get worked up about putting down a human animal.

People talk about our "Wild West" mentality sometimes. But the Wild West in the USA was actually very polite. Folks KNEW that if you acted out, at least half-a-dozen guns could come out to take care of you and your silly ideas. Now the perps think they can get away with anything. And you rail on about limiting this or that regarding guns. Don't you understand? Criminals already don't agree with laws in general anyway. What in the name of the nine infernal levels of Hell makes you think they will care about your silly limitations?

People don't understand the concept of negotiation. You can only negotiate with someone when that someone realizes he CAN'T just take what he wants and get away with it. The only way to negotiate with a barbarian is to clunk him hard enough on the head that he HAS to put down whatever weapon he was using.

Whole NATIONS use the concept of mutually-assured destruction to prevent the use of nuclear armament. They don't bomb the bejeezus out of us because they know that before their missiles land, ours can be launched to bomb the bejeezus out of them. You are raving against the individual situation that reflects the same situation operating at the highest national levels. It is only at the point where your adversary KNOWS that raw force isn't going to work that you can hope to reach a point of behavioral change.

If you want to blame someone or something for this, blame evolution. We evolved from saurian ancestors who hunted their prey and controlled their territory to assure survival. Our violence comes from our genes. We have found ways to control that violence, so we have partially controlled our heritage - but only partly.
 
the FBI has standard operating procedures,
There is nothing standard about raiding the home of a former president of the United States of America - the world's newest banana republic. Did the FBI think that the Secret Service would fire on them? It's probably a good thing that Trump wasn't in residence at the time so they didn't have to find out. What could possibly go wrong? Two federal agencies with guns pointed at each other. Showdown at Mar-A-Lago. FBI vs Secret Service. The FBI came to Mar-A-Lago loaded for bear as the saying goes. They could have invaded Canada with the force they deployed against the former president. That is not how we used to do things here. But we live in Bidenville now where half the country is your enemy and you treat us as such. So, there was just no way they would have called ahead and left the army behind. The man behind the curtain was looking for trouble and didn't care who got shot. He was hoping it was Trump but the agents he was facing off against each other were just cannon fodder.
 
I saw a report yesterday that the FBI was resistant to the raid at Mar-a-Lago, but the DOJ and Merrick Garland forced the issue. I think the FBI knew this would be seen as a political hit job.
 
Every agent who didn't call in sick that day should be fired. Passive-aggressive works in cases like this. Taking an army with guns to the former president's residence which you KNOW is guarded by other federal agents with guns so it is the "good guys" against "the other good guys". It isn't like you are going up against a drug cartel. This raid was so bad on so many levels peoples heads should roll. When Trump wins in November, he should have a day 1 list of who gets fired. Who cares if the FBI is dysfunctional because the leadership is gone. Biden is already busy writing executive orders in an attempt to thwart Trump's house cleaning.
 
I agree, they could have toned down their assault on Mar-a-Lago given the fact this is an ex-president and a known individual who had government protection. But they wanted to hurt Trump politically in the eyes of the public. As usual, it backfires on their lame asses.
 
I agree, they could have toned down their assault on Mar-a-Lago given the fact this is an ex-president and a known individual who had government protection. But they wanted to hurt Trump politically in the eyes of the public. As usual, it backfires on their lame asses.
Exactly. Like the Howard Stern effect - the more they ran him down, the more his popularity climbed. I have never been a big fan of Trump, but when both sides are afraid of him, it makes me wonder just what they are afraid of? I know it cant be incompetency or warmongering - we've had that for decades. Abuse of power? Same thing.
 
Howard Stern was awesome back in the day, but post covid he's turned into a leftwing pandering fool.
 
as is the but look over here argument with Biden - those types of arguments don't stand up in law.

They may not stand up in law, but they definitely matter in terms of overall fairness and ethical considerations.

If I was the leader of a group of children on a playground, and I allowed them all to violate a rule with impunity, but finally chose to prosecute one because of my personal feelings or something else unrelated about them, that would be wrong - and it would be right of people to point it out.

You calling it "the but look over here" phrase does not change that, and never will, and it's probably why Trump's support has risen considerably since the prosecutions began. You are now in the minority.
 
The FBI came to Mar-A-Lago loaded for bear as the saying goes. They could have invaded Canada with the force they deployed against the former president.

Is that why no one knew about it until after it was over? The golf motel was closed for the season. The raid happened in the early AM but no one knew about it until a Fla. blogger tweeted it out after 6PM, followed by Von Shitzenpants statement later that evening.

I doubt 30 agents could overthrow Canada
 
Is that why no one knew about it until after it was over? The golf motel was closed for the season. The raid happened in the early AM but no one knew about it until a Fla. blogger tweeted it out after 6PM, followed by Von Shitzenpants statement later that evening.

I doubt 30 agents could overthrow Canada

Particularly since we have seen that Canada is already on the skids. They don't need an overthrow. Maybe a slight push during winter. Thirty agents would be overkill at this time. The way they have tried to silence Dr. Peterson is beyond shameful.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom