When in doubt, do NOT open the door. Take a defensive position somewhere in the
room, out of the line of fire. If the intruders (cops or otherwise) BREAK in -
open fire once they cross the threshold. If it is SWAT or otherwise "tacticals"
wearing body armor, go for a head shot. Odds are you are not going to
survive this type of firefight. They are probably going to kill you anyway so
might as well go down fighting. Sad state of affairs the liberals have
bequeathed us. And the irony is, they are too STUPID cowardly, and selfish to
even get what is going on. Small consolation that they will be the first
sheeple into the ovens. I'm sure there were plenty of this type in Germany back
in the Hitler's day. JS
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Ron Ristad <ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Death Comes Knocking At Your Door
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:51:03 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
How is this any different from the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? - RR By John
W. Whitehead It’s 1:30 a.m., a time when most people are asleep. Your
neighborhood is in darkness, except for a few street lamps. Someone—he
doesn’t identify himself and the voice isn’t familiar—is
pounding on your front door, demanding that you open up. Your heart begins
racing. Your stomach is tied in knots. The adrenaline is pumping through you.
You fear that it’s an intruder or worse. You not only fear for your life,
but the lives of your loved ones. The aggressive pounding continues, becoming
more jarring with every passing second. Desperate to protect yourself and your
loved ones from whatever threat awaits on the other side of that door, you
scramble to lay hold of something—anything—that you might use in
self-defense. It might be a flashlight, a baseball bat, or that licensed and
registered gun you thought you’d never need. You brace for the
confrontation, a shaky grip on your weapon, and approach the door cautiously.
The pounding continues. You open the door to find a shadowy figure aiming a gun
in your direction. Immediately, you back up and retreat further into your
apartment. At the same time, the intruder opens fire, sending a hail of bullets
in your direction. Three of the bullets make contact. You die without ever
raising your weapon or firing your gun in self-defense. In your final moments,
you get a good look at your assailant: it’s the police. This is what
passes for “knock-and-talk” policing in the American police state.
“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.
Whatever you call it, this aggressive, excessive police tactic has become a
thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and
intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who
“knock” on their doors in the middle of the night. Poor Andrew
Scott didn’t even get a chance to say no to such a heavy-handed request
before he was gunned down by police.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/17/appeals_court_rules_officer_who_killed_man_in_his_own_home_cannot_be_sued.html
It was late on a Saturday night—so late that it was technically Sunday
morning—and 26-year-old Scott was at home with his girlfriend playing
video games when police, in pursuit of a speeding motorcyclist, arrived at
Scott’s apartment complex, because a motorcycle had been spotted at the
complex and police believed it might belong to their suspect. At 1:30 a.m.,
four sheriff’s deputies began knocking on doors close to where a
motorcycle was parked. The deputies started their knock-and-talk with Apartment
114 because there was a light on inside. The occupants of the apartment were
Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games. First, the police
assumed tactical positions surrounding the door to Apartment 114, guns drawn
and ready to shoot. Then, without announcing that he was a police officer,
deputy Richard Sylvester banged loudly and repeatedly on the door of Apartment
114. The racket caused a neighbor to open his door. When questioned by a
deputy, the neighbor explained that the motorcycle’s owner did not live
in Apartment 114. This information was not relayed to the police officer
stationed at the door. Understandably alarmed by the aggressive pounding on his
door at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the
door. Upon opening the door, Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside
his door. Still police failed to identify themselves. Unnerved by the sight of
the gunman, Scott retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester
immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed
Scott, who had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity. So who
was at fault here? Was it Andrew Scott, who was prepared to defend himself and
his girlfriend against a possible late-night intruder? Was it the police
officers who banged on the wrong door in the middle of the night, failed to
identify themselves, and then—without asking any questions or attempting
to de-escalate the situation—shot and killed an innocent man? Was it the
courts, which not only ruled that the police had qualified immunity against
being sued for Scott’s murder but also concluded that Andrew Scott
provoked the confrontation by retrieving a lawfully-owned handgun before
opening the door? Or was it the whole crooked system that’s to blame?
I’m referring to the courts that continue to march in lockstep with the
police state, the police unions that continue to strong-arm politicians into
letting the police agencies literally get away with murder, the legislators who
care more about getting re-elected than about protecting the rights of the
citizenry, the police who are being trained to view their fellow citizens as
enemy combatants on a battlefield, and the citizenry who fail to be alarmed and
outraged every time the police state shoots another hole in the Constitution.
What happened to Andrew Scott was not an isolated incident. As Supreme Court
nominee Neil Gorsuch recognized in a dissent in U.S. v. Carloss: “The
‘knock and talk’ has won a prominent place in today’s legal
lexicon… published cases approving knock and talks have grown
legion.” In fact, the Michigan Supreme Court is currently reviewing a
case in which seven armed police officers, dressed in tactical gear and with
their police lights on, carried out a knock-and-talk search on four of their
former colleagues’ homes early in the morning, while their families
(including children) were asleep. The police insist that there’s nothing
coercive about such a scenario. Whether police are knocking on your door at 2
am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a
police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least
provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value
your life. Mind you, these knock-and-talk searches are little more than police
fishing expeditions carried out without a warrant. The goal is intimidation and
coercion. Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards
pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments, behavioral
sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious”
activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state, we’re
going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which
police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement
and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. We’ve already seen
a dramatic rise in the number of home invasions by battle-ready SWAT teams and
police who have been transformed into extensions of the military. Indeed, with
every passing week, we hear more and more horror stories in which homeowners
are injured or killed simply because they mistook a SWAT team raid by police
for a home invasion by criminals. Never mind that the unsuspecting homeowner,
woken from sleep by the sounds of a violent entry, has no way of distinguishing
between a home invasion by a criminal as opposed to a government agent. Too
often, the destruction of life and property wrought by the police is no less
horrifying than that carried out by criminal invaders. These incidents
underscore a dangerous mindset in which civilians (often unarmed and
defenseless) not only have less rights than militarized police, but also one in
which the safety of civilians is treated as a lower priority than the safety of
their police counterparts (who are armed to the hilt with an array of lethal
and nonlethal weapons). In fact, the privacy of civilians is negligible in the
face of the government’s various missions, and the homes of civilians are
no longer the refuge from government intrusion that they once were. It
wasn’t always this way, however. There was a time in America when a
person’s home was a sanctuary where he and his family could be safe and
secure from the threat of invasion by government agents, who were held at bay
by the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, which protects American citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment, in turn, was added to
the U.S. Constitution by colonists still smarting from the abuses they had been
forced to endure while under British rule, among these home invasions by the
military under the guise of writs of assistance. These writs were nothing less
than open-ended royal documents which British soldiers used as a justification
for barging into the homes of colonists and rifling through their belongings.
James Otis, a renowned colonial attorney, “condemned writs of assistance
because they were perpetual, universal (addressed to every officer and subject
in the realm), and allowed anyone to conduct a search in violation of the
essential principle of English liberty that a peaceable man’s house is
his castle.” As Otis noted: Now, one of the most essential branches of
English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his
castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his
castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate
this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we
are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break
locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice
or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is
sufficient. To our detriment, we have now come full circle, returning to a time
before the American Revolution when government agents—with the blessing
of the courts—could force their way into a citizen’s home, with
seemingly little concern for lives lost and property damaged in the process.
Actually, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the
American People, we may be worse off today than our colonial ancestors when one
considers the extent to which courts have sanctioned the use of no-knock raids
by police SWAT teams (occurring at a rate of 70,000 to 80,000 a year and
growing); the arsenal of lethal weapons available to local police agencies; the
ease with which courts now dispense search warrants based often on little more
than a suspicion of wrongdoing; and the inability of police to distinguish
between reasonable suspicion and the higher standard of probable cause, the
latter of which is required by the Constitution before any government official
can search an individual or his property. Winston Churchill once declared that
“democracy means that if the doorbell rings in the early hours, it is
likely to be the milkman.” Clearly, we don’t live in a democracy.
No, in the American police state, when you find yourself woken in the early
hours by someone pounding on your door, smashing through your door, terrorizing
your family, killing your pets, and shooting you if you dare to resist in any
way, you don’t need to worry that it might be burglars out to rob and
kill you: it’s just the police. Users Change your settings here:
//www.freelists.org/list/sparkscoffee Unsubscribe/Subscribe and more ;
commands are available for you. List owner: n1ea@xxxxxxxx
____________________________________________________________
Final Photos: What Happens Next is Insane and Horrifying
trendingmoms.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/58dac8685d0d948680c27st02vuc
