Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BlueJ1 on April 11, 2005, 02:02:09 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/11/capitol.suitcases.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/11/capitol.suitcases.ap/index.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Police on Monday tackled and forcibly dragged away a man with two suitcases who had stationed himself in front of the west side of the U.S. Capitol.
The incident had forced police to evacuate that side of the Capitol in fear of a possible explosion.
Police, some armed with assault rifles, moved in slowly behind the man, who was dressed in black and faced the Capitol from a plaza below its west entrance. Crouching behind the wall, the police sprang up and ran at the man, who never moved.
He was tackled by two policemen, dragged to an ambulance and taken away. Police left the suitcases behind.
Some spectators applauded as police dragged the man away.
Before the standoff ended, Capitol police spokesman Michael Lauer said the man had not said anything to police.
Among the officials whose offices are on the west side of the Capitol looking out upon the National Mall are House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
-
Let's start a pool to guess what was in the suitcases.
My guess is it was his comic book collection.
-
Maybe it was full of training manuals for the IRA?
-
A brief from the Supreme Court.
shamus
-
Michael Moore DVDs
-
couldn't be a bomb... bombs are banned within a certain distance to government buildings... everyone knows that.
lazs
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
couldn't be a bomb... bombs are banned within a certain distance to government buildings... everyone knows that.
lazs
Ya .... and if everyone was allowed to carry bombs.... the amount of bomb related crimes would go down too!! :p
-
why would that be true?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why would that be true?
lazs
It was a joke Laz
-
yes I know. but it made no sense.
lazs
-
Deterence of course.... just knowing the guy you're gonna rob is packin a J-dam will make you think twice. Maybe we should sell pipe-bombs at the local Bomb Shows. Maybe then our founding Fathers will stop spinning and be proud of the arms we are finally allowed to bear!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yes I know. but it made no sense.
lazs
Sure it did :)
shamus
-
but how would you use a bomb to deter a bomber? he knows you can't get him without getting yourself.
Oh... I get it... you think everyone should be suicide bombers?
lazs
-
No but everyone should be allowed to carry a concealed bomb just like a gun.
There really should be a NBA; National Bomb Association.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Let's start a pool to guess what was in the suitcases.
$2 bills
-
The guys was had naked pics of funked in one and SOB in the other.
He should have been shot on site, the opening of those suitcases could be the end of this nation as we know it!:D
-
sets of supersharp 4evarsh4rp knives
-
I like this link better, more educational about the subject
a more informed link (http://sites.gizoogle.com/?url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/11/capitol.suitcases.ap/index.html)
-
So the guy doesn't speak english, he didn't threaten anyone, and he was just standing there.... ?
Sounds like a pretty tough target!
I wonder if we will find that this was a case of dramatically mistaken intentions by law enforcement, or if the guy is a nitwit.
-
mistaken intentions? huh?
So the guy doesn't speak english, he didn't threaten anyone, and he was just standing there.... ?
Yes, we should have waited to see if he indeed had a bomb(s) in the suitcases. We should have waited to see if he detonated them, it's the only way to be sure he was a bad guy.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The guys was had naked pics of funked in one and SOB in the other.
He should have been shot on site, the opening of those suitcases could be the end of this nation as we know it!:D
He was prudent , had he put all picts in a single suitcase critical mass would have been reached => End of the world.
-
Reconnaissance.
-
The police didnt even take the suitcases? They feared a possible explosion but leave the *potential* bombs at the Whitehouse?
What the heck is wrong with those guys? :confused:
-
Remember kids: bombs don't kill people; people do.
-
Originally posted by Steve
mistaken intentions? huh?
Yes, we should have waited to see if he indeed had a bomb(s) in the suitcases. We should have waited to see if he detonated them, it's the only way to be sure he was a bad guy.
Clarify... he was just standing there, and when some security people asked him what he was doing, he indicated that he didn't speak english, if I read correctly.
Are you suggesting that it is appropriate to tackle people for not speaking english? Or was there something else he did that was threatening? As far as I know, it's not illegal to have two suitcases. If it was, everyone in the aviation biz would have died of anxiety decades ago.
Explain again what specifically he did that made being tackled/arrested appropriate? The news seems to be a bit sparse on the subject.
What we know:
1. He had two suitcases.
2. He was standing in front of the capitol looking out at the view.
3. He didn't speak english.
I've been guilty of #1 and #2, and I'm not so great at #3 if you believe my report cards from school.
Everyone seems to have convicted him already without any evidence. Which of you thought the police officer in the $2 Best Buy case was an idiot when he incited '9/11' as part of why they hand-cuffed the innocent guy for 3 hours? Any overlap between you and those yelling for blood from what may just be a tourist?
-
Supposedly he was standing in the same place for quite awhile and kept looking over his shoulder.
-
Ok, but tackling seems a bit rough for loitering.
I'm not suggesting that the police are thugs, they might know stuff about what he did that isn't in the news, but I AM a bit surprised at how blase most of you seem to be about assuming his guilt.
On the data that's in the news, it doesn't seem justified. I'm sure more will come out, but y'all are quick to judge.
-
Ok, some nice police officer walks up to the man, finds out the man cannont speak English. Trys to gently remove him from the area, the man pushes the red button and poof.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, but tackling seems a bit rough for loitering.
I'm not suggesting that the police are thugs, they might know stuff about what he did that isn't in the news, but I AM a bit surprised at how blase most of you seem to be about assuming his guilt.
On the data that's in the news, it doesn't seem justified. I'm sure more will come out, but y'all are quick to judge.
Can we afford to take the chance?..simple facts are people should know better than to do certain things in certain places.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Reconnaissance.
ya that's what I was thinking... maybe a test run to see how the response is......
-
Ok, but tackling seems a bit rough for loitering.
Information is a bit sparse... but did you read the aritcle? The word "standoff" is used. that hints to me that the guy was doing more than just loitering before he was tackled.
-
That will teach 'em! Don't EVAR stand in front of the capitol building if you're dressed in black and have two suitcases.
I feel safer already.
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Ok, some nice police officer walks up to the man, finds out the man cannont speak English. Trys to gently remove him from the area, the man pushes the red button and poof.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that anytime ANYONE stands still somewhere, they should be immediately immoblized? What's the standard of evidence required before force is used? It seemed pretty low here, based on the information in the media.
-
Hardlu, but standing in front of the WHITE HOUSE doing this may be a bad idea.
-
ya that's what I was thinking... maybe a test run to see how the response is......
with the right Paranoia everything is possible *g*
i dont see anything wrong here, us is at war and
the area around the capitol is for sure a "hot spot".
I doubt real terrorists would pick that target though,
knowing about the security, what target would they choose?
-
Update from the news:
A three-hour investigation of the suitcases, including blasting them with a water cannon, revealed nothing threatening, Gainer said.
Here's the first news about why they reacted so tough:
An officer first saw the man standing near a fountain with a suitcase on either side of him, staring silently at the building around 12:40 p.m., Gainer said.
``He only would say at first that he wanted to speak to the president,'' the chief said.
Seems like there are better ways to seek audiences with the president, like making large campaign contributions.
Of course, it used to be that you could ride up to the whitehouse, tie your horse to the hitching post, and walk into the lobby. Times, they keep changing.
-
BTW, he was a chinese tourist.
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Hardlu, but standing in front of the WHITE HOUSE doing this may be a bad idea.
You do understand that the white house and the capitol building are two different things, right?
-
Originally posted by Furious
You do understand that the white house and the capitol building are two different things, right?
:D
(http://www.nationalgeographic.org/walkingtours/images/tour/map_dc_large.gif)
-
My mistake, Yes I do know that.
-
When is the sequel coming out, I want to know what was in the suitcases.
-
According to the news, his clothes and a CD player.
-
Phew, glad they didn't charge on me when I was standing aboots at the grand central station with a backpack and a bottle of pepsi!
Or when I was illegally sitting at the stairs, but then again the sign is in english and I don't understand english.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
According to the news, his clothes and a CD player.
Pirated chinese bluejeans and CD's no doubt.... our Govt. had good reason to take him down.
Who said anything about WMD? We were just trying to save Levis and the recording industry... honest!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but how would you use a bomb to deter a bomber? he knows you can't get him without getting yourself.
Oh... I get it... you think everyone should be suicide bombers?
lazs
a quick study!!!
shamus
-
So he was actually busted by the RIAA... alright.
-
You know..you guys are the first ones to cry "Too much force..not enough evidence" what would you be saying if there had been explosives in the suitcases? It looked suspicious and sometimes you just can't take a chance. Give the cops a break..and the American people..can you blame some for being paranoid....can any of you honestly say that if it was your job to protect the capitol..you would have acted differently?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
You know..you guys are the first ones to cry "Too much force..not enough evidence" what would you be saying if there had been explosives in the suitcases? It looked suspicious and sometimes you just can't take a chance. Give the cops a break..and the American people..can you blame some for being paranoid....can any of you honestly say that if it was your job to protect the capitol..you would have acted differently?
Well if thats the freedom you advertise.
When will we see the cops shouting at standing people "MOVE ALONG!" or get arrested?
-
Based on your post ASTAC, I assume that you have no problem with the police throwing someone with tattoos or dirty clothes in jail "just in case" because they might be a criminal? After all, there's no need for actual evidence of a crime, shoot first and ask questions later, right?
In my posts, I kept saying 'maybe there's stuff we haven't heard yet that support the decision they make' but I followed that up with surprise that people on the message board just ASSUMED he must be guilty BECAUSE he was arrested. The mere act of being arrested should not be part of the decision making process for whether someone is guilty.
I would like to suggest you re-acquaint yourself with the standards of justice established by our forefathers, many who lived, fought and died within a few miles of where you live. What you describe is a sequence of logic more appropriate for the soviet union, not the United States.
If this guy did something more threatening then just stand there, then we'll hear about it in a little bit. But until then, stop yelling for blood. Remember the guard at the Olympic bombing in Atlanta? People applying the same standards of evidence as you ruined his life, cost him his career, and made him an enemy of the people.... until it eventually came out that he was innocent. whoops.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but how would you use a bomb to deter a bomber? he knows you can't get him without getting yourself.
Oh... I get it... you think everyone should be suicide bombers?
lazs
That's a headscratcher.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
That's a headscratcher.
The strategy is called "Mutual Assured Destruction"
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Based on your post ASTAC, I assume that you have no problem with the police throwing someone with tattoos or dirty clothes in jail "just in case" because they might be a criminal? After all, there's no need for actual evidence of a crime, shoot first and ask questions later, right?
In my posts, I kept saying 'maybe there's stuff we haven't heard yet that support the decision they make' but I followed that up with surprise that people on the message board just ASSUMED he must be guilty BECAUSE he was arrested. The mere act of being arrested should not be part of the decision making process for whether someone is guilty.
I would like to suggest you re-acquaint yourself with the standards of justice established by our forefathers, many who lived, fought and died within a few miles of where you live. What you describe is a sequence of logic more appropriate for the soviet union, not the United States.
If this guy did something more threatening then just stand there, then we'll hear about it in a little bit. But until then, stop yelling for blood. Remember the guard at the Olympic bombing in Atlanta? People applying the same standards of evidence as you ruined his life, cost him his career, and made him an enemy of the people.... until it eventually came out that he was innocent. whoops.
I never said I thought he was guilty..but in today's world..you stand in front of a government building...not responding to the inquiries of the police with two suitcases..what are you going to think...I do not think they overreacted...they went on the best info they had...this guy could have stood there all day had he thought to maybe drop his stuff off at his hotel before going sightseeing and noone would have said anything. I don't want to lose freedoms to the police or for the sake of security..but one must know how to behave in certain places/situations...should we have maybe waited to see if he detonated himself to decide if we make a move?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
should we have maybe waited to see if he detonated himself to decide if we make a move?
Let me try an analogy: According to statistics, people who commit violent crimes are more likely to be black based on prison populations.
Should we maybe wait until a black child shoots someone to decide if we make a move?
It's essentially the same scenario, but the situation and premise is so outrageous that we automatically file it in the bozo bucket where it belongs.
Why is it that people are so willing to turn off their brains whenever someone mentions the specter of terrorism these days? The other guy was handcuffed for 3 hours 'because after 9/11, we're all a little nervous' after a clerk was unfamiliar with $2 bills. Was that appropriate? No. Does it have anything in common with this situation? Yes, people are invoking the terror boogeyman to rationalize any misuse of power. And yes, there is a real threat out there, but for every handsomehunk overreaction you read about in the news, the public is desensitized just a little bit more. What happened to the boy who cried wolf at the end of the story? I'd go check it out at the library to find out, but I'd hate to end up on a 'watchlist'.
-
The thing is...that 2$ bill thing...I mean come on..counterfit bills have nothing to do with terrorism and whoever was quoted for saying that was probrably just trying to make an excuse for himself..
All I was saying is..it was a suspicious looking act...and the police reacted the best they could...my brain is not turned off...but what else could they have done...sometimes police order you to move for your own safety..if you don't they will forcably move you...this guy was ordered to surrender himself and wouldn't respond..what else could they do? Believe me I am not trying to justify Police overreacting and coming on with too much force..I just believe that in THIS situation..what choice was there? If you can come up with a better solution please let me know.
-
That dude would have stood there forever if he was in Chicago or NY, or some other town that isnt run by & for gang of sissies. I lost my pocket knife (1.5" blade) last week at the natural history museum (I was going to stab the crap out of the hope diamond). I'd had it for over 20 years...No East - West foot traffic allowed south of the whitehouse to the washington monument when the 3 presidential helicopters (2 decoys full of flunkies - probably ankle deep in puke - have to hold low & fast over downtown DC while W deplanes) are in the air. Big lot of quivering flabby girly men they all are
-
Something I've been pondering...
For Lazs & other guys who think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun: Do you think people should have a right to carry hand grenades under their jackets if they wish so?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Something I've been pondering...
For Lazs & other guys who think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun: Do you think people should have a right to carry hand grenades under their jackets if they wish so?
Explosives are not a protected right, guns are.
-
Is it just me or does that pic remind you of that siene from the matrix?
I BLAME THE MOVIES IF THE MATRIX NEVER CAME OUT THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPEND!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Explosives are not a protected right, guns are.
Well.. the powder is "protected".
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Well.. the powder is "protected".
no it isn't.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Explosives are not a protected right, guns are.
Why is that? Shouldn't you have a right to defend yourself with grenades if you wish so?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
no it isn't.
So does that make the bullets illegal?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Something I've been pondering...
For Lazs & other guys who think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun: Do you think people should have a right to carry hand grenades under their jackets if they wish so?
As "one of the other guys" , I ask you ,where you get the idea that we beleive "everyone" should be allowed to carry a gun?
As for the hand grenade question...well...that`s just filed in the assinine bin.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
So does that make the bullets illegal?
Why would bullets be illegal?
A bullet is nothing more than a projectile made of lead, metal, alloys or combination of all.
It actualy can do nothing unless inserted in a primed and powdered cartridge .
-
Well, your TV don`t show you the full picture, as always :-) This guy was australian citizen, chinese by birth. He stand before capital with two bags. Noone even try to speak with him (but police aim rifle on him all the time). After he was detained, his bags were blowed up by sappers. There were clothing, clock and other personal things. Also were said that his aim was to talk with Bush (but it well known that Bush was on his rancho with Sharon). It is what Russia TV shows/said to us.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
It actualy can do nothing unless inserted in a primed and powdered cartridge .
I'm yet to hear of americans buying & using unpowdered bullets in their protected guns.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I'm yet to hear of americans buying & using unpowdered bullets in their protected guns.
Then you must be very uninformed.
Those of us who reload buy "unpowdered bullets" all the time.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Then you must be very uninformed.
Those of us who reload buy "unpowdered bullets" all the time.
and how about the "using" part?
I doubt majority of the firearms fires very well with an unpowdered bullet.
-
well... what a relief.. the no bombs law must be working.
staga.. no. I do not think that high explosives should be allowed to be carried in public places or stored in residences. there are many laws against this. some are even fire laws and city ordanences.
A fire in your home full of explosives would endanger your neighbors and firefighters.
It would also not be in your control. We even have laws against storing too much gunpowder for reloading in resedential areas and I am fine with that.
I do not think that it is reasonable to think that high explosives can be controled by the owner.
lazs
-
Chairboy,
What experience do you have in terrorist methods? Do you think that there may be a chance that the police weren't just out to kick the crap out of some tourist and blow up his underwear, but that the situation that was occuring was unusual enough for a little caution. The police are people just like you. If you thought that there was ANY chance that this situation might be dangerous and that that guy might be ready to blowup 2 suitcase full of explosives, would you REALLY just casually walk up to him and ask him "Hey... are you a terrorist? Ya know... I'm just wondering... now don't talk this the wrong way... i need to know whether I need to use force on you or not... so is there explosives in your suitcases or are you just stopping by to see the president for a social call?"
It's not entirely out of the question that security in high profile buildings like where CONGRESS is might be justifiably a little paroniod.
-
If he had bombs that went off and security said.... we though he was just a confused tourist...
how would this thread be going?
lazs
-
Chairboy would be praising the civilized nature of our police forces and the dead policemens families and the families of the dead people in the area would all feel good that no one over reacted.
-
to mosgood
Full police control on citizens (and by their own will) in country that postulate itself "the freeest in the world" - that would bee cool.
In SU in 1917-1921 you can say that someone is counter-revolutioner and he is being arrested. Now in USA you can say that someone is terrorist - and get the same result. Good work, guys :-) Keep it going. Viva la democracy :-) SU is dead, now we have USA.
-
Look to the bright side- this guy is gonna have some great vacation videos to share with the folks back home.
-
Originally posted by Raven_2
to mosgood
Full police control on citizens (and by their own will) in country that postulate itself "the freeest in the world" - that would bee cool.
In SU in 1917-1921 you can say that someone is counter-revolutioner and he is being arrested. Now in USA you can say that someone is terrorist - and get the same result. Good work, guys :-) Keep it going. Viva la democracy :-) SU is dead, now we have USA.
You are downplaying this to make an exagerated argument. The person we are talking about isn't just a "someone" he was a person that had asked to speak to the president of the United States (in a time of war) and was carrying 2 large suitcases and was conspicuous enough to earn the attention of security forces.
It is NOT unreasonable to expect caution in that situation.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If he had bombs that went off and security said.... we though he was just a confused tourist...
how would this thread be going?
Yeah, lets also arrest all "suspicious" people on the streets.
The ones standing aboots at a corner and especially the ones standing aboots in a group.
Who knows what they were planning, maybe to mug someone or maybe just shoot someone for the fun of it.
Never knows! better to be safe than sorry, right!
Oh wait.. wasn't the "big brother watches" and "fascism" things something we didn't want?
-
In your world, Mosgood, I expect that everyone would be guilty until proven innocent. The jails would overflow with the 'suspicious characters' that had done something to attract the attention of law enforcement.
Eventually, it would be discovered that it's more practical to ship these suspicious/unreliable people off to an undeveloped part of the country where they can contribute to society while their 'sentence' was carried out. They could log timber, mine ore, etc, and the experience would give them time to reflect on their transgressions while they learn self reliance skills.
There could be a whole arm of quasi law enforcement agents devoted to monitoring citizens for their leanings while you're at it. These people could have cart blanche access/power throughout the country and help weed out 'undesirables'.
Why does this sound familiar? I can't shake the sense that I've heard of something like this before....
Anyhow, with this 'safety net' in place, I'm sure we'd have some sort of 'worker's paradise' in a heartbeat. Indeed, the bourgeoisie would tremble before the dialectic that powers this righteous movement.
I had that feeling of deja vu all over again....
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yeah, lets also arrest all "suspicious" people on the streets.
The ones standing aboots at a corner and especially the ones standing aboots in a group.
Who knows what they were planning, maybe to mug someone or maybe just shoot someone for the fun of it.
Never knows! better to be safe than sorry, right!
Oh wait.. wasn't the "big brother watches" and "fascism" things something we didn't want?
But that is part of the point...... everyone on the streets wasn't rounded up. It took a very suspiscous situation for this to happen. Saying "Let's round up ALL SUSPISCIOUS people" is an exageration and it's not what happened.
Yet.. we have Raven already making parallels between this and the Ex-Soviet Union police state. Some of you guys should really think about choosing journalism as your career. I know a few major newspapers and media outlets that have obviousely already brain washed... err influenced you viewpoints and you would fit right in....
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
In your world, Mosgood, I expect that everyone would be guilty until proven innocent. The jails would overflow with the 'suspicious characters' that had done something to attract the attention of law enforcement.
Eventually, it would be discovered that it's more practical to ship these suspicious/unreliable people off to an undeveloped part of the country where they can contribute to society while their 'sentence' was carried out. They could log timber, mine ore, etc, and the experience would give them time to reflect on their transgressions while they learn self reliance skills.
There could be a whole arm of quasi law enforcement agents devoted to monitoring citizens for their leanings while you're at it. These people could have cart blanche access/power throughout the country and help weed out 'undesirables'.
Why does this sound familiar? I can't shake the sense that I've heard of something like this before....
Anyhow, with this 'safety net' in place, I'm sure we'd have some sort of 'worker's paradise' in a heartbeat. Indeed, the bourgeoisie would tremble before the dialectic that powers this righteous movement.
I had that feeling of deja vu all over again....
Chairboy... I'm sure you would expect that in my world. But that's because you are exagerating this situation into something else entirely.
I'm sure in your world that person should not have been looked at twice because it would have been somekind of profiling and would have infringed on his personal and civil rights.
-
Looking at someone twice, that's fine. Talking to him, maybe arresting him for loitering if he doesn't move, hey, the law allows for that as well.
Sneaking up behind him to tackle him, that seems excessive.
Questiton: "But Chairboy, what if he was a suicide bomber with bombs and suicidal tendencies and, oh dear, my glasses have fogged up with tension! I get such terrible gas when I'm tense! What if he was a bomber? He was just standing there! He could have been anything! Oh, my forehead, I'm sweating just thinking about it! I need to use my handkerchief, oh dear..."
Answer: A fine question, mosgood! If we are to ask why we can't assume he's a suicide bomber, the corollary must also be asked of 'why shouldn't we apply this standard to every person who loiters?' I expect the answer should be pretty self evident! Any time any person is ticketed for loitering, that means that they disobeyed the instructions of an officer that told them to 'move along now'. Perhaps we need to standardize the enforcement of the law in this post 9/11 world to make sure that all of these people are properly tackled, arrested, and that their belongings are 'disrupted' by water cannons. After all, in this post 9/11 world, we can't assume ANYTHING! ....except that there are a lot of terrorists. I guess we can assume that. And that anyone (ANYONE!) in the street could be plotting an attack THIS MINUTE!
Question: "Oh Chairboy, won't you please think of all the little children?"
Answer: Indeed, and I do. I think my children deserve to inherit a world that doesn't have all the sharp edges filed down. Liberty is pointy. That might make it uncomfortable to hold, and maybe it doesn't make a great pet, but it's a powerful, fearsome force to be reckoned with and I wouldn't trade it for anything, especially not comfort.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
You are downplaying this to make an exagerated argument. The person we are talking about isn't just a "someone" he was a person that had asked to speak to the president of the United States (in a time of war) and was carrying 2 large suitcases and was conspicuous enough to earn the attention of security forces.
It is NOT unreasonable to expect caution in that situation.
You are right, caution would be appropriate. I just saw the video of them sneaking up on him, gang tackling him from behind, then hauling him off by the arms (his legs dragging behind him - they wouldn't even let him walk). They searched his suitcases and found no explosives, but THEY BLEW THEM UP ANYWAY. I saw video of that, too.
Holy cheese.
-
Right, wrong, I don't know. Police showing their high inteligence and training :rolleyes: yes.
If that guy was a terrorist, one garantied way to set off the bombs would be to tackle him. Another, would be to risk sneaking up from bihind. So, if they are not that stupid, then they probably knew he was not a real threat but someone that had to be dealt with, and make an example of. If they did not know, that was the dumest thing they could possibly do.
Is like the security guys at the airport asking me to tun on my laptop to make sure it is not a bomb. Any guesses on what would happen if that laptop was really a bomb?
Security is a jock. Its just a show to make us feel safe. Lets just hope we don't fal victims to that show.
-
Originally posted by oboe
You are right, caution would be appropriate. I just saw the video of them sneaking up on him, gang tackling him from behind, then hauling him off by the arms (his legs dragging behind him - they wouldn't even let him walk). They searched his suitcases and found no explosives, but THEY BLEW THEM UP ANYWAY. I saw video of that, too.
Holy cheese.
Wait a sec.... you mean that the Police State of America actually allowed that to be shown on TV?!?!
I'm sure that some poor tv producer will be sent to siberia for this !!!!!
-
Seriously, I always considered the police state comments goofy, but watching the secret service gang tackle that guy gives one pause.
He basically stood there for more than an hour with his suitcases, minding his own business. Suspicious, yes. And its not clear whether anyone tried to communicate with him prior to the tackle.
They literally dragged him off the terrace.
And why, if no explosives were found, did they BLOW UP his suitcases?
I still have lots of questions about this situation.
-
A picture showed the man looking at the police officers crouching behind him. The man certainly knew they were there. When he turned around again he was tackled.
-
There are ways of telling whether he is a witch.
-
to mosgood
Sure, I hiperbolize. But! I live in Russia and I know what that mean when your government say to "enemies are everywhere". It`s a perfect way to justify ANY police action against person, any crime by government itself. Not the fact that this guy was arrested disturb me, but the fact that some of you think that his arrest is something logical and, in general, right thing.
Sample. Toad blame USSR for destroing KAL-007 in 1983. But think about it: USSR/Russia policy is to destroy suspicious planes. USA policy is to land them. USA had 9/11. USSR/Russia haven`t. So, such behavior is a perfect way to defend people from plane-based terrorist attacks. But why whole world blame USSR for that incendent, then? You understand why, yes?
This is the way USSR come in 1918. There were England/France/Finland/USA intervention and civil war. Communist government told this mantra ("enemies are everywhere") to people - and there was reason for this at that time. But AFTER that they still used this, Stalin built his totalitarian system (well, it was pretty useful for state at that time, if you ask me, but still it totalitarian) on this slogan and justify execution of ~500.000 people by it.
First step to totalitarism is done in your country. Your government persuade part of you that suspiciousness can be an argument for arrest.
BTW, why just can`t do limitations on big bags transportations in such "hotspots" and make some bag holiding places on enter?
BTW2, and now imagine how this guy was treated by police if he would had an arabic origins...
-
Originally posted by Fishu
and how about the "using" part?
I doubt majority of the firearms fires very well with an unpowdered bullet.
The bullet was what you asked about. You asked if it was illegal. Remember? It is not. Question answered.
What about the using part do you not understand?
-
How 'bout this:
Don't stand around in potentially high-threat area's looking and acting like a freak. Put on your wittle common sense thinking cap before you act-out and you won't have to go home feeling all abused and poopy.
-
Deterence of course.... just knowing the guy you're gonna rob is packin a J-dam will make you think twice.
:rofl Made me choke on my soda.
-
Is this episode akin to the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident...more important, why dont the Bush girls have a brand of good, cheap beer. Can anyone spare me a Billy? I drank all mine
-
Originally posted by Tumor
How 'bout this:
Don't stand around in potentially high-threat area's looking and acting like a freak. Put on your wittle common sense thinking cap before you act-out and you won't have to go home feeling all abused and poopy.
That applies to Rosa Parks too, right?
-
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That applies to Rosa Parks too, right?
:rolleyes:
Of course.... they wanted her to the back of the bus just in case she was going to blow it up.
-
Rolleye emoticons are so ****ing homosexual.
Congratulations BlueJ, and mosgood, on coming out of the closet.
-SW
-
Well, first, the guy stood there without responding to any attempts to communicate for over a hour.
Second, if You turned around and saw a bunch of SWAT guys sneaking around, would you Ignore them ?
Third, he was not "gang tackled", he was tackled by one officer.(looked like it hurt tho)
Fourth, if he was doing the same thing in, say, in any major city in the middle east, do you think that "tackled" would be what happened?:aok
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
BTW, he was a chinese tourist.
Tourist , terrorists.......same difference
-
Thumbsup emoticons are ****ing homosexual too.
On top of that you are attempting to draw a semblance of the middle east to the US.
Sad.
-SW
-
using slashes to replase Ms Ws and Ns is ghey:p
-
Yeah, you're gay too Vorticon. Wanna make out?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah, you're gay too Vorticon. Wanna make out?
-SW
It's nice to have a resident expert on gay men on the BBS. You just keep the "Gay Trivia" coming Wulfie!!
:aok
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah, you're gay too Vorticon. Wanna make out?
-SW
pervert, you know im 17 right?
-
Originally posted by Flit
Second, if You turned around and saw a bunch of SWAT guys sneaking around, would you Ignore them ?
Doesn't any one else see how stupid this is? If he was a terorist, he would not have ignored them. He would have pressed the button.
It seems that it would be OK to get the cops and some bystanders killed as long he did not continue to sit there? We need security, but what we have is Moe, Curly and Larry. They got to go home that night out of pure luck. The guy was a tourist.
For the guys that are saing the police did the right thing, think. What would have happened if the guy was terrorist ready to blow himself up?
-
AKS\/\/ulfe,
Way to be relevant to the topic.