MarcSpaz wrote:dorminWS, I'm not sure where to begin. LOL For folks who are not part of DHS, I think its hard to understand. I'll try to do a quick compare.
You're right. It's DAMNED hard for me to understand.
MarcSpaz wrote:
Yes, in a normal encounter with a citizen, there is an assumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, there is presumption of guilt if law enforcement shows up on a scene and a POI open fires on the LEO's. So, this is what leads to SWAT having these types of vehicles. They don't conduct traffic stops with them. They respond to a know hostile situation or to arrest a know violent criminal who is evading the law.
SWATs respond to such situations, I know. But that is a disturbing mindset. It is true that to open fire invites return fire. It certainly bespeaks some reason for animosity on the part of the POI. But I still maintain it does not and should not justify a presumption of guilt and an automatic shoot to kill order. I can posit some circumstances where the POI might at least think his actions are justified. You should still bring him back alive if you can. I know - that's easy for me to say. But I'm still saying it.
MarcSpaz wrote:
DHS is the same way. If ICE, CBP, FPS, etc. are responding to a complaint or following leads on an investigation, there is an assumption that the people they are talking to and interacting with are innocent and not hostile. There are some exceptions based on intel from past encounters as with any agency.
Well, if a DHS component is executing a warrant for known terrorists who have access to or are known to have access to grenades and other explosives, high powered rifles and known to have a propensity to want to die and take as many people with them as possible, why wouldn't they want to have as much protection as possible?
Some thing along the same line, CBP is literally at war with drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers who all have weapons of war available to them to use against our federal law enforcement. Our men and women deserve to have the same or superior weapons and equipment to protect themselves and fight these wars, regardless of if it's an armored vehicle, automatic weapons or strike drones.
Problem is, who decides when such action is justified? What about Waco? Ruby Ridge? The Elian Gonzales raid? were those actions well-advised and justified? Where is the due process? If you need a warrant for a no-knock search, shouldn't you need to get one to show up with an armored vehicle? Where are the checks and balancesa on agency excesses?
MarcSpaz wrote:
A domestic agency buying these things does not mean they are automatically going to be intended to be used against citizens of this country for reasons of tyranny.
If it is a domestic agency, it seems to me there is by definition a high probablility they could be used against citizens. We are hearing now that the government has decided the next wave of terrorists will be American citizens. I'm an American citizen. I'm so patriotic I tear up when I'm standing with my hat over my heart for the National Anthem. But I'm frequently vocally critical of the government. I own firearms. What's to say that some tight-assed yuppie DHS or ATF agent won't decide I'm a nascent threat to national security? Is it still tyrany if the feds were mistaken? Seems to me that we as US citizens are entitled to be damned well assured out government won't engage in tyranny - even with the best of intentions. And as some others have observed here, there is not much trust that the current administration can be trusted to do that. Hell, any adminsitration is liable to step over the line; because power corrupts.
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
