Free Country News: Feds raid Texas secessionist meeting

[bripat9643]

You are an anarcho commie who has no use for any government system; thus your opinion is meaningless.

I thought I was an "right wing reactionary fascist who loves ruthless government power." That's something of a contradiction, don't you think?

Furthermore. I don't post an opinion. I posted a verifiable fact. You do nothing in this forum aside from kiss government butt hole. You are, by definition, a reactionary.

I was reflecting your wild across the board postings.

You know nothing, bripat snow.

You offer nothing.

You can do nothing.

Wrong. You were demonstrating that you are a moron who doesn't keep track of what you're babbling.

 

[bripat9643]

In the photo, most of the secessionists were grayhairs. That is, the "gubmint hands off my medicare!" crowd. Latched on to the government teat, sucking out every subsidy they can get.

So, they're exactly like the conservatives on this thread. No wonder the conservatives identified so strongly with them. Nothing gets a conservative more riled up than the belief that someone might be threatening their gubmint subsidies.

I marvel at the way leftwing turds like you make up stuff to attack people for that you don't like.

 

[mamooth]

Bri _deserves_ his subsidies, so his case is special. It always is.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri _deserves_ his subsidies, so his case is special. It always is.

What "subsidies" am I getting?

 

[mudwhistle]

"The pretext of the raid was that two individuals from the group had reportedly sent out “simulated court documents” — summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosure.

These “simulated documents” were rejected and the authorities decided to react with a “show of force” — twenty officers and an extremely broad search warrant."

Ah, do be careful when attempting to overthrow the government, it tends to overthrow you, off the nearest bridge. And be careful who you associate with, they may be the wrong kinds since fringe movements like this are full of nutters.

There are dangerous fringe groups out there, this does not appear to be one of them and it does present the image of overkill on the part of Law Enforcement.
Given that I'd like to get more from the side of the raiders and why they determined this style, level of raid was necessary, there could be other unreported aspects here that justifies what Law Enforcement did.
By law if someone is not advocating the use of force or violence to overthrow the Federal government, any local, county or state government he/she/they are withing their rights as protected by the First Amendment however if they are participating in other actions that are illegal then it's a whole nother story.
No one was arrested so this has all the appearances of an intimidation tactic which would constitute a violation of their Civil Rights. Personally I believe (I have a law enforcement background) those who ordered and orchestrated the raid have some explaining to do.

4th Amendment violation.

Okay. Now prove it based on the limited information we've been given.

They have to have probable-cause that a crime is being committed.

How do you, or I or anyone on this site not intimately involved with the case know that they didn't have probable cause?
Were you there? Have you been involved with this group, law enforcement or anyone involved in any inside capacity throughout this groups history? I don't think so. Given that all we can do is surmise, most apparently based on what they want to see, a few based the need for more information and a knowledge of how these things are supposed to work.
As I told others the group has possible legal recourse they can pursue then it's up to a judge or jury to determine if their Civil Rights were violated.

I can only go by what was in the article, which showed a clear case of government intimidation. This is what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

 

[Ringel05]

There are dangerous fringe groups out there, this does not appear to be one of them and it does present the image of overkill on the part of Law Enforcement.
Given that I'd like to get more from the side of the raiders and why they determined this style, level of raid was necessary, there could be other unreported aspects here that justifies what Law Enforcement did.
By law if someone is not advocating the use of force or violence to overthrow the Federal government, any local, county or state government he/she/they are withing their rights as protected by the First Amendment however if they are participating in other actions that are illegal then it's a whole nother story.
No one was arrested so this has all the appearances of an intimidation tactic which would constitute a violation of their Civil Rights. Personally I believe (I have a law enforcement background) those who ordered and orchestrated the raid have some explaining to do.

4th Amendment violation.

Okay. Now prove it based on the limited information we've been given.

They have to have probable-cause that a crime is being committed.

How do you, or I or anyone on this site not intimately involved with the case know that they didn't have probable cause?
Were you there? Have you been involved with this group, law enforcement or anyone involved in any inside capacity throughout this groups history? I don't think so. Given that all we can do is surmise, most apparently based on what they want to see, a few based the need for more information and a knowledge of how these things are supposed to work.
As I told others the group has possible legal recourse they can pursue then it's up to a judge or jury to determine if their Civil Rights were violated.

I can only go by what was in the article, which showed a clear case of government intimidation. This is what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Soooo, making sure you have all the information is an anathema to your decision making...... Don't want to have all the possible facts, it might negate our preconceptions......... Good to know.......

 

[mudwhistle]

4th Amendment violation.

Okay. Now prove it based on the limited information we've been given.

They have to have probable-cause that a crime is being committed.

How do you, or I or anyone on this site not intimately involved with the case know that they didn't have probable cause?
Were you there? Have you been involved with this group, law enforcement or anyone involved in any inside capacity throughout this groups history? I don't think so. Given that all we can do is surmise, most apparently based on what they want to see, a few based the need for more information and a knowledge of how these things are supposed to work.
As I told others the group has possible legal recourse they can pursue then it's up to a judge or jury to determine if their Civil Rights were violated.

I can only go by what was in the article, which showed a clear case of government intimidation. This is what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Soooo, making sure you have all the information is an anathema to your decision making...... Don't want to have all the possible facts, it might negate our preconceptions......... Good to know.......

Frankly I don't give a fuck.

Mkay???

 

[Ringel05]

Okay. Now prove it based on the limited information we've been given.

They have to have probable-cause that a crime is being committed.

How do you, or I or anyone on this site not intimately involved with the case know that they didn't have probable cause?
Were you there? Have you been involved with this group, law enforcement or anyone involved in any inside capacity throughout this groups history? I don't think so. Given that all we can do is surmise, most apparently based on what they want to see, a few based the need for more information and a knowledge of how these things are supposed to work.
As I told others the group has possible legal recourse they can pursue then it's up to a judge or jury to determine if their Civil Rights were violated.

I can only go by what was in the article, which showed a clear case of government intimidation. This is what the Constitution was designed to prevent.

Soooo, making sure you have all the information is an anathema to your decision making...... Don't want to have all the possible facts, it might negate our preconceptions......... Good to know.......

Frankly I don't give a fuck.

Mkay???

Cool, just like me but we still post.......