This is a test...

An opportunity to educate as well.

I've identified a few in my community where at least some questions can be planted in their brain.

For instance heard on the amateur radio local chatter about saving money on a trial/prison by having the state execute on the spot (here on the RPF's too :mad:).

Pertinent questions: Which would you rather fund?

[insert ANY unconstitutional waste here] or protecting an individual's civil rights?

How has cheering state on-the-spot executions worked out in the past?
 
I was thinking this (is a test) too. Shocked there hasn't been a single resident not to allow the warrant-less invasions yet!
 
Customers came in today talking about how bad traffic was today. I mentioned that it could be worse, we could be in Boston all under lockdown. She says 'well hey, I'd get an extra day off! *laugh laugh laugh* :mad:
 
I will not comply. So sick of hearing it's for our safety--you give up liberty for security you get neither (paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin).
 
It isn't martial law. People are not prohibited from leaving their homes. Civil law has not been suspended. The 4th amendment has not been suspended. People are voluntarily cooperating with the "authorities". Presumably because they are of one mind that they want the murderer caught as soon as possible.

Repeat - this is not martial law.
 
It isn't martial law. People are not prohibited from leaving their homes. Civil law has not been suspended. The 4th amendment has not been suspended. People are voluntarily cooperating with the "authorityes". Presumably because they are of one mind that they want the murderer caught as soon as possible.

Repeat - this is not martial law.

Well, if you show up in an urban battle tank with 50 soldiers, most people aren't going to say no.
 
It isn't martial law. People are not prohibited from leaving their homes. Civil law has not been suspended. The 4th amendment has not been suspended. People are voluntarily cooperating with the "authorities". Presumably because they are of one mind that they want the murderer caught as soon as possible.

Repeat - this is not martial law.


It's a lockdown.



lock·down


noun
1. the confining of prisoners to their cells, as following a riot or other disturbance.

2. a security measure taken during an emergency to prevent people from leaving or entering a building: The school remains under lockdown due to police activity in the area.

It's a soft martial law. They have troops on the streets as well.
 
It isn't martial law. People are not prohibited from leaving their homes. Civil law has not been suspended. The 4th amendment has not been suspended. People are voluntarily cooperating with the "authorities". Presumably because they are of one mind that they want the murderer caught as soon as possible.

Repeat - this is not martial law.

Depicting and declaring are separate things altogether..

Even Mass. would be hesitant to actually "declare" martial law.

I'll draw my own conclusions from the plethora of photos whether or not they "depict" martial law.
 
It isn't martial law. People are not prohibited from leaving their homes. Civil law has not been suspended. The 4th amendment has not been suspended. People are voluntarily cooperating with the "authorities". Presumably because they are of one mind that they want the murderer caught as soon as possible.

Repeat - this is not martial law.

That makes it even better. It's voluntary martial law. Police and military are doing house to house searches without warrants. Justified? Maybe under the circumstances. Bad precedent? Most definitely!
 
It isn't martial law. People are not prohibited from leaving their homes. Civil law has not been suspended. The 4th amendment has not been suspended. People are voluntarily cooperating with the "authorities". Presumably because they are of one mind that they want the murderer caught as soon as possible.

Repeat - this is not martial law.

saw a pic of some random guy laying face down because?.......he wasn't SUPPOSED to be 'just' walking around....
 
That makes it even better. It's voluntary martial law. Police and military are doing house to house searches without warrants. Justified? Maybe under the circumstances. Bad precedent? Most definitely!


Ain't no such thing as voluntary martial law. Martial law is the suspension of civil law and replacement with law by military edict. That has not happened. The military did not issue edicts requiring people to do anything.

Also, warrantless searches are perfectly lawful under civil law IF you consent.

Show me a case where searches are happening without consent and without probable cause and you might have a case. Show me where people are ordered to stay inside by the military under threat of some kind of penalty and you might have a case.

I have seen no evidence of that.

The presence of tanks and troops does not equal martial law.

Martial law has a precise meaning. This isn't it.
 
For the standpoint of acclimatizing the American people, which is what the OP seems to have been talking about, none of what you just said matters.

Ain't no such thing as voluntary martial law. Martial law is the suspension of civil law and replacement with law by military edict. That has not happened. The military did not issue edicts requiring people to do anything.

Also, warrantless searches are perfectly lawful under civil law IF you consent.

Show me a case where searches are happening without consent and without probable cause and you might have a case. Show me where people are ordered to stay inside by the military under threat of some kind of penalty and you might have a case.

I have seen no evidence of that.

The presence of tanks and troops does not equal martial law.

Martial law has a precise meaning. This isn't it.
 
Maybe you want to get a different name for it, but psychologically mind-effing people into voluntarily putting themselves into house-arrest and allowing armed men in uniform to stroll through their homes.. if it's not "martial law"; it's something worse. (because they didn't even have the decency to call it what it is)
 
For the standpoint of acclimatizing the American people, which is what the OP seems to have been talking about, none of what you just said matters.

Merely pointing out that when people are calling this event "martial law" they are using the term incorrectly. If people want to use the term incorrectly because it has more "impact", have at it. It's still wrong. :-)
 
Merely pointing out that when people are calling this event "martial law" they are using the term incorrectly. If people want to use the term incorrectly because it has more "impact", have at it. It's still wrong. :-)

news broadcasts depicting martial law

Whether the news is depicting the situation accurately is another matter altogether.
 
Back
Top