tod evans
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 36,071
Good God man!
It is NOT governments place to "defend life, liberty, and property"!
Especially militarized troops within our borders!
Where in the world do you come up with these pearls of wisdom?
What was the alternative to what the police did in Boston?
- Thread starter Brett85
- Start date
Good God man!
It is NOT governments place to "defend life, liberty, and property"!
Especially militarized troops within our borders!
Where in the world do you come up with these pearls of wisdom?
If Timothy McVeigh had been running through Oklahama City from house to house, I'm sure the OKC police would've been searching homes as well.
tod evans
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 36,071
They had no idea where McVey was any more than last weeks patsy.
Why do you insist on apologizing for a government that has overstepped her bounds?
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law."
This is why the government exists, to defend life, liberty, and property. This is what libertarians are supposed to believe, rather than this anarchist vision where it's just every man for himself, where only the strong survive.
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
How did they know he wasn't?
Moreover, why are you making it seem like this guy was running "from house to house"? He was found in a boat in a yard... by the very civilians you were saying in an earlier post should not be relied on to find suspects, lest there be anarchy.
Lastly, towards the end when the police were coming up empty, there was talk of a possible getaway vehicle.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with a government that exists to defend life, liberty, and property. I don't have a problem with the basic functions of government like the military, the police, a court system, etc. I'm not an anarchist.
Shane Harris
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,910
There is an alternative to every man defends himself and a total police state. Private law enforcement and the like would have been much more likely to prevent such a bombing in the first place, and would be much more likely to catch the bomber sooner and more efficiently. At least in my pro-market opinion. But I don't want this to become another anarcho-capitalism versus minarchism/constitutionalism thread so I will leave it at that. One question though. How good of a track record does government have with defending life, liberty, and property compared to its violating said rights. Has it proven to be such a wonderful institution for defending freedom that any talk of private competition needs crushed or mocked?
Actually, I said that both private citizens and the police have a role to play in catching suspects. I just disagree with those who say that the police should have no role in catching suspects.
otherone
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,638
Your quoted text doesn't mean what you think it means.
tod evans
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 36,071
And you read daily how government deprives citizens of "life, liberty, and property" without due-process.
Armed cadres of soldiers marching in the street going door to door isn't defending anything!
How could a sane person even try to argue this?
FYI; I don't pigeon-hole my political beliefs with labels or pat ideas.
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
Putting up a wanted poster and responding to tips =/= no role.
Honestly this whole thread is just one really long troll by you.
I'm disappointed
Putting up a wanted poster and responding to tips =/= no role.
Honestly this whole thread is just one really long troll by you.
I'm disappointed
Well, people are saying that the police should've had no role in chasing the suspect, if you want the most accurate term possible.
nobody's_hero
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 10,909
If McVeigh had been running through OKC from house to house, I'd be more than willing to bet that an Oklahoman would have eventually met him at the door with a shotgun. It is Oklahoma, not Massachusetts, after all.
As for law enforcement, the days of 'sleuth' detectives have been replaced by a more militaristic response from government.
This is really not all that different from the way the British responded to a mob throwing tea into a harbor, by increasing patrols in Boston. Mind you, that the American people historically have not been fond of such approaches, no matter how well-intentioned.
But much has changed since then, and we live in an age of fear-induced submission.
Last edited:
The point of this thread was not to "troll." I asked for an alternative for what the police should've done instead, and the only responses I received were people who said that it should be up to private individuals to catch the suspect, with the exception of the government putting out a "wanted poster."
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,995
Are you even going to respond to the fact that you've been called out on your stupid assertion that they the reason the police didn't go house to house searching for McVeigh was because he wasn't running from house to house when there was no way they could have known that at the time and there is actually no way you can know for certain now that he didn't go house to house before he eventually escaped in a car?
And earlier you said there were only "two" terrorist attacks on U.S, soil. So Oklahoma city doesn't count as a terrorist attack? The 1993 WTC bombing which involved Islamic radicals wasn't a terrorist attack?
You've been factually challenged this entire thread. And I mean that two ways. Challenged in "you haven't had the facts" and challeged as in "others have challenged you with the facts." All in some absurd quest to get others to agree with you that what happened in Boston was "reasonable". Well...most of us don't think so. And most of us see it our part of our mission in life to get others to quit accepting the status quo as "reasonable." The income tax is not "reasonable". The federal reserve is not "reasonable." The TSA and the naked body scanners and the random groping of grandmothers and toddlers is not reasonable. Rand having to fillibuster for 13 hours before the Whitehouse will give a definitive statement about not using drones against Americans on American soil who aren't posing an imminent threat is not "reasonable." Yes, sadly, many of our fellow Americans think this garbage is reasonable. And so for that, I suppose, we should thank you since this hones our skills for talking to the rest of our countrymen who through their complacency are collectively responsible for America slowly becoming a tyranny filled cesspool. Then again, wasting time here arguing this instead of taking our arguments out to the rest of the world isn't prodcutive either.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,995
Not true. You got the response of people point out to the the fact that the lockdown didn't actually help and that when the citizens felt free to move about they caught the guy. You also got the response about the bloodhounds. You didn't get some new "government program" that would fill some bloated budget like an "army of drones" or whatnot. You also had people calling you out on the false assertion that this event was so "extraordinary" that it required "extraordinary measures." It wasn't and it didn't.
I believe I said that this attack was the 1st attack on our soil since 9-11.
In that situation the police didn't have any idea where McVeigh was. In this situation, the suspect had escaped from the police, and the police actually had a good idea about the general area that he was in. They set a perimiter where they believed the suspect was and searched the perimiter, which was the right thing to do.
Similar threads
