Video: Feds fire on Brown Supporter in New Hampshire

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Muckraker Why? The constitution is a general guide, not a catch-all document. So you will not pull over when a police car has its sirens on because the constitution did not mention police or police cars? You will travel at twice the posted speed because the constitution doesn't mention speed limits?

Why bother refuting pointless drivel like this?

Quote by: Muckraker "Questioning" a law you have a problem with is vastly different than disobeying a law you have a problem with. The appropriate path is to obey the law but the question the law, get the law changed, and then obey the new law you agree with.

Yeah yeah yeah, that's always the story intil somebody actually acts to change the law, then they're crazy. I've seen this line of reasoning before int he anti-drug threads. Completely circular in nature.

Quote by: Muckraker I forgot you were a fan of guns. I imagine it would be annoying to know that the government wouldn't come and knock on your door and say it was a fascist gun squad coming to take away your constitutional rights. The chance that you may not have time to get to your cache of weapons because the enemy is being "secretive" must keep you quite on edge. Why in the world would federal agents come knock on the door and put their own lives at risk? Taser first, ask questions later. It's better for both parties that way. When you know the fed is coming you end up with things like Waco. I see no problem at all with agents performing the most logical "operations" for the situation. It makes a great video for the fascist fodder websites but the end result is that no agents were killed or injured, the target wasn't killed or injured, and no property was damaged. If I was on PCP and waving an Uzi around I would much prefer the cops sneak around and taser me from behind before "identifying themselves." If they did walk up and identify themselves then maybe I would shoot and kill a few of them and then maybe they would snipe my head off. Seems like a hefty price to pay and the only difference is that it gives me a chance to do something I will regret later. You should do more research before muddying your own reputation with greedy pigs like the Browns. You are a tax protester. The Browns are criminals living it up in a mansion on a hill. The fundamental problem with your position is that you don't have many positive role models to side with. The Browns are pigs. The Branch Davidians were a bunch of child-molesting cultists. And peaceful tax protesters like yourself don't make the news until you become extremists.

And you have nothing on your side but authoritarian kleptocrats who seek to rule from behind the scenes. Oh, and their ignorant cheerleaders who think they'll be able to live off the crumbs left by the vultures picking the carcasses.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Milton So you're OK with the Feds trespassing to surveil people? To clarify my position, I'm not OK with that. Law enforcement is supposed t announce their presence, and their intent.

Feel free to provide evidence that...
A.) They didn't have a warrant.
B.) The area where this man was walking was a part of his property.

Either will suffice.

Fact is, if they had a warrant, they are well within their legal ability and authority to surveil the location before executing said warrant. This is even more secured if they have a no-knock warrant.

I was under the impression that was private property, and belonged to the people being targeted.

Well then provide evidence to support your impression.

I don't really need to see a lot more to know that the government is overstepping it's bounds with behavior like that. It smells of Waco, or Ruby Ridge all over again.

So you admit to jumping to conclusions. Fair enough.

Sorry, but where is the outcrry against violence, like I would be dealing with if the shots had flown in the other direction? Where is the condemnation of force?

Sorry but unless you can prove they didn't fire less than lethal rounds at the individual your argument doesn't hold any water. You wouldn't give them the benefit of less than lethal that they would probably give you.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Feel free to provide evidence that... A.) They didn't have a warrant. B.) The area where this man was walking was a part of his property. Either will suffice.

My issue was the camoflaged officers, and their tactics when confronted.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Fact is, if they had a warrant, they are well within their legal ability and authority to surveil the location before executing said warrant. This is even more secured if they have a no-knock warrant.

Really? Is using militay camoflage, stealth, and weaponry within constitutional bounds?

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Well then provide evidence to support your impression. So you admit to jumping to conclusions. Fair enough.

I didn't feel that any conclusions were "jumped to", I was merely opining on the footage provided. Jumping to conclusions would imply that there was not a long list of transgressions done in a similar manor by the same entities.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Sorry but unless you can prove they didn't fire less than lethal rounds at the individual your argument doesn't hold any water. You wouldn't give them the benefit of less than lethal that they would probably give you.

Again, I'm discussion the tactics, and the protocols of the officers visible in the video.


Even if they do have a warrant, I have issues with the way they confronted the person outside the building, the lack of an announcement of who they were, and what their intentions were.


All legitimate things to question after the Waco, and Ruby Ridge incidents.

[lsbskins1]

The problem, Milton, is that you will not accept any definition of "Constitutional" but your own. In the end, no matter if it was you against the rest of the world, you would insist that your reading is the correct one and that anyone who disagrees with you is a "bootlicker" or "dupe" or "Nanny-statist". I know that there are many who see this issue the same way that you do, but still, you are in the minority by a long shot. And the objective truth is that you do not get to make the final choice on what defines "Constitutional". I, and most Americans, do not believe our tax system is unconstitutional and our votes count as much as yours. Tally 'em up. Then start ranting about how we do not live in a democracy and nobody can vote away your "birthrights". In the end, the law is on our side and I believe objective truth is on our side. If you shoot me, I may be dead, but I won't be any less right.

[DadaOrwell2]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 How do we know anything from that choppy footage? Furthermore, even if the claim that he was fired on "with unknown ordinance" is true, how do we know it wasn't less than lethal beanbags or equivalent? And what's he talking about with the resolution being lower during the action? It clearly says 720x400 the whole time even with the sudden semi-letterbox.

My understanding is the feds have claimed they used nonlethal ordinance. My understanding is also that they denied having fired shots...then admitted it. Fog of war maybe. I'm not sure of either so I didn't report either.

With regard to resolution, the reason it continues to say 720 x 400 is apparently that the lower-res section is a lo res copy of a hi res original. You still see the lettering on the original that says 720 x 400 but you're seeing it in low res. Obviously you can't tell much difference on youtube but I can see it here.

[DadaOrwell2]

Seems to me like a more appropriate way to deal with tax protesters like Elaine Brown would be deinal of service...rather than camo clad paramilitaries romping around the New Hampshire woods. If the Washington government is as valuable as some of you here seem to believe, then removing its services from individuals who don't pay in...should be deterrence enough.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: DadaOrwell2 Seems to me like a more appropriate way to deal with tax protesters like Elaine Brown would be deinal of service...rather than camo clad paramilitaries romping around the New Hampshire woods. If the Washington government is as valuable as some of you here seem to believe, then removing its services from individuals who don't pay in...should be deterrence enough.

Deny them the use of roads?

The Browns didn't pay federal OR state taxes. And Elaine was happily collecting Social Security checks.

How about we deny them the sensation of not being tasered?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Milton Bradley They didn't appear to be there to arrest anybody, and they certainly didn't announce those intentions until their cover was blown.

Uhh... the video and the OP state that they were there in an attempt to take the Brown's into custody. That's "arrest", in case you don't have your dictionary in front of you.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why were they in camoflage hiding on the property in the first place? Arrest them, or don't.

Because the Browns were holed up in a protective environment that was not conducive to taking them into custody without someone being harmed.

They were assessing the situation and closing a perimeter. It's textbook police apprehension tactics.

But no, no, they just had to go in with the guns blazing, demonstrating their strong arm protocols.

Laughable. Were the Browns taken into custody? Was anyone hurt? Whatever their "protocols", they worked perfectly towards the goal of taking these people into custody unharmed.

Quote by: Milton Bradley How about people who happen to agree with them, that the Supreme Court screwed up, and ruled incorrectly, granting the government too much power.

Yes, I suppose "those people" would support the Browns.











"Those people" are nuts.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, first the "established rules", and the "established authoriteis" have to be proven to be operating withing the bounds of the constitution. If not, they are not legitimate authorities, or rules, and need not be followed by citizens.

What about the tax code is illegitimate? The IRC is valid, legal, and mandatory, and frankly can be proven so with merely an elementary knowledge of statutes and cases.

Being as the constitutionality of the laws are what's being questioned in this case, my sympathies lie with those who are "innocent until proven guilty", and not the hired thugs with license to kill.

Really? So if I question the constitutionality of murder laws I can go on a killing spree and you'll be on my side? Great.

Questioning the Constitutionality of laws that are clearly Constitutional isn't heroic, it's just stupid.

By the way... it might behoove you to read the facts of the situation before you decide where your sympathies lie... The Browns were ALREADY PROVEN GUILTY when this standoff was occurring. But don't let facts get in the way of your sympathies.

Quote by: DadaOrwell2 Seems to me like a more appropriate way to deal with tax protesters like Elaine Brown would be deinal of service...rather than camo clad paramilitaries romping around the New Hampshire woods. If the Washington government is as valuable as some of you here seem to believe, then removing its services from individuals who don't pay in...should be deterrence enough.

Except that this is impossible, and if a person has an IQ above 4 they understand that. I'll grant the benefit of the doubt and say you were just being facetious here, and that you know better.

[DadaOrwell2]

Muckraker wrote:

"...I'm sure Elaine Brown's dental offices happily gouged the heck out of everyone for.

What a joke"

My God man, listen to yourself. You just "assume" Elaine gouged people for what reason exactly? She was my dentist and she treated me great in care and price. And you think it's a joke that she's in a concrete box for keeping the fruits of her own labor? How can you stand to think that way?

[DadaOrwell2]

"Except that this is impossible, and if a person has an IQ above 4 they understand that."

Maybe anyone with an IQ above four is aware that people would opt out in huge numbers because they are not getting their money's worth from the income tax.

Also with regard to keeping the Browns off roads....they did pay their road tax, everyone does....it's called the gas tax.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: DadaOrwell2 Maybe anyone with an IQ above four is aware that people would opt out in huge numbers because they are not getting their money's worth from the income tax.

"Not getting their money's worth" is a political issue. I happen to feel the same way. However, I also understand that this is solved through voting and other political advocacy, not by throwing a temper tantrum and withholding your legally required tax payments.

I would be slightly more sympathetic towards your argument here if you had proof that, in lieu of paying taxes, the Browns (or any other tax denier who makes the same argument) had calculated their tax burden and taken that amount of their income and put it into an interest-bearing savings account, like a tenant withholding their rent from a landlord who won't repair a problem. They could even donate the interest to some tax-reform charity.

But they didn't. They spent it on themselves. That shows me their motivation is greed, not some high-minded political statement.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chaossaber How do we know anything from that choppy footage?

Well, we know that Riley and his dog are both alive, free of bullet holes and basically unharmed, therefore it's apparent the authorities used proportionate force to subdue and capture a fleeing suspect... one who, given the fact that he willingly armed wanted fugitives, very well could have been armed himself, beyond the coffee cup.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Who used violence to solve their problem?

The people authorized by the American people to do so, in the course of apprehending resisting criminals.

You don't have a problem with arresting criminals, do you, Milton? How would you deal with people who are armed and vowed to resist arrest? Plant a line of Skittles along a path, leading to a camouflaged paddy wagon, and hope they follow it inside?

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why were they in camoflage hiding on the property in the first place?

Double Duh... so they could see what was going on in the compound without being seen themselves.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Arrest them, or don't.

Triple Duh... there were, what, hundreds of people there? Who were they? What were they doing? How many were armed? Were there lookouts? How many? What were the possible escape routes? Had they set up any traps, alarms or ambushes? What would be the quickest, least dangerous way to affect an arrest?

They were approaching an encampment filled with armed defenders of escaped fugitives. Jeez, Milton, when you choose, you can be as dense as granite. Did you imagine that crowd was simply going to allow the Feds to walk in and "Arrest them, or don't?"

Quote by: Milton Bradley How about people who happen to agree with them, that the Supreme Court screwed up, and ruled incorrectly, granting the government too much power.

Then they should be prepared to be arrested, go to court, make their case and pay the consequences of civil disobedience, because simply disagreeing with a law doesn't change it and defying it means you'll be arrested, with or without your cooperation and with whatever force is deemed necessary for the safety of everyone involved... particularly the safety of the law enforcers.

Quote by: Milton Bradley To clarify my position, I'm not OK with that. Law enforcement is supposed t announce their presence, and their intent.

Law enforcement isn't allowed to conduct investigations and surveilance? Says who?

Quote by: HelioPrime If you dislike the current government so much the leave the country and let the majority get on with our lives.

Isn't that usually your line, Milton?

Seems more than appropriate here.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Feel free to provide evidence that... A.) They didn't have a warrant. B.) The area where this man was walking was a part of his property. Either will suffice.

We both know we are operating on the limited information available in the video.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Fact is, if they had a warrant, they are well within their legal ability and authority to surveil the location before executing said warrant. This is even more secured if they have a no-knock warrant.

This is precisely what I was criticising, Police protocols, for like the third time now.


I can understand that you disagree, or perhaps even dislike my opinion, but I still have the ability to voice it.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 You wouldn't give them the benefit of less than lethal that they would probably give you.

Well, that's probably true, however my intentions would be made absolutely clear, as one would expect on private property in a free society. Particularly when we are talking about the alleged "authories", whom you guys always say it is futile to fight, because of their technological superiority.


So where's the love? Where's the compassion?


See, this is why they do not have my respect, because not only do you have to understand the concept of respect, but you have to give a little, to get a little. They give none, so they shall get none.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Milton Bradley We both know we are operating on the limited information available in the video.

Actually, we're not. We know a great deal about the situation from outside the video - the Browns' story made a lot of news.

In particular, we know that the Browns were convicted of several crimes and had been sentenced and asked to turn themselves in. In short - the "state" had already used the nice approach.

We also know they had an arrest warrant - under the 4th Amendment don't forget that warrants CAN be issued upon probable cause. Anti-government types like to say "every" police action is unjustified, but according to the Constitution, the overwhelming majority of them are perfectly justified.

Being convicted of serious crimes and then not showing up for court to be sentenced and taken off to jail is de facto probable cause to issue an arrest warrant.

This is precisely what I was criticising, Police protocols, for like the third time now. I can understand that you disagree, or perhaps even dislike my opinion, but I still have the ability to voice it.

Well, maybe people would stop criticizing your opinion if you told us, in your infinite knowledge of perfect arrest tactics, HOW the police should have taken the Browns into custody.

Well, that's probably true, however my intentions would be made absolutely clear, as one would expect on private property in a free society. Particularly when we are talking about the alleged "authories", whom you guys always say it is futile to fight, because of their technological superiority.

The tactics they used were with the intent of taking two people into custody without injury to anyone involved, and they accomplished that goal.

See, this is why they do not have my respect, because not only do you have to understand the concept of respect, but you have to give a little, to get a little. They give none, so they shall get none.

Excuse me??? They DID respect the Browns. That's why they didn't just run in, guns blazing, and kill them. The government respected their abilities enough to be concerned that if they went in with a show of force, people would get hurt, and despite the fact that the Browns were flaunting the laws by their actions, the police were careful. They finally took them into custody using no force whatsoever, by posing as supporters and gaining entrance. What would you have suggested they do???

In this instance, the government gave the Browns every chance to resolve things peacefully and also gave them more than a fair crack at due process. The Browns, on the other hand, flouted the law at every turn and acted like their criminal behavior was some kind of "movement". Who was lacking in respect??????

Anti-government whiners like you just want any excuse to complain about government actions. When the government takes criminals into custody using swift decisive action (which often includes force), you complain about heavy-handedness. When they are careful and take people into custody after completely assessing the situation, you complain about "sneaky" tactics... Give me a break...


(This of course only applies to "causes" they agree with. As soon as people like this see something like a homeless man rummaging through their garbage they are on 911 screaming that the police don't respond quickly enough, because of course that is another opportunity to complain about "government")

[DadaOrwell2]

With regard to the folks here who are defending the government, well you're right in a way! The authorities handled this much better than Waco or Ruby Ridge, perhaps because of the Internet, perhaps the fact the Browns never used force on anyone in connection with the standoff, perhaps because there were a lot of vocal people in New Hampshire who opposed nabbing them.

But you still have a government initiating force to obtain the fruits of Elaine Brown's labor. You may think that is "the way it's always been," but it wasn't that way before 1913. It's not that way at the state level in New Hampshire. Income taxes are Federal, and they have not always been around.

Washington didn't deserve that money...now that they have it they will waste it at best or use it to torture people at worst.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: DadaOrwell You may think that is "the way it's always been," but it wasn't that way before 1913. It's not that way at the state level in New Hampshire. Income taxes are Federal, and they have not always been around.

Oh horsesh!t. You libertarians have really created some dreamy mythology about the founders and their 'hatred' of federal government. I give you the Whiskey Rebellion, the Browns of 1794, five years after the U.S. Constitution was put into affect...



"The new federal government, at the urging of the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, assumed the states' debt from the American Revolutionary War. In 1791 Hamilton convinced Congress to approve taxes on distilled spirits and carriages. Hamilton's principal reason for the tax was that he wanted to pay down the national debt, but he justified the tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue."[1] But most importantly, Hamilton "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government."

"Western farmers considered it to be both unfair and discriminatory, since they had traditionally converted their excess grain into liquor. Since the nature of the tax affected those who sold the whiskey, it directly affected many farmers. Many protest meetings were held, and a situation arose which was reminiscent of the opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765 before the American Revolution."

"By the summer of 1794, tensions reached a fevered pitch all along the western frontier as the settlers' primary marketable commodity was threatened by the federal taxation measures. Finally, the civil protests became an armed rebellion. The first shots were fired at the Oliver Miller Homestead in present day South Park Township, Pennsylvania, about ten miles south of Pittsburgh."

"George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, remembering Shays' Rebellion from just eight years before, decided to make Pennsylvania a testing ground for federal authority. Washington ordered federal marshals to serve court orders requiring the tax protesters to appear in federal district court. On August 7, 1794, Washington invoked Martial Law to summon the militias of Pennsylvania, Virginia and several states. The rebel force they sought was likewise composed of Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and possibly men from other states."

"The militia force of 12,950 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War. Under the personal command of Washington, Hamilton and Revolutionary War hero General Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, the army assembled in Harrisburg and marched into western Pennsylvania (to what is now Monongahela) in October of 1794. The rebels "could never be found," according to Jefferson, but the militia expended considerable effort rounding up 20 prisoners, clearly demonstrating Federalist authority in the national government. The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two, including Philip Vigol (later spelled Philip Wigal), were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a "simpleton," and the other, "insane."[5]


You folks simply represent that small portion of society that simply can't stand submitting to authority and having people tell you what to do... ANY authority. As Milton so loves to say, if you don't like living by the laws of the land, take a hike.

Make like a tree.

Get on the bus, Gus.

.

[rebelnyell]

I thought that the video on this page would somewhat fit in with this discussion.
Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism - On-line version
This doesn't really have to do with this actual incident that is being discussed in this thread but about income tax.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: DadaOrwell2 With regard to the folks here who are defending the government, well you're right in a way! The authorities handled this much better than Waco or Ruby Ridge, perhaps because of the Internet, perhaps the fact the Browns never used force on anyone in connection with the standoff, perhaps because there were a lot of vocal people in New Hampshire who opposed nabbing them.

Or perhaps because the odds were hugely in favor of them handling it well, as the law enforcement community in this country handles the vast, ridiculous, overwhelming majority of cases wherein they need to apprehend a suspect very well.

The exception proves the rule - the fact that two instances in which the government DIDN'T handle the "situation" well was such big news shows that things like that are, fortunately, out of the ordinary.

But you still have a government initiating force to obtain the fruits of Elaine Brown's labor.

No, you have a government arresting a criminal who was convicted of violating its laws.

You may think that is "the way it's always been," but it wasn't that way before 1913. It's not that way at the state level in New Hampshire. Income taxes are Federal, and they have not always been around.

What's your point? Are you saying this is news to me? I assure you I know far more about taxation, especially federal taxation, than pretty much anyone else around here.

Washington didn't deserve that money...now that they have it they will waste it at best or use it to torture people at worst.

Once again, a POLITICAL issue. You don't like it? Vote in some people you do like.

Quote by: rebelnyell I thought that the video on this page would somewhat fit in with this discussion. Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism - On-line version This doesn't really have to do with this actual incident that is being discussed in this thread but about income tax.

And it also happens to be one of the biggest piles of horsesh*t I've ever seen.

[rebelnyell]

And it also happens to be one of the biggest piles of horsesh*t I've ever seen.

can you please expand on this comment and clarify your reasons on why this video is horsesh*t. Because personally from my stand point this video hold quite a lot of ground from various people and sources. If you can provide me with some information to prove that this video is horsesh*t other than a statement then the only thing at this moment that I will believe is horsesh*t is your comment.