Skip to comments.US Police State Meets No Resistance
Posted on 09/10/2001 5:43:42 AM PDT by Israel
The suspect offered no resistance when about 20 federal agents entered his home, said Mark James, special agent in charge of the Kansas City office of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Authorities would not say who lived in the home, but relatives and neighbors identified the resident as 43-year-old James "Jamie" Schwartz.
The standoff began Thursday afternoon at the home about eight miles north of Salem on Missouri 68 when agents tried to serve a federal search warrant and an occupant refused to come out.
A woman left the home Thursday shortly after officers arrived. James would not say where she was or if she had been arrested. No children were in the home when officers arrived.
James said he could not discuss what prompted the search warrant because it had been sealed by a judge. He would say only that agents "found what we were looking for."
Denton County Sheriff Bob Wofford said his department had previous contact with the suspect but he declined to elaborate.
"We knew there was activity here," Wofford said.
The suspect is expected to be arraigned before a federal magistrate in St. Louis, possibly as early as Monday, James said.
A team of 12 negotiators had been unsuccessful in contacting the man throughout the siege, despite using bullhorns, a telephone and robots equipped with audio and visual capabilities.
James said officers decided to enter the home in part because they were concerned about the man's condition.
"The individual would not answer us or respond to us," James said.
About 100 officers, including some from U.S. Customs, surrounded the home throughout the standoff.
Portions of Missouri 68 were closed and two homes located nearby were evacuated. James said the inconvenience caused by the standoff also was a factor in deciding to enter the home.
Mike and Mary Mrozowicz, who live in a nearby home that was not evacuated, said the ranch-style house also has a mobile home on the property.
The Mrozowiczes said they've seen men wearing camouflage clothing and helmets hiding in the nearby woods with guns.
They said they've seen agents coming and going over the last couple of days, but the agents weren't giving area residents any clues what they were doing there.
The warrant was ordered out of the eastern district of Missouri. Jan Diltz, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in St. Louis, said she could not discuss the warrant.
John Ashcroft may not be muslim, but he exhibits the symptoms of apostates; the inability to justify not using state power to do good, if it is in their power to do it. A natural consequence of abandonment of the law of God-- a limited covenant law. But then, he is "free from the tyranny of the law", isn't he?
I told these gentlemen some time back that we should iron out our differences in private -- as honorable men. Some time back, we had another heated skirmish over this same fundamental issue, and it escalated way too far, on both sides. What started as sincere attempts at discussing the issue of enforcing unconstitutional gun laws later deteriorated into profound contrast in our fundamental priorities. Over this period of differences of opinion, we have seen some of the heartiest statements I've seen to date -- from the gun rights community -- in defense of the Police State Mentality. Here is one of many:
"To anyone out there who says I or ANY other cop should abandon our primary responsibility to their family and walk away for people who don't support what we do ANYWAY, I say ... F*** Y** - get over it. That's right, my primary responsibility is NOT to you, it's to my family..." (November 24, 2000) Bruce Emmott, former NYPDOBLIGATED TO ENFORCE:
"lucian" lucian@e... wrote:
"Lets recall some testimony from our trials of German war criminals-something about lawful orders. Surely the directors of death camps had warrants."Mr. Emmott responded:
"I'm getting REAL TIRED of s*** like this.[...]Police officers are bound by statute to enforce laws on the books of their jurisdictions - not the federal Constitution. If there is a local law concerning firearms ownership that requires the arrest of a civilian - the officer has no choice but to enforce that law."Leroy Pyle has also placed the blame for police abuses on gun owners:
"I am more aware of the "us vs. them" attitude, Chris, but it doesn't seem to be coming from the cops!" Nov 20, 2000Then there is the blind faith some cops exhibit in any law enforcement agency, as exampled by the following quote from Mr. Emmott when I attempted some reasoning with him:
"So the ATF fabricated the entire document, committed numerous counts of perjury, all to persecute this poor guy - is that what you're saying slick?"Well, why not? They've done it before. Not only that, there is at least one major false statement on the affidavit that we know of, so why not more? And why is the ATF even there? Who gave them authority? And is that authority legitimate? (NO.)
Though dozens of great quotes from various founding fathers would have served to drive home many of my points in this lengthy message, I'd planned on refraining from The Quote Technique in lieu of letting my words stand on their own -- but I can't resist just this one:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ~~ Samuel AdamsThen there are the more subtle justifications for disarming people whose sole "crime" is possession of a gun the State Worshippers continue to ban. In his controversial article Just Following Orders, Leroy Pyle said,
"I am concerned that it has become a catch-phrase among firearms activists to criticize law officers for enforcing current laws...I wonder at the wisdom of such rhetoric." Leroy Pyle, 2ampd Co-founderCriticizing cops for violating our rights is, to Mr. Pyle, "rhetoric." In placing responsibility on whose "fault" it is that police follow orders that include gross violations of civil rights, Mr. Pyle goes on in his article to list a host of the people and groups he says are truly to blame, and says, "They give the orders that your police are obligated to follow." [emphasis mine] "Obligated." If a police officer is told to go do X, according to Mr. Pyle and some of his key, threat-making associates, the police must do it. Strapping an able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 with a felony for possessing a militia rifle is "an obligation." We must keep that in mind in California as Mr. Pyle's "obligated" peers set about enforcing the "assault weapons" bans.
But aren't peoples' lives and liberties also obligations? And isn't it an obligation we owe this and future generations to keep our nation free -- and make it freer? And when the obligation to remain alive and free meets the "obligation" to infringe on rights to make a paycheck for a family, which obligation is more important? Which is right? There is a Superior principle here. Why it isn't emanating from 2ampd, I do not know. Perhaps they will write a lucid article that can make sense to gun owners whose lives, fortunes, families, liberties and sacred honor are regarded as less important than cops' paychecks. Submit it here: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNPAdd.asp.
Traitors, Tradition and Treason
Traitor n. (Dictionary.com) One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
Traitor \Trai"tor\, n. [OE. traitour, OF. tra["i]tor, tra["i]teur, F. tre[^i]tre, L. traditor, fr. tradere, traditum, to deliver, to give up or surrender treacherously, to betray; trans across, over + dare to give. See Date time, and cf. Betray, Tradition, Traditor, Treason.] 1. One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country. See Treason.
Tradition (Dictionary.com) 1. The act of delivering into the hands of another; delivery.
Treason n. (Dictionary.com)
As pertains to the infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Traitors do all of the following:
The secrecy is where the evil lies!
This seems to be SOP for the JBT's lately.(sealed warrants) Is this something new for gun cases or has it been around for awhile?
The only controversy is the secrecy as far as I am concerned.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams 1776.
Damn.... there's activity in my house, too!
I see the local law enforcement violating people's rights. When a car is pulled over, the driver is not only made to get out, but the vehicle is searched. I have seen this more times than I can count. I don't know what the deal is, or why this happens, but I can tell you honestly, that it is more often than not, illegal to do so without probably cause. Now what bothers me anymore, is what exactly dictates probable cause?
When I see these people pulled over, it's not people of any particular race. It's people of all walks of life, and colors. What bothers me the most, is what will happen when I get pulled over for some minor violation? If I speed, or run a red light, or if the police decides to run my plates, will it end up in a search of my car? I have nothing to hide, but if this becomes common practice, and the police continue to do this, and people accept it as common, what does that say about where my community is headed?
I guess it doesn't take much to train sheep now does it?
I brought up the same issue last week. Sealed warrants are evidently SOP. Supposedly the warrant is sealed from the public, but not from the defendant or his attorney.
My problem with sealed warrants is, given the level of integrity of judges these days, they are liable to give the JBT's a blank warrant and let them fill it in after they find something they can use and before the defense attorney gets to see it.
Who would know?
Of course the jack-boot lickers will all say that would never happen, and you are a cop-hater for even bringing up the possibility.
Maybe these folks are ignorant of their rights under the Constitution, and are afraid to make a stand against police abuse.
Unfortunately, the number of people that would question authority during a traffic stop are very few. Most people are afraid to make waves.
I lived in that area a few years ago (Wayzata, near Grays Bay.) You're right...it was pretty liberal when I lived there (87-94) and I'm sure it's worse now.
I saw activity yesterday at the house of the retired widow across the street. Should I report it? Is reporting a matter of conscience or is it my legal obligation to report? I don't want any trouble here.
It would go a long way toward satisfying us "cop-haters" if LEAs didn't act like nothing they did was anybody's business but their own.