Police Shamelessly cite Terrorism in Patrolling Private Lots

[dwight in philly]

 

I'm 35. I have no interest in living in a police state because it *may* possibly stop someone from doing something stupid / getting killed. If you keep police armored troop transports and military grade hardware then they will use it whether it's need or not. Look at how many no knock warrants are served by SWAT team for non-violent offenders. Why? Because we have a giant battering ram that we got from the military....better use it.

 

Supporting a armed police state because sometimes bad things happen is a terrible notion. You don't give up freedom to fight people who want to attack freedom.

Shall we take away arms from our police? i get the armored troop deal you are referring to .. but other than ferguson.. when has it been used.? i try to keep up , have not seen armored police in the news.. if anything, the microscope on them has grown larger.

Edited June 28, 2016 by dwight in philly

[3rdand12]

 

Paranoia big destroyer.

Kinks

Terrorists? Really?? Seriously???

We're talking about getting a grip on drunken Bills fans acting a fool. Be honest about it guys!

agreed

and you probably never get hassled or arrested either I bet. You also probably don't break the law either.

yep just a bunch of swells you are.

 

 

 

Maybe you should start a club.

[mrags]

Kinks

 

agreed

 

yep just a bunch of swells you are.

 

 

 

Maybe you should start a club.

we have already. You didn't get the invite?

 

Well, better luck next year.

[3rdand12]

we have already. You didn't get the invite?

 

Well, better luck next year.

Dammit.

I thought it was a spam mailing. and deleted it.

Perhaps next year.

 

well done mrags

[Hammered a Lot]

I am on the older side. So I do not mind the the police in any lot. I will give them Stromboli.

By the way , I always thank the officers for their service and tell them to be safe. They have one of the toughest jobs these day.

Doughnut Stromboli?

[simpleman]

 

I'm 35. I have no interest in living in a police state because it *may* possibly stop someone from doing something stupid / getting killed. If you keep police armored troop transports and military grade hardware then they will use it whether it's need or not. Look at how many no knock warrants are served by SWAT team for non-violent offenders. Why? Because we have a giant battering ram that we got from the military....better use it.

 

Supporting a armed police state because sometimes bad things happen is a terrible notion. You don't give up freedom to fight people who want to attack freedom.

I saw my 30s a long , long time ago, yet I still care about my constitutional rights. Sadly I think that many on here who see nothing wrong with trashing MY 4th amendment rights are pure hypocrites. They are the same individuals that scream, put up lawn signs, and get all hyper about any type of even minor or reasonable "restriction" of their 2nd amendment rights as they have been told by the NRA to interpret it, even though the NRA itself interpreted much different 40 or 50 years ago. If my safety is put at risk because of their right to bear arms, that is alright. But if someone even mutters the word terrorism, they see no problem restricting MY 4th amendment rights to protect them.

As someone else mentioned, most are willing to understand having to endure extra security measures at the stadium, restrictions on carry in items, checking cars parked close to the stadium, etc. to protect us from possible bad things. But it is when those actions move away from the reasonable and basic, and to places like remote private property, and require citizens to give up their constitutional rights just to make some extra cash so they can have a better life, then we have issues. Especially when "terrorism" is used to cover up the real thing they are afraid of, embarrassment over the conduct of a few and of the region's / the Bills pubic image.

Police are good and bad, but they are still just people. They do not change and become morally superior once they put their uniforms on. They are still the good and bad people they were the night before. They still have their angers, their frustrations, their prejudices. Their personal issue, aggravations from the night before are still there. The framers of the constitution realized that just because you put on a uniform, or were elected to office, you would not magically become a perfect, moral, just person. We would hope they would try harder to be, but the reality is that not everyone will. There is no black and white, just varying shades of gray in good and bad when it comes to human nature. The framers of the constitution realized that and they tried to create rules to help protect us from that reality and those inevitable shades of human nature

Edited June 29, 2016 by simpleman

[coloradobillsfan]

> Police are good and bad, but they are still just people. They do not change and become morally superior once they put their uniforms on. They are still the good and bad people they were the night before.

 

This made me think of the Stanford Prison Experiment

Edited June 29, 2016 by coloradobillsfan

[mrags]

I saw my 30s a long , long time ago, yet I still care about my constitutional rights. Sadly I think that many on here who see nothing wrong with trashing MY 4th amendment rights are pure hypocrites. They are the same individuals that scream, put up lawn signs, and get all hyper about any type of even minor or reasonable "restriction" of their 2nd amendment rights as they have been told by the NRA to interpret it, even though the NRA itself interpreted much different 40 or 50 years ago. If my safety is put at risk because of their right to bear arms, that is alright. But if someone even mutters the word terrorism, they see no problem restricting MY 4th amendment rights to protect them.

As someone else mentioned, most are willing to understand having to endure extra security measures at the stadium, restrictions on carry in items, checking cars parked close to the stadium, etc. to protect us from possible bad things. But it is when those actions move away from the reasonable and basic, and to places like remote private property, and require citizens to give up their constitutional rights just to make some extra cash so they can have a better life, then we have issues. Especially when "terrorism" is used to cover up the real thing they are afraid of, embarrassment over the conduct of a few and of the region's / the Bills pubic image.

Police are good and bad, but they are still just people. They do not change and become morally superior once they put their uniforms on. They are still the good and bad people they were the night before. They still have their angers, their frustrations, their prejudices. Their personal issue, aggravations from the night before are still there. The framers of the constitution realized that just because you put on a uniform, or were elected to office, you would not magically become a perfect, moral, just person. We would hope they would try harder to be, but the reality is that not everyone will. There is no black and white, just varying shades of gray in good and bad when it comes to human nature. The framers of the constitution realized that and they tried to create rules to help protect us from that reality and those inevitable shades of human nature

i have no problem with this post at all and no problem with your 4th amendment rights.

 

My only issue is your take on "private lots" during games and they shouldn't be subject to police in the name of terrorism. Regardless of this is a BS reason to implement police in the lots or not. The fact still remains that these lots are no longer considered private on game day. They are being used for mass congregation and at the end of the day, nobody is putting a gun to the lot owners heads telling them they must open their lots for private parking/tailgating. It is their right to utilize their lot to make money for themselves just as it is the county/state/governments right to police the area when they find it is needed.

 

A good example would be... As an underage kid, I took part in many many house parties. Some with alcohol, drugs, and more alcohol. Many times the cops were called. They didn't need warrants to come into the house. They barged in on their own. It's almost no different. And that's if we're just talking about partying and alcohol.

 

We can talk all we want about the use of the word "terrorism" and the rights that are taken away from us in that name. At the end of the day, we don't know yet and won't know if any of this effects anyone's tailgating experience u til it actually happens. And is out top dollar in it that the people it effects are probably breaking the law or doing something extremely stupid and they probably deserve it.

[richNjoisy]

To mrags and simpleman: It is this type of discourse that continues to not let me lose hope in our country. You two disagree but you disagree without name calling , without disrespecting the

other person's position. To the discussion in hand, I agree with both your concerns: Simpleman's concern about our 4th amendment rights. I am certain no one here wants to give anyone

the right to barge into our personal space without cause. But I am sure Simpleman would agree there are grey areas and then there are more grey areas. One thing that is becoming increasingly clear these days is that being deemed as "suspicious" is indeed subjective and one's race/color/even garb impacts how one is viewed. There are no perfect solutions. My LEAN is more towards

Simpleman's concerns only because the police incursion is pre-emptive and is being implemented based on concerns/worries and not on an actual incident. Obviously, no on wants to see

something happen and then, after the fact, tell oneself "well, maybe if the police had patrolled that Lot they might have stopped it". But, one has to ask oneself, what is the more likely outcome?

Ordinary citizens being routinely harassed by authorities or the 'stopping of an imminent terrorist act'? I worry that this is a slippery slope. So, I prefer that we police ourselves. That's my 2 cents. Thanks for your post, you two. -RichNJoisy

[Saxum]

Issue is the false claim it is for Terrorism. Every time such a claim is made it is one more false wolf call and reduces the chance of next call to be heeded.

 

An example is the signs for "Slow down, men working" but after you go past you realize work zone is done for the day and they were too LAZY to cover up sign. I had such a sign on corner of my property for 3 months which they never bothered taking down after work was completed which actually caused visibility issues making a right turn. After several calls to VDOT I just took down the sign. There is another such sign down the road from me from after where they moved work zone to (and left) and they still left sign up.

 

The politicians who made it about Terrorism should be blasted (not literally) for using this as a crutch.

[dwight in philly]

Issue is the false claim it is for Terrorism. Every time such a claim is made it is one more false wolf call and reduces the chance of next call to be heeded.

 

An example is the signs for "Slow down, men working" but after you go past you realize work zone is done for the day and they were too LAZY to cover up sign. I had such a sign on corner of my property for 3 months which they never bothered taking down after work was completed which actually caused visibility issues making a right turn. After several calls to VDOT I just took down the sign. There is another such sign down the road from me from after where they moved work zone to (and left) and they still left sign up.

 

The politicians who made it about Terrorism should be blasted (not literally) for using this as a crutch.

totally agree, just be honest, tell us the reason you are allowing police access.. whatever it may be. as much as there are terrorist threats, i can almost guarantee that was not the thinking behind it, only the P R justification..

Edited June 29, 2016 by dwight in philly

[klos63]

Issue is the false claim it is for Terrorism. Every time such a claim is made it is one more false wolf call and reduces the chance of next call to be heeded.

 

An example is the signs for "Slow down, men working" but after you go past you realize work zone is done for the day and they were too LAZY to cover up sign. I had such a sign on corner of my property for 3 months which they never bothered taking down after work was completed which actually caused visibility issues making a right turn. After several calls to VDOT I just took down the sign. There is another such sign down the road from me from after where they moved work zone to (and left) and they still left sign up.

 

The politicians who made it about Terrorism should be blasted (not literally) for using this as a crutch.

If it's about terrorism, are the officers trained in counter terrorism? Will they be patrolling with bomb sniffing dogs, checking backpacks.... or just cruising around? If it's legitimate, I would expect there to be quite a noticeable difference between those that are patrolling and the regular officers.

[mrags]

If it's about terrorism, are the officers trained in counter terrorism? Will they be patrolling with bomb sniffing dogs, checking backpacks.... or just cruising around? If it's legitimate, I would expect there to be quite a noticeable difference between those that are patrolling and the regular officers.

you don't need counter terrorism units to show a police presence. Edited June 29, 2016 by mrags

[klos63]

you don't need counter terrorism units to show a police presence.

so police just walking around will help prevent terrorist activities?

[mrags]

so police just walking around will help prevent terrorist activities?

yes. Absolutely.

 

Unless we're talking about suicide bombing here there would absolutely be a deterrent or a preventative precaution to eliminate a shooter before anyone could be shot.

 

I bet the families of the deceased in Orlando wished there was an armed presence at that nightclub.

[klos63]

yes. Absolutely.

 

Unless we're talking about suicide bombing here there would absolutely be a deterrent or a preventative precaution to eliminate a shooter before anyone could be shot.

 

I bet the families of the deceased in Orlando wished there was an armed presence at that nightclub.

there was - i think he was shot and killed, but not sure.

yes. Absolutely.

 

Unless we're talking about suicide bombing here there would absolutely be a deterrent or a preventative precaution to eliminate a shooter before anyone could be shot.

 

I bet the families of the deceased in Orlando wished there was an armed presence at that nightclub.

that is a type of terrorism, a very successful type, why wouldn't they be looking for that?

[simpleman]

yes. Absolutely.

 

Unless we're talking about suicide bombing here there would absolutely be a deterrent or a preventative precaution to eliminate a shooter before anyone could be shot.

 

I bet the families of the deceased in Orlando wished there was an armed presence at that nightclub.

I won't paste the links and get too off topic about private lots at Bills games, but in fact there was an off duty PO working security that night in Orlando. He initially exchanged gunfire with the killer. He was almost immediately joined by two on duty PO who were patrolling that immediate area at the time. Their combined gunfire drove the killer deeper into the club and caused him to take hostages. Those particular guns/police were not able to save anyone at that time. They did their best, but there is even a possibility it might have made the final outcome worse. We don't know if it did or didn't then, and we certainly don't know what effect the patrols of private property might have IF there actually is ever a legitimate terror attack attempt on a Bills home game

You have repeatedly said that just the fact that if you rent out space for parking, that causes that land to become public property during the games. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say what the actual legal standing is. Is anyone here a lawyer who can inform us of the actual status of the property without the agreement Orchard Park is requiring the property owners to sign? Since that is what this whole chain was about.

Edited June 29, 2016 by simpleman

[mrags]

I won't paste the links and get too off topic about private lots at Bills games, but in fact there was an off duty PO working security that night in Orlando. He initially exchanged gunfire with the killer. He was almost immediately joined by two on duty PO who were patrolling that immediate area at the time. Their combined gunfire drove the killer deeper into the club and caused him to take hostages. Those particular guns/police were not able to save anyone at that time. They did their best, but there is even a possibility it might have made the final outcome worse. We don't know if it did or didn't then, and we certainly don't know what effect the patrols of private property might have IF there actually is ever a legitimate terror attack attempt on a Bills home game

You have repeatedly said that just the fact that if you rent out space for parking, that causes that land to become public property during the games. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say what the actual legal standing is. Is anyone here a lawyer who can inform us of the actual status of the property without the agreement Orchard Park is requiring the property owners to sign? Since that is what this whole chain was about.

im not stating the property becomes public like its a fact. It just makes sense. Besides the point that cops don't need anyone's permission to enter a private lot on game days of they see someone breaking the law. It would be no different than you waving a gun on your front porch. Or smoking a joint. Or blowing coke. If a cop can see it from the street it isn't private. And if a cop has probable cause to search they can do as they please. Think of the party's when you were a kid and the cops broke them up. Did you or anyone else in the home call the cops? Probably not, but I bet the neighbors did with noise complaints. It's a different story when a cop comes to your front door and has no business being there than if they can see something from the street.

 

But that's not what this thread is about anyway. This thread is about armed police in private lots for your safety along with everyone else attending. And until they arrest a single person for accessible partying, it's not even an argument.

there was - i think he was shot and killed, but not sure.

 

that is a type of terrorism, a very successful type, why wouldn't they be looking for that?

as simpleman pointed out this was the case and he may or may not have made the situation worse. Personally, I still feel better with him being there. He died trying to defend himself and save the lives of others.

 

Suicide bombing is a type of terrorism. Wasn't saying it wasn't. But it's also much harder to identify and once the bomb goes off, the terrorist is dead and so are many innocent people. So no need for armed security at that point anyway. It's the gunmen that can be deterred.

[3rdand12]

> Police are good and bad, but they are still just people. They do not change and become morally superior once they put their uniforms on. They are still the good and bad people they were the night before.

 

This made me think of the Stanford Prison Experiment

I thought that was the deal though? That once you had the Responsibility and Honor awarded of being a public servant, you stepped up your game accordingly ?

To mrags and simpleman: It is this type of discourse that continues to not let me lose hope in our country. You two disagree but you disagree without name calling , without disrespecting the

other person's position. To the discussion in hand, I agree with both your concerns: Simpleman's concern about our 4th amendment rights. I am certain no one here wants to give anyone

the right to barge into our personal space without cause. But I am sure Simpleman would agree there are grey areas and then there are more grey areas. One thing that is becoming increasingly clear these days is that being deemed as "suspicious" is indeed subjective and one's race/color/even garb impacts how one is viewed. There are no perfect solutions. My LEAN is more towards

Simpleman's concerns only because the police incursion is pre-emptive and is being implemented based on concerns/worries and not on an actual incident. Obviously, no on wants to see

something happen and then, after the fact, tell oneself "well, maybe if the police had patrolled that Lot they might have stopped it". But, one has to ask oneself, what is the more likely outcome?

Ordinary citizens being routinely harassed by authorities or the 'stopping of an imminent terrorist act'? I worry that this is a slippery slope. So, I prefer that we police ourselves. That's my 2 cents. Thanks for your post, you two. -RichNJoisy

we really need a LIKE button

[3rdand12]

in regard to the key word [ terrorism ] ? That does not apply here whatsoever, Soft targets are anyone any time actually.

 

 

There was a word used years ago to instill fear and suspicion. Communism. Red menace.

 

Homosexual was also used way back as a threat to the morality and undermining what makes America great so recent as during the Reagan era.

 

and before that Negroes rising up. Indian savages not sharing the land

and after that mexicans and Marijuana were the culprits undermining the youth.

Jazz music

List goes on and on.

 

Why couldn't we just be done with this when we expelled the redcoats and the damn tea tax ?

 

Government leveraging the public using words like " protect" but forgetting the " serve" bit.

I am not talking about Police at all. Please keep that in mind in this post.

 

I am talking about our elected Officials looking out for us as individuals. Or looking out for the ones who overfund them indirectly to manipulate the masses

Edited June 29, 2016 by 3rdand12