Thing might no be what we've been told

[.22 cents]

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Directly from the article:

"The order contained a policy statement regarding the use of deadly force which stated, for example, law enforcement officers with the DOJ may use deadly force when necessary."

Yes, just like every other day of the week.

The original poster wrote "Oh my God! Armed FBI agents were prepared to confront Trump and even engage Secret Service if necessary." And then they posted a shot of the actual document where it clearly says the engagement would be through pre-established liaison relationships and persons of contact.

This article is designed to get folks riled up based on the fact most people don't know how warrants get written or served and it's clearly working.

Still doesn’t sit well. The right to defend themselves against attack shouldn't need to be written into every single search warrant.

Therefore, when it IS in there, it’s so the they have a “legal” thing to point to: “well, it says we can use deadly force, so it’s ok.”

Then why would it need to be specifically written in the warrant?
Judges apparently turn warrants back to have the margins changed from 1” to 1.5”, yet “use of deadly force” for Mar-A-Lago is just fine.

No. If it’s ”just SOP”, then the LEO community is WAY too comfortable throwing around deadly force for whatever warrant, regardless of the subject.

Is anyone seriously saying that seizing documents is worth killing Secret Service members or the POTUS or his family? Seriously? Trump HIMSELF let the FBI look around even more than what the original subpoena required. He offered whatever they needed. They asked to see the vault; he obliged. They recommended to beef up the lock. He did. There was NO NEED for a raid, at all.

I still call BS overreach and dangerous use of resources.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

View attachment 287178

Yep. Lots of excuses getting thrown around for the ”just doing my job” enforcers who forgot their oaths following dangerous orders from puppet regimes who incorrectly stuttered their oaths long before they were trampling the Constitution everyday.

 

[Southalabama]

Still doesn’t sit well. The right to defend themselves against attack shouldn't need to be written into every single search warrant.

Therefore, when it IS in there, it’s so the they have a “legal” thing to point to: “well, it says we can use deadly force, so it’s ok.”

Then why would it need to be specifically written in the warrant?
Judges apparently turn warrants back to have the margins changed from 1” to 1.5”, yet “use of deadly force” for Mar-A-Lago is just fine.

No. If it’s ”just SOP”, then the LEO community is WAY too comfortable throwing around deadly force for whatever warrant, regardless of the subject.

Is anyone seriously saying that seizing documents is worth killing Secret Service members or the POTUS or his family? Seriously? Trump HIMSELF let the FBI look around even more than what the original subpoena required. He offered whatever they needed. They asked to see the vault; he obliged. They recommended to beef up the lock. He did. There was NO NEED for a raid, at all.

I still call BS overreach and dangerous use of resources.

How many search warrants you drafted, read or served ?

 

[Snake-Eyes]

How many search warrants you drafted, read or served ?

As I posted earlier in this thread:

…

I don’t serve warrants. Never said I did.

…

It doesn’t matter.

That paperwork has to mean something, or it’s worthless overall. It would appear that many in the LEO community have forgotten the huge amount of public trust that encompasses each person/office that influences the act of TAKING someone’s Rights. Whether it’s the right to move freely or the right to live.

The argument shouldn’t be “well that’s just standard verbiage”.
The argument should be “we NEED that in writing because of ____”.

And I have yet to hear or read an appropriate reason that use of deadly force should be specifically allocated for that warrant.

I’d argue that use of deadly force should be Specifically NOT AUTHORIZED if serving a paperwork seizure warrant on the former POTUS.

My list of reasons is WAAAAAY longer than the non-existent list for why deadly force is just fine and dandy normal ops against FPOTUS for paperwork.

 

[Southalabama]

Misdirection by lawyers and seems a lot of people fell for it hook, line and sinker.

The legal filing from Trump’s lawyers quotes the policy as saying “Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary….”


However, the actual use of force policy included on the search warrant states, “Law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary….”

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Why does it even need to be in the warrant?

Aren’t those officers supposedly doing official duties?

Aren’t they always allowed to use deadly force if necessary (and for God’s sake “only” should be implied) to defend themselves or innocent others? That’s why they’re allowed to carry weapons and use them, correct? They supposedly have the appropriate training and public trust?

So if that’s normal 24/7 expectations, then the EXCEPTIONS should be in the warrant.

^— This is where apparently we disagree.

 

[Southalabama]

Every FBI operations order contains a reminder of FBI deadly force policy, even search warrants.

Trump wasn’t at Mar-a-Lago, which was shuttered for the season, at the time of the search.

So all the claims that they were going to kill him ranks up there with Jewish space lasers.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Every FBI operations order contains a reminder of FBI deadly force policy, even search warrants.

Trump wasn’t at Mar-a-Lago, which was shuttered for the season, at the time of the search.

So all the claims that they were going to kill him ranks up there with Jewish space lasers.

Your same question back to you:
“How many search warrants you drafted, read or served ?”

And I’ll add: “How many were from the FBI?”

 

[M60Gunner]

So who were they specifically going to shoot, the protective detail?

 

[Southalabama]

Your same question back to you:
“How many search warrants you drafted, read or served ?”

And I’ll add: “How many were from the FBI?”

Drafted and authorized 100’s of state search warrants and approved the plan to be executed by the tactical teams. As far as reading in excess of 500.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Drafted and authorized 100’s of state search warrants and approved the plan to be executed by the tactical teams. As far as reading in excess of 500.

So you’re used to the bullshit overreach and exaggerated “flexing of powers”. Got it. How many were with the FBI?

In all my time in the military, I never saw mission orders that specifically “reminded” us of baseline duties and authorities. We spent time and ink on the “by exception” stuff. If something “normal” was in there, we asked “why the redundancy?”

In this case, I STILL haven’t had anyone justify why deadly force would be a great idea to specifically authorize when going after documents from the former POTUS. Even from those of you defending the warrant or downplaying the deadly force observation…

Odd, huh?

 

[Southalabama]

So you’re used to the bullshit overreach and exaggerated “flexing of powers”. Got it. How many were with the FBI?

In all my time in the military, I never saw mission orders that specifically “reminded” us of baseline duties and authorities. We spent time and ink on the “by exception” stuff. If something “normal” was in there, we asked “why the redundancy?”

In this case, I STILL haven’t had anyone justify why deadly force would be a great idea to specifically authorize when going after documents from the former POTUS. Even from those of you defending the warrant or downplaying the deadly force observation…

Odd, huh?

Fbi has strange ways that goes back to j Edgar Hoover.

Trump wasn’t there. Wasn’t going to be there

Why did their SOP not call for taped statements long after tape recorders were common place? Because they wanted to say believe us this is what he said.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Fbi has strange ways that goes back to j Edgar Hoover.

Trump wasn’t there. Wasn’t going to be there

Why did their SOP not call for taped statements long after tape recorders were common place? Because they wanted to say believe us this is what he said.

Fine. Don’t answer the direct questions.
Good job, fed.

Hopefully this is one of your last assignments on your way to retirement. Last rat to leave the sinking ship and all that…

 

[Southalabama]

Never drawn a federal paycheck in my life. Nice try

ex military?

Where would you be if you had classified documents in the garage next to your corvette or next to your toilet and the pool house??

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Never drawn a federal paycheck in my life. Nice try

ex military?

Where would you be if you had classified documents in the garage next to your corvette or next to your toilet and the pool house??

If I took classified home and stored it in the garage, I earned some “time out” for being so stupid. Considering the safeguards we all had, that would have to be on-purpose. Especially TS/SCI stuff.

The puppet-in-chief is an imbecile and should be punished.

The Mar-A-Lago BS is even stupider considering the POTUS has the power to declassify whatever the POTUS wants.

Two totally different scenarios. Trump was legal. Biden was/IS a criminal.

 

[Southalabama]

Had the power but due to ineptitude failed to follow procedure and didn’t actually do it. The President just can say I said therefore it is.

 

[BluesBrother]

If I took classified home and stored it in the garage, I earned some “time out” for being so stupid. Considering the safeguards we all had, that would have to be on-purpose. Especially TS/SCI stuff.

The puppet-in-chief is an imbecile and should be punished.

The Mar-A-Lago BS is even stupider considering the POTUS has the power to declassify whatever the POTUS wants.

Two totally different scenarios. Trump was legal. Biden was/IS a criminal.

biden is a criminal on many, many, many levels.

 

[ABlaster]

So you’re used to the bullshit overreach and exaggerated “flexing of powers”. Got it. How many were with the FBI?

In all my time in the military, I never saw mission orders that specifically “reminded” us of baseline duties and authorities. We spent time and ink on the “by exception” stuff. If something “normal” was in there, we asked “why the redundancy?”

In this case, I STILL haven’t had anyone justify why deadly force would be a great idea to specifically authorize when going after documents from the former POTUS. Even from those of you defending the warrant or downplaying the deadly force observation…

Odd, huh?

Deadly force wasn't specifically authorized beyond what it would be on any other day in any other circumstance. It's there because someone wanted it there, either as a policy reminder that's present in every warrant from that office or because someone wants it there to just be able to say it was.

Unless I'm misreading your posts, it seems like you think this is some kind of special "kill order" that would allow people serving the warrant to act outside what is legal on a day-to-day basis, and it's not. This warrant does not change the rules about when LE are allowed to use deadly force at all, not even a little bit. It doesn't "specifically authorize" deadly force, it reiterates policy.

As far as your statement that no one has explained why it would be in there, two people who have fairly extensive experience with the warrant process have, but you have not accepted the explanations.

I understand why it would seem odd to put it in there if it's just a day-to-day rule, but sometimes attorneys who attack the warrant in court later can confuse juries when force is used by waving the warrant around and telling a jury that force wasn't mentioned in the paperwork and therefore was illegal.

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Deadly force wasn't specifically authorized beyond what it would be on any other day in any other circumstance. It's there because someone wanted it there, either as a policy reminder that's present in every warrant from that office or because someone wants it there to just be able to say it was.

Unless I'm misreading your posts, it seems like you think this is some kind of special "kill order" that would allow people serving the warrant to act outside what is legal on a day-to-day basis, and it's not. This warrant does not change the rules about when LE are allowed to use deadly force at all, not even a little bit. It doesn't "specifically authorize" deadly force, it reiterates policy.

As far as your statement that no one has explained why it would be in there, two people who have fairly extensive experience with the warrant process have, but you have not accepted the explanations.

I understand why it would seem odd to put it in there if it's just a day-to-day rule, but sometimes attorneys who attack the warrant in court later can confuse juries when force is used by waving the warrant around and telling a jury that force wasn't mentioned in the paperwork and therefore was illegal.

I don’t think it was some special “kill order”.
I’m saying it’s BS to put that verbiage in there in the first place.

Yeah, a few of you have defended the verbiage as “normal” and “SOP” and just a “policy reminder”. Really? For who?

The reader of the warrant? LEO/agents with guns just knocked on their door saying they have a warrant, and if the person is now actually reading it, is it to somehow intimidate more than what is already happening? No.

To remind the agents themselves? I hope not. Next…

To remind the judge signing the warrant? Again, I hope not.

To be legal fodder for lawyers later? We all see that it’s damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. I don’t buy that either.

So if the “just a reminder” or “just SOP” reason doesn’t actually DO anything to serve an actual purpose, then why is that verbiage there?

Again, from my perspective, with as much weight as the terms “use of deadly force is authorized” carry, why waste the ink and time for no real reason? Seems reckless and sinister. Especially for LEO who should be striving for better than that.

Bottom line question that actually HASN’T been answered by anyone: why is use of deadly force still on the table when serving a warrant to seize PAPERWORK from the home of the former POTUS?

We’ve all seen LEO with the shotguns loaded with beanbags for “mostly peaceful” anarchists. Why were they treating the warrant at Mar-A-Lago like a cartel SWAT?