quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:


There is always a threat assessment in executing the warrant and that's why deadly force is authorized in the ops plan. It's not inserted, depending on the person or location.

While the entire documents case is BS and was undoubtedly done with WH coordination, the fact that the agents were armed means nothing in the context of the warrant. Agents are always armed whether it's in the office, driving their BuCar or in the field. In the field they do interviews - armed. They do knock and talks - armed. Warrant executions - armed.

So, aside from the specific case in question, can you explain, in general, why the phrase "deadly force is authorized" would be in the warrant? After all, the general description you gave above is superfluous, isn't it? Don't LE always have the right to use deadly force under the general guidelines we all, know: self-defense, prevent imminent harms of others, etc. My, apparently incorrect, understanding was that "deadly force authorized" was to allow deadly force outside the standard parameters. When serving a search warrant (not necessarily against Trump), why would deadly force need to be specifically "authorized?" I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't understand the use of the phrase "deadly force authorized," why and when it is used as a matter of course in law enforcement.

Perhaps they thought they were going after The Blues Brothers.

quote:

My, apparently incorrect, understanding was that "deadly force authorized" was to allow deadly force outside the standard parameters.

My understanding with any sort of written "agreement" is that if something is put into the agreement, that it also doesn't have to be there.

Like you said, if it was a universally known and accepted action it would never have to be inserted to begin with. Did the warrant also instruct those participating that the use of the restroom during their shift was authorized? From the sounds of it, if they weren't instructed otherwise they must soil themselves.......

quote:

Originally posted by DrDan:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:


There is always a threat assessment in executing the warrant and that's why deadly force is authorized in the ops plan. It's not inserted, depending on the person or location.

While the entire documents case is BS and was undoubtedly done with WH coordination, the fact that the agents were armed means nothing in the context of the warrant. Agents are always armed whether it's in the office, driving their BuCar or in the field. In the field they do interviews - armed. They do knock and talks - armed. Warrant executions - armed.

So, aside from the specific case in question, can you explain, in general, why the phrase "deadly force is authorized" would be in the warrant? After all, the general description you gave above is superfluous, isn't it? Don't LE always have the right to use deadly force under the general guidelines we all, know: self-defense, prevent imminent harms of others, etc. My, apparently incorrect, understanding was that "deadly force authorized" was to allow deadly force outside the standard parameters. When serving a search warrant (not necessarily against Trump), why would deadly force need to be specifically "authorized?" I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't understand the use of the phrase "deadly force authorized," why and when it is used as a matter of course in law enforcement.

The government is all about redundancy and the Federal government is the absolute worst about it. Anytime an OPs plan is involved the review of the use of force policy is included. Why I don’t have a clue.
I have been involved in ALOT of Federal warrants. Granted a former President of the United States was never a target however I have been on a number in regard to former politicians and even sitting politicians. Including their residences and even their governmental offices.
This information was included in all of those.
Whether it was a warrant for documents, weapons, drugs, child porn, anything this wording was included.
Even when serving a warrant on a location where one was 100% positive there was no one there it was included.
I always found it pointless because I am nearly always required to be armed with a firearm at all times in the scope of my duties so one would just presume that deadly force is authorized. But someone decided at some point it needs to be included on paper for each operation.

It’s much ado about nothing really. The issue is how the raid/warrant service was done. It never ever should have been done in the fashion that it was. But we all know why it was done that way.

^^^^^^^^

Thanks, that is as clear an explanation as I think I can expect.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
Maybe I've gotten really liberal since leaving Police work and becoming a lawyer, but I'm sure the SAC or ASAC of the FBI with the warrant, could've called the SAC or ASAC of USSS detail to former President Trump and said we have a warrant will be by at 9am? Must be me.

Can you just imagine the shitstorm if heavily armed agents had paid a visit to Obama's house like that? No, it's always a double standard with the Left no matter how the apologists here try to explain that away. Hell, look at how they treated someone like Roger Stone with SWAT teams at 0500 and a CNN crew that just happened to be there. They'd never treat scumbag Hunter Biden that way, not in a million years.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
Maybe I've gotten really liberal since leaving Police work and becoming a lawyer, but I'm sure the SAC or ASAC of the FBI with the warrant, could've called the SAC or ASAC of USSS detail to former President Trump and said we have a warrant will be by at 9am? Must be me.

Senior agents balked at the "routine" plan, but Merrick Garland was having none of it.



I laugh at the "threat assessment" aspect of the raid- there was NONE. The only ones possibly armed were Secret Service agents, or maybe Trump's chef with a cleaver in hand, requiring dozens of men with AR15s and tactical chest rigs .

None of this was standard or routine, none of it.

Every day the outrageous leapfrogs the normal. It is springtime and we expect college graduations across the country, days of celebration. Instead, terrorists threaten and assault Jewish students on campus while the university administrators stand around with their thumbs up their ass. They have no trouble accepting gender as opinion, rather than biology, and deciding that "men" can compete against "women". But what to do about raging antisemitism on campus? "Kill all the Jews!" They are baffled.

The former President of the United States is accused of a crime, and brought to trial. His treatment should follow the well established precedents of jurisprudence. But the outrageous leapfrogs the normal. Instead, his treatment resembles Joseph K.'s in Kafka's "The Trial."

Like Joseph K. he is not told the crime he is accused of having committed.. He is only told from time to time that his case "is going badly." One night, desperate to understand, Joseph K. sneaks into the court to examine the law books shelved there. The books are filled with pornography.

All we know about the days ahead of us is that the outrageous will leapfrog the normal.

U.S. — Unsealed documents from the Department of Justice reveal that postal workers were formally authorized to use deadly force while delivering mail to Mar-a-Lago.

"This is standard procedure," confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland. "We are in no way secretly targeting Donald Trump. We are merely authorizing mail carriers to fire on Donald Trump if he shows up to collect his mail. This is for the safety of our postal workers and is nothing out of the ordinary."

To date, no mail carriers have been harmed while visiting Mar-a-Lago, but experts warn it's only a matter of time before Trump is caught eagerly waiting for a package. To prepare for this eventuality, the United States Postal Service will require all its employees who deliver to Mar-A-Lago to pass a gun safety course in which they fire on targets made to look like Donald Trump.

"This totally standard and not at all unusual protocol saves lives," Deputy Postmaster Milton Farmland said. Then, speaking through an intercom to trainees, he shouted, "Shoot to kill! Shoot to kill!"

"Neither snow, nor rain, nor Trump shall stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds," said Postmaster General Benjamin Connell, quoting the United States Postal Service creed as he adjusted the sights on his SVD Dragunov.

Asked to comment on the matter, President Biden explained he had no knowledge of what the DOJ does, or what his name is. "What is mail?" asked Biden. "This sounds like a trick. Did Jill put you up to this? Where's my ice cream?"

At publishing time, outraged congressional Republicans vowed to hold the administration accountable by writing a strongly worded letter to the DOJ.

https://babylonbee.com/news/do...livering-trumps-mail

Giddy up.

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1793456488641339443

This lunatic, I reckon, is about to have a very bad day.

https://x.com/garbotweetsU2/st.../1793415171739889964





Screenshot for posterity:




Looks like that nut got more attention than she bargained for.

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1793599843035705385



Kathryn Grace Jordan, the woman followed by Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar
@SenAmyKlobuchar
who threatened to shoot and kill President Trump in the Bronx today at his rally, has been banned from X.

After I reported her to
@SecretService
last night, I can confirm she’s under investigation.

Waiting to see if she’s been arrested too.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balzé Halzé,

Although I believe this to be an idle threat, we can still expect more of this in the future. The real threats are the ones we don't hear about, i.e., kept secret and not foolishly "telegraphed" like this.

Another asshat who thinks she's important by making threats. Hold onto your knickers toots, even in the Souther District of NY threats to a former President are taken seriously.

This is one reason why Trump WILL WIN.

The man is in enemy territory. And is a rock star.

https://x.com/baldwin_daniel_/...ally-in-the-bronx%2F

Hundreds of black and Hispanic Trump fans descend on the Bronx to cheer him and slam Dems for 'lying' that he's racist


'Biden is president. He's currently a threat to black people. So that's what I say about that,' said Lily Robinson, from the Bronx.



Her friend Jasmine Gray, from New Jersey, added: 'A lot of people said nobody was going to show up because I was in the Bronx.
And I know that's just a fear tactic. That's a fear mongering tactics'


Navarra, 19, said she attended the rally because the country 'needs' Trump. She's originally from Bangladesh


Christina Gallagher, born and raised in the Bronx, attended the rally to to support Trump
and ask for congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortes to be fired


Two young men from Long Island, Salvador and Walter said they support Trump
because he represents the American Dream that their parents left El Salvador for


When asked whether Trump represented a threat to Black Americans, Keith from Detroit
recalled Biden's 2020 comments where he claimed those who couldn't decide between him and Trump 'ain't black'


Angel, a young Latino man from Brooklyn, said he used to be a Democrat
but slowly turned away from the party over the last decade


A Latino group dances to the Trump campaign 's popular Spanish jingle


'Voy a votar por Donald Trump!' they screamed in unison. ('I'm going to vote for Donald Trump')


People with Dominican Republic and US flags chant while waiting in line to attend a rally for
former US President Donald Trump at Crotona Park in the Bronx borough of New York


As he seeks the presidency for a third time, Trump is aiming to win over black and Hispanic voters -
both groups that he has seen gains in


Trump’s campaign believes he can chip away at President Biden’s support among Black and Hispanic voters

^^^ ^^^

No better sign an immigrant is assimilated than they are voting for DT.