I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Deductive reasoning. Yes I read other articles about the event, I looked up some local news reporting on it. It's an unusual story because the police used a sniper to neutralize the fellow.
The police statements seem to have implied that the dead man threatened them. Why else would someone shoot another person (who is having a suicidal crisis) through a window from a sniper position? Is it likely that they considered him a threat to the general public while in his room with the guns? Would they shoot him in the chest to prevent him from shooting himself? Would they shoot him because he's a black man or because he's having a mental health crisis, or because they were impatient?
Why did the police drag him through the house, leaving a trail of blood? Is that evidence of compassion?
Yes, it will be interesting to see how that investigation turns out.
As an aside, I'm still curious which portions of Obama's speech I should condemn or find unbecoming a former president... in your opinion. You asked and I'd like to understand what I'm missing in that speech. I posted a link... that IS the speech you were referencing, right?
I can't with Obama speech constants.. aahh ha ha ha.
Yes, I'm sure he learned things in "additional reading". It seems odd that someone way out in Alaska was perusing the Lexington Herald.
TMB mentions a sniper. The story linked to here doesn't. Sounds like something a anti-police left wing extremist rag would have published to stir up emotions. That maybe were Baloney first saw the story.
I'm only speculating, obviously.
Okay, so no sniper mentioned. However, 9 swat officers with assault rifles surrounding the house. That is mentioned. An unarmed family member begging to go inside to help before things escalated who was then threatened by police,..that's also mentioned, and btw, hmmmm where have we seen that recently. Come on. That man lost his mother, was clearly struggling... yet here we go. This is TMB's point.
"Clapping seals" eh? I suppose you feel like that is respectful dialog...
I have no problem with releasing the 911 call. I don't think that it included much besides cryptic words and background sounds that resulted in a welfare check at the home of the SOTH. No, I don't think it would be "nice" to see footage of the assault, even with the victim's identity blurred. The family will see the footage though, according to the reporting. It's easy to imagine that a FOIA request will result in public reporting of those things.
I absolutely support transparency. My posts reflect that reality.
You say this all as if you expect that the body cam footage would show evidence of an extramarital sexual liaison or some other unsavory behavior from Mr Pelosi that maybe ended badly. Do you think there might be some sort of cover up in this matter?
Keep spewing TMB and we'll keep clapping back at him, no matter what names he calls us. Stick and Stones Beerman, stick and stones...?
She was referencing the 400+ years of racial inequity in our country's history. A system that has caused actual bodily harm and is perpetuated by conservative beliefs.
I wasn't even going to respond to Beerman once he posted that.
On 11/2/2022 at 1:15 PM, Beerman said:
Another member who like you is unable to discern the real concerns facing our country vs the ones that are perpetuated by the far-left media and websites you get your news and information from.
"real concerns".. wow, you sound privileged, must be nice.
We're starting to see why the left be bookoo trippin over the Twitter takeover.
“Seniors are getting the biggest increase in their Social Security checks in 10 years through President Biden’s leadership,” read the tweet from the official White House account Tuesday afternoon.
Twitter, which was purchased last week by billionaire Elon Musk, appended a note to the claim that said: “Readers added context they thought people might want to know.””Seniors will receive a large Social Security benefit increase due to the annual cost of living adjustment, which is based on the inflation rate,” the note said, linking to the Social Security Administration’s website for an explanation on the Nixon-era legislation behind the increase – known as COLA."
I'm not sure I know what "bookoo trippin" is but I have an idea. I don't see how the White House's boast has anything to do with it. People were bookoo trippin already.
I do like they are still holding the White House responsible for factual social media. Even some liberal media like Newsweek criticized the Tweet and I don't think people are upset about it being fact checked and taken down.
I mulled over my Twitter today. I like Twitter and my feed is pretty tame. I follow the BBC, and several vegan people and I learn something often but am not active on it like I am here, facebook and Instagram.
I don't like the rise in hate speech that has been reported, and I certainly don't like Musk's conspiracy Tweet about Pelosi. Right now I'm staying on it but am giving serious consideration to dropping it.
I wish I never used the term "bookoo", please everyone strike that from the forum.
It's your contention that there is no basis for my criticisms other than his race?
Where did this get personal. I was responding to Tweety's post about the Obama, sorry conservatists development of the Tea Party. I'm not sure where you're fitting yourself in at.
Almost every country has a long history of racial inequity, not just white on black, rather (fill in the blank vs fill in the blank) and ongoing in many third world and developing countries. Are you really suggesting that the only harm done throughout history in all cases has been a result of conservative beliefs?!
Wasn't just talking about black vs. white.
Seems argumentative that you would pose that last question, but I'll bite. We weren't talking about ALL cases. We were talking about the US and its history.
"Whistleblowers say FBI is 'rotted at its core' in Republican report on alleged misconduct"
"The report features testimony from whistleblowers who describe FBI leadership in Washington, D.C., as "rotted at its core." They allege a "systemic culture of unaccountability" and say the bureau is beset by "rampant corruption, manipulation, and abuse."
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
44 minutes ago, Beerman said:
"Whistleblowers say FBI is 'rotted at its core' in Republican report on alleged misconduct"
"The report features testimony from whistleblowers who describe FBI leadership in Washington, D.C., as "rotted at its core." They allege a "systemic culture of unaccountability" and say the bureau is beset by "rampant corruption, manipulation, and abuse."
That's consistent with the behavior of right wing authoritarians when someone tries to hold them accountable to the laws.
Look it up.
Oh wait, Fox and The Epoch Times probably don't cover that type thing.
Quote
Although laws have always been valuable tools in an autocrat’s orificenal, modern authoritarians began to deploy, to a much greater extent than their historical predecessors, the same laws and legal institutions that exist in democratic regimes for anti-democratic purposes. In so doing, the new generation of authoritarians cloak repressive measures under the mask of law, imbue them with the veneer of legitimacy, and render authoritarian practices much more difficult to detect and eliminate. In the modern era, authoritarian wolves rarely appear as wolves. They are now clad, at least in part, in sheep’s clothing.
The scholarly comprehension of authoritarianism has failed to keep pace with the evolution of authoritarian regimes. The burgeoning literature on authoritarianism has focused primarily on traditional, more transparent mechanisms of authoritarian rule. These mechanisms include overtly defying or disregarding laws and constitutions;
imposing emergency laws or martial law; silencing dissidents through harassment and violence; shutting down newspapers and television stations; banning publications; manipulating the vote count through vote buying, intimidation, and electoral fraud; disregarding or evading term limits; packing courts and other state institutions with loyalists; establishing direct control over the media and civil society; and amending or replacing constitutions to eliminate checks and balances on their power.
As voluminous as this literature is, it suffers from a blind spot. The existing scholarship has been preoccupied with fairly transparent mechanisms of authoritarian control detected relatively easily by both domestic and international actors. But there exists comparatively little scholarship on the new, more subtle, mechanisms of authoritarian control that rely on the same legal rules that exist in regimes with favorable democratic credentials.
HiddenAngels
1,078 Posts
I can't with Obama speech constants.. aahh ha ha ha.
Gotta love persistence... ?