hypothetically ,what would you do?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Jan 6,2000...it's dark,it's cold.You've prepaired but nobody else in your local area has thanks to our government and a nation full of pollyannas.The national guard is going door to door to take people to heated school gyms.Should you answer the door and tell them to piss off or quietly hope they think nobody's home and move on?I didn't go to all of this trouble being responsible for myself by prepping just to have it conficated for the good of the cattle.

-- Apokoliptik (Apokoliptik@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999

Answers

The National Guard would not have the manpower to go door to door and physically take anyone anywhere.

In any event I would tell them I know where the gym is and will be along a bit later or that a relative is picking me up.

-- FOX (ardrinc@aol.com), October 10, 1999.


.12 gauge triple-ought buck to the face.

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), October 10, 1999.

In real life, there's a big difference between a warm shelter being made available and letting people know this, and the requirement that you *must* go there whether you need to or not.

In this forum, this distinction always seems to vanish. Amusing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.


Hey Flint come on, you know that this is the 'glass is half empty group', you expected anything less than nightmarish spooks, dragon's fire and things that bite? You might want to take a sabatical from FrightFest TB2000 during Halloween weekend when the real nuts come out. I know I will.

-- (yabba@dabba.doo), October 10, 1999.

Flint

I don't know about the states but in Canada, evacuation is recommended specially for apartment dwellers. In Quebec they did door to door searches. Now I know that in the deep south such a situation would seem comical to you but in the North you are looking at life and death. Now being required to leave would be a differant question, this is true.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 10, 1999.



Gosh,flint,I'd think that anyone who was as self-impressed with their big brain know it all attitude as you would know what the word "hypothetically" meant.Some of us are trying to deal with a troubling,uncertain time by considering as many ways that problems could occur,real or silly.You seem to deal with it by masturbating furiously or scorning people who come here to vent worry or concern.

-- Apokoliptik (Apokoliptik@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

I'm bugging out for the hills. The local government my ways has pretty much stated they'll take whatever it is they need from people during a Y2K emergency.

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.___), October 10, 1999.

Brian:

Certainly a recommendation like that should be considered seriously, and ignored only at your own risk (as those in NC learned from Floyd). If you've taken the time and expense to become self- sufficient under the circumstances, that will enter into your considerations.

Apokaliptic:

OK, you're entitled to dream up any hypothesis you want. But most of us are more concerned with reactions to genuine possibilities, rather than to your peculiar paranoia. If you think Big Brother is out to get you, I recommend you seek help elsewhere.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.


My grandfather has told me stories of working on the farm during world war two and having the government confiscate diesel fuel that he had saved after ration restrictions were enacted.So you can continue to love and trust big government all you want,flint.And while you're masturbating furiously I'll continue to be paranoid.

-- Apokoliptik (Apokoliptik@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

Flint Have you ever heard anyone say that you are limited more by what you don't believe in then what you do believe in? Please expand your horizons a little. Y2k is possibilities of what may happen. Y2k inherently has a wide range of possibilities and you have a more narrow view of those possibilities then most of the posters on this forum. None of us can speak of facts concerning what may happen, only possibilities.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), October 10, 1999.


I believe that now it's a point of history that most jews in wwII germany found the idea of death camps to be paranoia.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.

what about putting "QUARITINE" (sp?) on the door. It probably wouldn't stop them, but they may be less interested in knocking.

-- bb (b@bbb.net), October 10, 1999.

If your prepared, why on earth would you go anywhere? No one can force you to leave your home. Even the flood victims who stayed behind were told they were on their own. I really don't see that happening. But I do see sheeple who aren't prepared going with the wolf. I'm more concerned about neighbors and roaming gangs. However if you feel that you must go with the herd, don't forget to take bleach, lice and crap spray, antibacterial soap, toilet seat covers, toilet paper, baby wipes, face masks, and surgical gloves in your nighty-night bag. "Warming" shelters are the best places to catch the creeping crud.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 10, 1999.

I gotta agree with Flint on this one. These accelerations to the extreme are such a waste of time. But, you said it Flint, amusing indeed.

Apokoliptik, just do the Anne Frank thing if the bad men come to the door.

-- semper paratus (lay_low@mouth.shut), October 10, 1999.


Mr. Pinochle:

Of course you are correct. The number of possibilities is infinite. The number you can dream up is limited only by your imagination. I suggest you are best off preparing for what's most likely to happen, and that involves assessing probabilities, NOT just counting possibilities. But you are certainly free to prepare for everything.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.



Ah, folks, during the Fla wildfires, my inlaws were told to leave their home. The sheriff told them they had 5 minutes. They said OK we'll be along, and he said "I'll wait and it's now 4 minutes and 30 seconds." they went straight to their car and he went to the next house.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 10, 1999.


"Ah, folks, during the Fla wildfires, my inlaws were told to leave their home. The sheriff told them they had 5 minutes. They said OK we'll be along, and he said "I'll wait and it's now 4 minutes and 30 seconds." they went straight to their car and he went to the next house. "Chuck

Interesting example Chuck. Required evacuations do occur on other occasions as well including hurricanes. But enforcement is another matter, for large areas and populations it's not very practical.

However it's rather silly to worry about or even consider a forced evacuation for "Y2K" - why would you be evacuated from your house if you have heat? Your PC might rollover and blow up???? Even in the worst scenarios, Y2K itself wouldn't be a threat to a household. You guys are gonna have to postulate some physical disaster for that to be plausible instead of silly. Fortunately, many here are very very good at postulating disasters CAUSED by Y2K....;)

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 10, 1999.


Any forced transfer to a 'shelter' will be in the cities 'for the good of the population'. It would be primarily caused by failure of the fresh water and/or wastewater systems following a short term crash of the local grid. The odds of SCNG coming down my driveway to 'take me off' is bordering on the ludicrous. They can't even find my place to drop a line in the river to fill the LOCAL firetrucks. And I live less than 10 minutes from the downtown of a 35,000 pop. city and in the middle of three counties totalling over 3/4 million population.

If they DO show up, I just won't be seen. Those plans (although not specifically for the gov'ment) are in place. I fear far more the DWGI that thinks that I now should 'share' my largesse with him/her and is prepared to enforce his thoughts. Those type of folks will never leave my farm. This is not paranoia. Just read the papers re: Nimor, Indonesia in general and just about anywhere outside the US after a major disaster. The only reason the same doesn't happen here or any of the other G7 nations is that the government responds before it becomes total chaos.

I have been caught in a couple of situations like that and, if a little bit of preparing can stave off the situation arising again, I'm going for it.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.


Flint,

I know of a lady near where I live who got a bullet to the head from a government ninja who was serving a "no-knock, no-more-constitution" warrant. She was rushing to protect her kids, that is, she refused to comply with the order to "freeze." Trouble is, they had the wrong house. This is why people think Big Brother is out to get them. It's the subversion of our Constitutional Republic, not paranoia. Here's some more reasons not to trust the government (and I only add that DECENT police officers, that is to say the overwhelming majority, top the list of people who have just about had enough of using the Constitution as ass-wipe). This doesn't even get into the suppressed facts about Waco and Ruby Ridge:

NO KNOCK WARRENTS. OOOPS --- YOU'RE DEAD... The body count from NO-KNOCK DRUG RAIDS is climbing. ARE YOU NEXT?

By James Bovard

On March 25, of this year, 13 heavily armed Boston police wearing fatigue outfits smashed into the apartment of a 75-year-old retired minister, the Reverend Accelynne Williams. Williams ran into his bedroom when the raid began, but police smashed down the bedroom door, shoved Williams to the floor and handcuffed him. Williams may have had up to a dozen guns pointed at his head during the scuffle. Minutes later, Williams died of a heart attack. No drugs or guns were found in Williams' apartment. The police had carried out the raid based on a tip from an unidentified informant who said that there were guns and drugs in the building but did not give a specific apartment number. A policewoman simply took the informant's word, did a quick drive-by of the building, got a search warrant and then gave the go-ahead to her fellow officers to charge. An editorial in The Boston Globe later observed: "The Williams tragedy resulted, in part, from the `big score' mentality of the centralized Boston Police Drug Control Unit. Officers were pumped up to seize machine guns in addition to large quantities of cocaine and a `crazy amount of weed', in the words of the informant." The Boston police commissioner apologized. The press coverage made the event look like an isolated tragedy in the war on drugs. It was not. No-knock police raids destroy Americans' right to privacy and safety. People's lives are being ruined or ended as a result of unsubstantiated assertions by anonymous government informants. As early as 1603, English courts recognized that law officers were obliged to knock and announce their purpose before entering a citizen's home. Early American courts, such as the New York Supreme Court in 1813, adopted similar requirements. Unfortunately, contemporary law enforcement practice does not reflect the patience or respect for individual rights that the founding fathers had. Police do not keep statistics on warrants served at the wrong address or of the innocent bystanders killed or maimed in the war on drugs. But a search of newspaper files turns up a litany of law enforcement agencies gone berserk. At two A.M. on January 25, 1993, police smashed down the door and rushed into the home of Manuel Ramirez, a retired golf course groundskeeper living in Stockton, California. Ramirez awoke, grabbed a pistol and shot and killed one policeman before other officers killed him. The police were raiding the house based on a tip that drugs were on the premises, but they found no drugs. County Sheriff's Lieutenant Dan Lewis later tried to justify the raid's methods: "Our problem is that a lot of times we're dealing with drug dealers, and their thought processes are not always right from the start. That's when things get real dangerous for us." Police told reporters the next day that, though the drug raid was a complete failure, they did find $8,500 in cash much of it in $50 and $100 bills, which the police asserted was consistent with drug dealers' cash-handling methods. Maria Ramirez, Manuel's daughter, said that the money was from the family business of selling jewlery at the flea markets. She has receipts to prove it.

On August 25, 1992, officials from the U.S. Customs Service and the DEA, along with local police, raided the San Diego home of businessman Donald Carlson, setting off a bomb in his backyard (to disorient Carlson), smashing through his front door and shooting him three times after he tried to defend himself with a gun. Police even shot Carlson in the back after he had given up his gun and was lying wounded on his bedroom floor. Amazingly, Carlson survived the raid. The Customs Service mistakenly believed that there were four machine guns and a cache of narcotics in Carlson's home. Carlson related in congressional testimony in 1993 that even after agents failed to find any drugs, "No one offered me medical assistance while I lay on the floor of my bedroom. Event- ually, paramedics arrived and took me to the hospital. I was shackled and kept in custory under armed guard for several days at the hospital. During that time, I was aware of the hospital personnel referring to me as a criminal and of police officers and agents coming into my room." The raid was based on a tip from a paid informant named Ron, who later told the Los Angeles Times, that he had never formally identified a specific house to be searched. Customs officials had Carlson's house under surveillance for many hours before they launched the raid. The agents could easily have arrested Carlson when he arrived home at ten P.M. but instead watched and waited to attack until after midnight, when Carlson was asleep, in order to maximize the surprise. Although they had a search warrant based on the house being a drug storehouse, agents carried out the raid even after it became obvious that Carlson was living a normal life there. The government finally admitted limited liability for Carlson's medical costs in March 1994, but the chief federal prosecutor, Alan Bersin, simultan- eously hailed the "courageous law enforcement efforts in the area of drug interdiction" involved in the case. "The tragedy for everyone involved is that no one acted other than in good faith," Bersin asserted. "We were deceived by our informant and must accept responsibility for that." Bersin's statement implies that when federal agents launch a raid on some- one's home based solely on an allegation by a government informant, a "tragedy" occurs only when the informant deceives the agents. The Justice Department has indicated that no federal agents will be prosecuted for their actions before, during or after the raid.

In March 1992 a police SWAT team in Everett, Washington killed Robin Pratt in a no-knock raid while carrying out an arrest warrant for her husband. (Her husband was later released after the allegations on which the arrest warrant was based turned out to be false.) The Seattle Times summarized the raid: "Instead of using an apartment key given to them, SWAT members threw a 50- pound battering ram through a sliding glass door that landed near the heads of Pratt's six-year-old daughter and five-year-old niece. As deputy Anthony Aston rounded the corner to the Pratt's bedroom, he encountered Robin Pratt. SWAT members were yelling, `GET DOWN,' and she started to crouch to her knees. She looked up at Aston and said, `Please don't hurt my children'. Aston had his gun pointed at her and fired, shooting her in the neck. According to attorney John Muenster, she was alive another one to two minutes but could not speak because her throat had been destroyed by the bullet. She was then handcuffed, lying facedown."

In 1991 Garland, Texas police dressed in black and wearing ski masks burst into a mobile home, waving guns. They kicked down the door of a bedroom that Kennety Baulch shared with his 17-month-old son. The police found Baulch holding an object in his hand. A policeman shot and killed Baulch. The object turned out to be an ashtray. The police say Baulch was advancing on them. The subsequent lawsuit contends he was shot in the BACK.

In 1989 Titusville, Florida policemen conducted a nighttime no-knock drug raid on the home of a 58-year-old painter, Charles DiGristine. The raid began as the police set off a concussion grenade and smashed through DiGristine's front door. When DiGristine's wife screamed, he hurried to his bedroom to get a pistol. A policeman dressed in dark clothing and a black mask crashed into his bedroom, gunfire was exchanged and the officer was killed. The local government prosecuted DiGristine for first-degree murder, but a jury acquitted him. (The police believed -- based on bogus information from an anonymous informant -- that the DiGristine home was a center for heavily armed drug dealers. The only drug they found in the raid was a small amount of marijuana owned by DiGristine's 16-year-old son.)

DEA agents used an ax to break down the door of an innocent man's home in Guthrie, Oklahoma in 1991 and then handcuffed and kicked the man in front of his wife and daughters before the agenst realized they were at the wrong address. They left without apologizing.

Unfortunately, no-knock raids are becoming more common as federal, state and local politicians and law enforcement agencies decide that the war on drugs justified nullifying the Fourth Amendment. As Charles Patrick Garcia noted in a 1993 Columbia Law Review article, "Seven states, favoring strong law enforcement, have chosen a `blanket approach', which olds that once police have established probably cause to search a home for drugs, they are not required to follow the constitutional knock-and-announce requirement." Even liberal states are jumping on the no-knock bandwagon. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in February that police could forcibly enter a home without knocking in any case in which there was "evidence of drug dealing." Un- fortunately, "evidence of drug dealing" can be the uncorroborated assertion of a single anonymous paid government informant. The Wisconsin court said that the "possiblity for violence" can be minimized by allowing police to rely on "unannounced, dynamic entry" -- though it's a good bet that the judges don't expect police to carry out such raids in the judges' neighborhoods. Even in states where search warrants require a knock on the door before entry, police routinely disregard that formality. In a 1991 corruption trial, a former Los Angeles policeman testified that the accused officers falsely reported that they had complied with the knock-and-announce rule. In reality they violated the rule in 97 percent of the search warrents they executed. No knock raids in response to alleged narcotics violations presume that the government should have practically unlimited power to endanger some people's lives in order to control what others ingest. "The right to batter down a door apparently includes the right to kill any citizen who tries to stop the police from forcibly entering his or her home." The ACLU and the National Rifle Association have jointly called for President Clinton to appoint a commission to investigate "Lawlessness in law enforcement." Better yet, Congress should establish explicit rules to limit the arbitrary and violent behavior of federal agents carrying out searches and raids, and state legislatures should repeal their laws granting unlimited no-knock-search powers to police in their jurisdictions. James Bovard is author of "Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty."



-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), October 10, 1999.


Hmph. Maybe I should accelerate my sentry gun idea. Ever played Half Life with the Team Fortress Classic add-on? Then play as an Engineer and build a sentry gun and you'll have the basic idea. It's amazing what one can do with a few basic IR, ultrasonic, and laser sensors, some servomotors and other assorted robotics gear, and a two-foot- long eight-barreled BB gun that can move 4400 BBs a minute at over 700 fps per BB. (Gotta love those paintball CO2 tanks!)

The Matrix has you... (Good flick, and the storyline might relate to Y2K...)

-- OddOne (mocklamer_1999@yahoo.com), October 10, 1999.


The sick SOB who calls himself "Waco" in his post to the thread Liberty posted on 10/9 entitled "Clinton OKs Waco," should read this post, and respond to the facts therein!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ