Cops Perform Guns-Drawn Raid Of Chelsea Manning's Home Because Someone Reported Her Suicidal Tweets

from the ARE-YOU-OK-IN-THERE-CITIZEN-[bullets-flying] dept

We’ve discussed the divide between police and the policed, but perhaps none is more pronounced than law enforcement’s handling of those with mental health issues. Dozens of times a year, someone in need of intervention or caretaking is killed by police officers who have responded to relatives, friends, or family calling for help.

911 is a dumb pipe. It will route the info to all, but it’s usually police who end up acting as first responders, even when the crisis is health-related. Any combativeness is viewed as a threat, rather than a rational response to loud, violent stimuli. If the person needing help has a criminal record (and many people with mental health issues do), the “threat” is perceived before officers even make contact. In rare cases, these “wellness checks” end peacefully and with a resolution in line with the terminology used by law enforcement.

In most cases, an arrest is involved. In many cases, the “wellness check” ends in someone’s death. Nearly 250 people suffering mental health crises were killed by officers in 2017. The story here is unique in that it didn’t end in death, a violent arrest, or something else not even roughly aligned with the idea of community caretaking. But that’s possibly due to the fact no one was home.

Shortly after Chelsea Manning posted what appeared to be two suicidal tweets on May 27, police broke into her home with their weapons drawn as if conducting a raid, in what is known as a “wellness” or “welfare check” on a person experiencing a mental health crisis. Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst turned whistleblower and U.S. Senate candidate, was not at home, but video obtained by The Intercept shows officers pointing their guns as they searched her empty apartment.

The footage, captured by a security camera, shows an officer with the Montgomery County Police Department in Bethesda, Maryland, knocking on Manning’s door. When no one responds, the officer pops the lock, and three officers enter the home with their guns drawn, while a fourth points a Taser.

Granted, some people use firearms to end their lives, but guns drawn appears to be the default response in welfare checks. Officers are operating with limited information, but that should indicate a need for both caution and de-escalation tactics, rather than responding to a third-hand account of suicidal tweets with something that could pass for a rather low-key drug bust.

The responding agency — the Montgomery County Police — appears to know this isn’t the proper response. Its first reaction when reached for comment was to accuse The Intercept of posting a possibly-unauthentic video. Police Captain Paul Starks also questioned The Intercept’s facts, asking how it knew “no one was home.”

Then he defended the guns-first approach to community caretaking.

“They don’t know what kind of circumstances they are entering when they enter a home,” Starks said, increasingly flustered. “The fact that a weapon is drawn doesn’t mean that they are going to shoot it.”

Perhaps not. But it makes it far more likely that they will use weapons, sometimes inadvertently. Unless you’re intending to kill something or someone, the guns should remain holstered. That’s just common sense, especially when multiple officers are exploring an unfamiliar space with limited information. It’s not just the person being “helped” who might end up shot. It’s other officers responding to the same call possibly startling another responder already on edge with a gun drawn.

Being a police officer in America is an astoundingly safe (in terms of risk of death, if not secure, lifelong employment) career choice. And yet, officers respond to many welfare checks as though the person in need of physical or psychiatric health is determined to Bonnie and Clyde their way through the attempted intervention. Cops are rarely killed in the line of duty — even less so by firearms — but the mentality is that every member of the general public is just dying to escalate a car stop or frisk into Murder One charges with a law enforcement sentencing enhancement tacked onto it.

The militarization of police has turned community servants into combatants despite the level of violent crime dropping precipitously over the last three decades. As public violence continues to decline, police keep amping up their response to “threats” only they can see, feel, or hear. The only sure way to make it through a wellness check alive is to be like Chelsea Manning — nowhere near the address reported by people who thought they were doing the right thing.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Cops Perform Guns-Drawn Raid Of Chelsea Manning's Home Because Someone Reported Her Suicidal Tweets”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: And an unconstitutional search, to boot!

I’m normally one to attack the police but in this case I cannot.

They were called on a possibly suicidal person. That person didn’t answer their door. They HAD TO CHECK. Now, in the US, many homeowners own firearms and respond to intruders badly. So entering an American home isn’t the same as entering a home in London.

They had no idea what to expect. I’ve got no issues with what happened here.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'Counter-productive' comes to mind.

As you yourself noted, they were called in for what they believed was a suicidal person. Called in to prevent someone from killing themself. Assuming that someone in that state is both armed and willing to use whatever weapon they have on someone breaking into their house, what does it accomplish to show up to try to stop someone from killing themselves by killing them first?

If their standard response to someone who might try to kill themself is to be ready and willing to kill them first then they should stay at home and let someone competent handle it, because they’re sure as hell not making the situation any better.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: 'Counter-productive' comes to mind.

"what does it accomplish to show up to try to stop someone from killing themselves by killing them first?"

Standard police logic. It’s why convicts awaiting execution are routinely put on "suicide watch" (as Manning was for months — which is actually a cruel punishment that’s not classified as a punishment at all) That’s why if you hold a gun to your head with a cop there you can expect the cop to shoot you before you have a chance to shoot yourself. Only THE STATE has the right to take a life. No one else ever does, even their own life — and police are essentially authorized to use lethal force to prevent suicide from happening.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 'Counter-productive' comes to mind.

It’s why convicts awaiting execution are routinely put on "suicide watch" (as Manning was for months — which is actually a cruel punishment that’s not classified as a punishment at all)

The article says she tried to commit suicide twice while in solitary confinement—and the second time, she was in solitary confinement as a result of the first attempt. They don’t say it outright but I infer the solitary confinement motivated these attempts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: And an unconstitutional search, to boot!

If you’re normally one to attack the police, how are you still alive to post this?

No, they did not HAVE to check. They have no particular duty to protect anyone from crime, even when they have reason to believe the crime is likely. By extension, they have no particular duty to respond to check on a suicidal individual.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: And an unconstitutional search, to boot!

But don’t you DARE approach a cop, even an off-duty cop the way they would approach you, even though you have the SAME right to self defense they do!

If you approach a cop aggressively, with drawn gun, they will have presumptive proof you intend to murder them and will kill you in self defense — no crime committed.

If you kill a cop in self defense, the prosecutor almost always charges you with first degree murder because there is no such thing as premeditated murder in self defense, so self defense pleas won’t be allowed by the court.

Nicola Lane (profile) says:

Re: Re: And an unconstitutional search, to boot!

You are right this isn’t like entering a home in London. In london those police officers woiulkd all get arrested! 2 crimes immediately come to mind – Breaking & entering, and Criminal Damage. The homeowner could also sue them for trespass.

You see in London it is not actually a crime to not answer your door!

In London the police can only break down your door and enter your property in certain tightly constrained circumstances. Some random person has called the police and said they thought someone was ill is not one of those circumstances.

So in London I am not going to find the police breaking down my door because I comit the crime of having a shower, being asleep, meditating with my headphones on, or simply not wanting to answer my door to some random stranger.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: And an unconstitutional search, to boot!

In the UK, officers also generally have training in how to de-escalate situations and resolve them without having to resort to violence. In the US, they just seem to have training in how to use their fun toys. From half the evidence I see, it’s the officers escalating the situation toward violence in the first place.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: And an unconstitutional search, to boot!

So, you’re saying that they had to break into the home to check on the occupant, but had to be careful in case the occupant was willing and able to defend themselves against armed intruders? Which means they equally had to be willing and able to kill the same occupant they were checking up on, since they were breaking into their home unannounced?

Do you know how idiotic that sounds to someone outside the US?

Anonymous Coward says:

> Unless you’re intending to kill something or someone, the guns should remain holstered.

This is actually the law as it applies, apparently, to everyone other than LEOs. If your weapon (any weapon) is drawn, you are a threat by definition. If you break into my house AND have weapons drawn my first instinct would be self-preservation no matter who you are. Try and tell me an off-duty officer would react any differently.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Try and tell me an off-duty officer would react any differently.


There is training and approaches for handling this sort of situation. Entering someone’s home with a primed weapon is usually more dangerous than forcing an entry without a primed weapon.

On the other hand, entering a home to respond to a suicide report where there’s no response needs to be handled with a lot of finesse, and police have to be prepared for anything.

So I don’t really know where I stand here. Would they have behaved differently if there had been someone home? Only they know.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'You can't kill yourself, that's OUR job!'

“They don’t know what kind of circumstances they are entering when they enter a home,” Starks said, increasingly flustered. “The fact that a weapon is drawn doesn’t mean that they are going to shoot it.”

Someone(several someone’s in fact) failed gun safety 101 and needs to be fired and blacklisted. As I understand it right alongside ‘Assume every gun is loaded until you have personally checked it’, ‘Never point a gun at something you’re not prepared to shoot’ is one of the first rules of handling a gun. If they entered the building guns drawn it was because they were prepared to shoot someone.

If they had no intention of firing, then they had no reason to have the guns out. That they were out makes it abundantly clear that they were prepared to fire.

Responding to a potentially suicidal person with a gun is ‘helpful’ only to the point that they might die from something else, murder rather than suicide, and if that is their response to a suicidal person I’d say it would be better for everyone that they leave the job to someone less trigger happy with training in talking down someone contemplating suicide, or even just a random stranger, as both of them would be safer for the would-be suicidal person.

Nemo says:

Re: 'You can't kill yourself, that's OUR job!'

“Failed gun safety” is true, and well and good, but that understanding is insufficient. Once they went “hot”, every one of the officers was the equivalent of a grenade with the pin pulled, and the spoon only held down with a finger or two. Doesn’t take much to set either off, and the results are very often lethal.

I never served in the Army (USAF, and hold the thanks, plz), but for reasons of my own have studied use of force, in part because the police, speaking generally and nationally, decided to transform themselves into paramilitary outfits.

IMO the only reason to enter a place “hot” is to have a lethal response on the ready, in case of surprise. That means that it should only be used when the threat is so high that collateral damage is justified. So high that the death of /innocent people/ is justified, because if your response to any surprise is lethal, guess what happens when you get surprised?

The police have taken a tactic from mi9litary field work, where the risks and threats are both high, and often lethal, and are applying them to situations where the risk and consequences are statistically far lower.

So when the police enter a place with with guns drawn and a round in the chamber, they are entering in a manner similar to that of a military unit. Well, similar except for the lack of training, discipline, respect for the ROE, and an understanding that that taking risks is an inherent part of the job.

Keep in mind that at one point, the police of the safest suburb in the USA (someone or other’s poll or paper) said of his own community “It’s a war out there”. It’s bullshit, but it’s bullshit that many police believe, and a culture that prevents any dissent to that within the ranks.

That’s leaving aside the current oxymoron; that while all evidence is that when it comes to crimes committed in the performance of their duties, the cops will protect their own, almost without exception. What makes things oxymoronic is that to couple with that, cops also maintain that only they are the only group that can police itself.

That relates because they in essence are saying that they get to decide when the collateral damage is acceptable. And, given their public public defense of flash-banging a baby, lack of criticism from their own about it, and silence otherwise is merely one example of a demonstrable tendencies that the police have:

‘Any and all collateral damage is acceptable, as long as no officers were injured and there is no political need for an officer to be a scapegoat.’, IOW The First Rule of Policing.

And that’s why they will continue to approach “mental health” entries with combat tactics, sorta. Because the top priority is to respond to any perceived threat with massive, lethal force. Your dead relatives are of no concern to them. You’ll be lucky to get a half-hearted non-apology from them.

The evidence for all this is out there, and isn’t hard to find. All you need is to be willing to see it, rather than diving down into details to find ways to “prove” it isn’t so. Not that badge-lickers ever accept anything critical of police as facts or evidence, but one tries.

As for badge-licking status, one way to check yourself: If you believe that everything Radley Balko writes about the police is wrong, you might be a badge-licker.

ROGS (user link) says:

Re: Re: 'You can't kill yourself, that's OUR job!'


They make sheitloads of money stalking~and killing activists, dissidents~all of whom are nebulously “mentally ill.”

Search online for: JULIA DAVIS, POISON, Dhs; or John Lang Fresno activist;or Ramsey Orta, gang stalking; Feddy Gray and poor Feddy gray….

At a certain level, called “high
Policing “we see beat cops looking the other way, not at al unlike gang lokouts~ and letting homicides happen, because, funding, DVIC dollars, and more.

Research Organized Gang Stalking. It is appaling, and un~Constitutional.

Anonymous Coward says:

legally murdering someone you don't like

While “SWAT’ing” someone is definitely illegal, calling in an insincere *welfare check* on someone can accomplish the same thing –a police shooting– with much less legal risk to the person making the call. It’s the ultimate way of legally murdering someone you don’t like.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: No.

If the only response you can think of to a possible threat is to be ready to shoot the threat first, you have no business being in a job involving regular contact with other people, and you absolutely have no business interacting with someone in a situation where the person they are threatening is themself.

If that’s to be considered an acceptable response to a suicidal person, then it’s crystal clear that a worried person should never call the police in an attempt to get assistance for someone they fear will harm themself. Leave the person alone, go yourself, or flag down a random stranger if need be, adding guns to an already volatile mix is just upping the chance that someone is going to die.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: No.

Being prepared (you know, the boy scout motto) is always better than not.
So yes, they’re prepared for a lethal situation.

Their training should keep them from using lethal force unnecessarily, yet they still need to be prepared to deploy it.

Your response shows you have no idea what it’s like to be in LE, and should probably stfu

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No.

Yeah, no.

‘Being prepared’ is making sure that at least one person sent on a call like that has received training dealing with suicidal people and how best to handle them.

‘Being prepared’ is calling in an ambulance just in case the suicidal person actually tries to off themself and they need medical treatment immediately.

Being prepared is not pulling a gun(or three) ‘just in case’.

If they’re too cowardly and spineless to deal with a potential threat without the reassurance of a gun then they can quit and find another job. If their response to a suicidal person is ‘being prepared’ to gun them down then they have no business being anywhere near them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No.

How do they know what they’ll find? How do you? You don’t. Their lives are at risk, and they do their best to be prepared for every eventuality (including the one where the person isn’t suicidal, but homicidal or insane).

The fact that you’re unable to wrap your tiny mind around this is very telling.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 No.

Yes, it’s ‘telling’ that I don’t want someone interacting with the public in a manner that a single twitch of a finger has the potential to lead to a death.

It’s ‘telling’ that I think that cowards so terrified of ‘what might happen’ that they enter a building where a reportedly suicidal person is in a manner that has good odds to change a suicide to a murder is a bad thing.

It’s ‘telling’ that I expect that those that are armed and given massive cover by their buddies and the legal system to have a spine and not be jumping at shadows.

Applying the turnabout is fair play/hypocrisy test, if ‘there might be a threat and it’s better to be prepared than not’ is grounds to have a gun drawn and ready to fire, police are armed, and they have shot people, would it likewise be acceptable for members of the public to be armed and ready to fire when they interact with police? Or does that only work one way?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No.

I’m not saying their training does. I’m saying it should. If there are issues with that, then they need to be worked on.

And the news gives a distorted perception of how well they’re trained. Considering the sheer number of interactions cops have with people, the relatively low number killed unnecessarily paints a more complete picture.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Per the quote in the article, they went in not only guns drawn (which might be supportable, although it’s at least questionable), but guns pointing – and one of the primary rules of firearms safety is "never point your gun at something you do not intend to shoot".

Note: that’s not "would be willing to shoot", or "think you might have to shoot". It’s "intend to shoot".

By that token, pointing your gun at a place where you don’t know what’s there is near-criminal irresponsibility – and I’m not entirely certain about the "near" part.

If they were pointing their guns at a place which they didn’t know (to a reasonable level of certainty) had no one in it, they were either expressing their intent to shoot anyone who might be there, or demonstrating that they are not competent to pass basic firearms safety training.

If you aren’t sure whether or not there’s someone in a place, you do not point your gun at that place, unless you are intending to shoot whoever might turn out to be there.

The classic "enter a room with gun drawn, swiveling to cover possible hiding places" scenario is appropriate for a military force, in wartime; it may also be appropriate for a SWAT team, up against adversaries who are known to be armed and willing to attack.

It is not appropriate for routine policing, against ordinary criminals.

It is even less appropriate for "we are here to help you" policing, where there are no criminals involved and the only danger is that the person the police are supposed to be trying to help will harm herself.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I also noticed the torch under the barrel tactic, which can be useful for shooting rabbits, but also gives an ambusher warning of your approach, and a good aiming point. Who is teaching them tactics, a Hollywood script writer, where they want things to look good on screen rather than being effective.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’d prefer a police force that doesn’t break and enter into vacant homes for a welfare check with guns drawn because of:

an anonymous tip
that someone who may or may not live in that home
may or may not be suicidal
based on a social media post history.

But that’s just me.

Maybe it would be better to knock, get no response, and then go deal with some other police work. Heck, leave a note if you must. It was an anonymous tip based on a social media post!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Recently Montgomery County police were called for a welfare check on a friend of mine. They went to the door of her apartment, knocked, and received no answer. So they left. Inside my friend was laying dead or dying (no way to know as no one entered the apartment for a few more days).

IMHO, it’s criminally negligent to leave when there is valid concern for someone’s safety. They don’t have to break in if it’s an apartment, they can usually get the management to open a door quickly.

Generally MoCo police are a very professional and competent department, but clearly sometimes they drop the ball. I don’t think I can really criticize them in the Manning case, there’s too many details not known. I’m sure there will be lessons learned from this incident.

Nemo says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Nice anecdote, bro. Really moving. Tell the families of those killed by police during “wellness” checks that those deaths have to continue, for the sake of the people like your friend, whose door really should have been forced, with cops entering, ready to meet any surprise with lethal force, because that would have saved your friend.

If we could find an ethical medium, do you think your friend would agree that the police must keep killing the mentally ill, because it might’ve saved her?

And BTW, don’t jump at me for talking about your friend to make my case. You already did that to make your case, so I’m on your ethical level, in that sense.

There’s a word for people who pull out a tactic, then cry and cry when someone else uses it.

And yeah, you did reduce your friend to a tactic. She was just a ploy to you, just something useful to your argument. That’s how you “honored” her.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

There are always exceptions to situations. Those instances where the person is killed instead of helped, those are called exceptions. We don’t make policy decisions on exceptions.

If the data shows it’s endemic, then we can talk about training. But again, that would be looking at the interactions of a specific department/group. Not all of them together.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

While its true that US cops are trained to draw their guns whenever entering a threatening situation, it doesn’t need to be that way. If police are scared, they don’t need to show up at all. After the 2016 Dallas police shooting (in which cops were being killed, not the other way around) police departments all over the country stopped responding to calls for help, and almost completely stopped patrolling, except when travelling in numbers and in armored cars.

As that incident proved, police have the right to refuse if they feel endangered, rather than being forced to bust in with guns blazing, commando-style.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m not advocating anything, merely pointing out that two years ago, police forces all across the country opted out of patrolling for their own perceived safety. It only lasted for a day or two, and there were no more attacks on police, certainly a far cry from the all-out war on cops from the Black Community that they had feared.

Though it’s worth noting that the police gave themselves this right to bench themselves, presumably whenever and wherever they see fit –with no input from the people who actually pay their salaries (and who they are supposed to be serving). So a de facto precedent has been established: Cops can say “NO.”

Micah Johnson says:

Re: Re: Re:

The Dallas shooter shot 5 cops, and ironically, one of them was a suspected KKK/white supremacist. Thats not random- its 20%.

And, many/ most mass shooters claim, with merit, that an organized gang was stalking them, across the country before they went ballistic, and that “electronic weapons, aka the NSA backdoor, Fusion Center spying, warrantless searches via computers and cell phones,cyber stalking in inline forums, internet redirection, and Stingrays, etc” are being directed at them.

Research organized gang stalking.

Its very real, and terrifying, and exists in the gray area of law and outside of due process.

From Welfare State to Police State, indeed.

~In most cases, an arrest is involved. In many cases, the “wellness check” ends in someone’s death….~

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

As their job is dangerous

It’s actually not that dangerous, as the article above notes by pointing to statistics. Lots of other jobs are more dangerous, and we don’t see people advocating those other more dangerous jobs draw weapons at inappropriate times.

they can’t be sure someone didn’t set up a welfare check to initiate an ambush

This would imply that any time anyone calls the cops the police should show up with guns drawn.

That’s insane. I sincerely hope you are not a police officer.

weapons drawn is the only reasonable way police can enter.

This is extraordinarily wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Your statistics don’t show what you think they do. While some jobs might end up with more deaths, no other jobs have people directly attempting to hurt/kill you (outside the military/private security)

Did they show up with guns drawn for the check? Or for entering the building? It’s like you’re unable to see the difference.

You’re extraordinarily wrong. About everything. Nice attempt, though. Good thing you have real men, up there on that wall, taking care of your dumb ass.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Murderous intent every where I look.

Philandro Castile was stopped for traffic violations fifty-two times before being gunned down by police on July 6, 2016 (exactly two years ago!)

I can’t imagine someone getting pulled over even twenty times for moving violations without their license getting suspended, if they’re that bad a driver.

Someone had it out for Castile.

I don’t think it’s a far reach to assume at this point that the police are a mortality service in the guise of public law enforcement.

Research Organized Gang Stalking (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Er... exactly 23 months ago? two letters for the win

I think the word police meant:

law enforcement~law enFArcement

There. Fixed it for ya.

Cuz thats what it is.

Castille was gang stalked, because he was a black male with a gun permit, and the broken tail light is a classic police threat, aka “watch your back.”

This is happening all across the country, but because it mostly happens to blacks, low income whites, immigrants, etc, it seldom sees the MSM.

And, with rampant database abuse, with “information sharing and back door database searches, these abuses of process and outright corruption in policing will continue unabated.

Google Ferguson Activists and mysterious suicides, or BLM agent and kill book.

The great irony is that both white and black activists are being killed across the country, but seldom realuze they share many causes.

Bundy ranch BLM guys got stalked harassed, or killed, and many black BLM too, and the media just stirs the hate pot. But its happening all over the country.

Black activists and strange deaths:

Google Agent Love BLM and kill book:

~BLM investigator alleges misconduct by … Wooten said he learned from other agency supervisors that Love had a “Kill Book” as a “trophy,”

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Er... exactly 23 months ago? two letters for the win

“I think the word police meant”

No, he mean that it wasn’t July yet. But, if you want to take it as an excuse for an entertaining rant so be it.

“Google Ferguson Activists and mysterious suicides”

I can Google all sorts of things. Doesn’t make them true, fiction is as easily accessible through a random search as fact. Why not provide a verifiable source rather than trust that Google will guide people to sites that aren’t controlled by the secret societies you’re so scared by?

“Bundy ranch BLM guys got stalked harassed, or killed, and many black BLM too”

You’re…. trying to conflate the cause of Black Lives Matter, with the cause of people trying to get away without paying the Bureau of Land Management grazing fees, then illegally occupying government land? Wow. Did you just get confused by the acronym, or do you honestly think the Branch Dildonians share a similar cause?

“Google Agent Love BLM and kill book”

Again with your blind trust in a major corporation’s filter while ranting about people secretly controlling information. Hey, Reddit threads are far from perfect or valid citations but at least you attempted to provide your own material this time rather than demand everyone do your research for you.

Paul blartT the Great Divider says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Er... exactly 23 months ago? two letters for the win

Pauly,try not to let the froth at the corners of your mouth outweigh the substance you are abusing, OK?

But, really~is it shit slow in Gibraltar right now~I mean, picking on my lil ol thesis?

But you arent interested in addressing any substance here~ad hom after fallacy after whataboutism is no way to address the valid, substantive basis in fact that world-policing, and speech policing is killing people.

But thanks for playing!

Lets see:

Logical fallacies? CHECK

Race card? CHECK

Ad hominem? CHECK

Mischaracterization of both argument and fact? CHECK

Sowing division instead of building dialogur? CHECK

…..I could go on, but it looks like Paul blarT, the wordz puhlice WINS AGAIN!

Paully, in case you missed the memo, your JTRIG style is so, um….2008.

Which I note is also when the FVEY,and vampires at the DHS, et alphabeticus ramped up their troll farming, and stalking of words online, with real consequences for dead activists offline.

But thanks fer pkayin ROGS BINGO. Its nice to have a new reader!

Even if it is you.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Er... exactly 23 months ago? two letters for the win

I don’t know what the ridiculous acronyms you’re trying to use are there, I just know that you are acting like an idiot and telling people to go to major corporations to search for the “truth” that you imply they are going to be covering up in the first place. The lack of basic internal logic is only made funnier by the fact that you seem to have problems acting like a sane, stable person.

That you somehow managed to type that many words and say nothing is doing nothing to make you look like you actually have a point.

Saint Paul the Igniter says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Er... exactly 23 months ago? two letters for the win


REALLY? ~I don’t know what the ridiculous acronyms you’re trying to use are there~

Then go educate yourself. Everyone else here knows what these adult things are.

JTRIG~Britains FBI propaganda cutout that does their hidden dirty work /online provocateurs and spies

FVEY-The FiveEyes Alliance,an international octopussy thatintercepts all of ourphone calls, emails, rexts,baby pictures,etc without awarrant~and screens themall for bad words and bad ideas-like democracy.Not to be confusedbythe Fourteen Eyes alliance, or the UKUSA which sounds a lot like Yakuza.

I mean~in case yourmom didnttell you,weare all being targeted with illegal, warrantless surveillance.


But thanks for playing!

Lets see:

Logical fallacies? CHECK

Race card? CHECK

Ad hominem? CHECK

Mischaracterization of both argument and fact? CHECK

Sowing division instead of building dialogue? CHECK

Steawmanargument,re,corporations,BigCheck-in their bank accounts offshore.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Er... exactly 23 months ago? two letters for the win

So, random conspiracy rambling still not backed with facts, but certainly written in a way to suggest you’re not playing with a full set of marbles to begin with. In fact, no only are your ramblings nonsensical to people don’t hang around on the sillier conspiracy theory sites, your grasp of the English language appears to be rapidly devolving.

Continue, you’re turning people away from your claims faster than you’re making people agree with you, or even turn to the major corporations you demands they go to in order to prove or even understand your drivel.

The Old. Neighbor says:

I called a wellness check once...

I called a wellness check on a neighbor. Ambulance showed up and then police. Cop just hung out and did nothing until EMS saw the old guy lying on the ground via a window. Only then the cop went into action and broke in. Sounds like a better protocol to me.
Police killing people in “self defense” in situations the police escalated is simply murder or at least negligent manslaughter.

David says:

Re: I called a wellness check once...

Ambulance showed up and then police. Cop just hung out and did nothing until EMS saw the old guy lying on the ground via a window. Only then the cop went into action and broke in. Sounds like a better protocol to me.

Does not sound like a protocol to me since it is adapted to other parties’ arrival and the situation. More like common sense.

And common sense is one of those parties you cannot expect to arrive together with police.

Anonymous Coward says:

Tim, can you provide any evidence of the specific claims that:

In rare cases, these "wellness checks" end peacefully and with a resolution in line with the terminology used by law enforcement.

In most cases, an arrest is involved.

"Wellness checks" rarely end peacefully and most involve an arrest? This seems like an untrue statement to me, and I would be very interested to see whatever stats you have that back it up.

Research Organized Gang Stalking (user link) says:

This is well documented aka gang stalking

This is one of the threats that hidden internet PsyOps operators routinely make~that you will be locked up in a nuthouse, incarcerated, or commit suicide.

These harassment protocols originated in the military, and are used on all military bases by military police and IC any time one of their members is suspected of espionage, terrorism, or non-Judeo-christian proselytization.

The tactics are well documented, and described in Wild Bill Donovan era intelligece manuals, and the LSD experiments.

The domestic police also use these tactics in domestic violence situations, and anywhere else gray area/ exigent circumstances can be contrived.

Google Andy Ostrowski Kids for Cash, and gang stalking for another exampke, or Adrian Schoolcraft, NYPD quota whistle blower.

These tactics are well documented and in use against dissidents, activists, and others all across America today. And intel agencies all practice it as a form of what is called no touch torture (NTT).

This is deep punitive psychology in action, Us versus Them, Ich, Du, etc., and the guns, and the treatment are designed to cause maximum psychological damage.

It is also Israelification in action, much as we see in Gaza, it is the inducement of mental illness and worse-all documented.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: This is well documented aka gang stalking


Once again, ranting idiocy about people secretly running the world, followed by “ask a major corporation for the truth, I won’t cite any evidence myself”. Comedy gold. Plus, as I’ve previously mentioned, bonus points for asking another corporation to host your words. Usually you nuts at least have the forethought to realise you’d be easily censored if your nonsense was close to the truth. Too busy typing nonsense to find a host that you can control?

Anyway, +1 for comedy value, although the overt antisemitism you’ve introduced this time does spoil the enjoyment of your character somewhat. Tone it down a little, else you’re an entertaining addition to the rota of mentally ill characters being played on this site.

Speaking of ^$$hole$ and ad hominems says:

Re: Re: This is well documented aka gang stalking

You hit cyber stalker ROGS BINGO with that assinine gas lighting coment.


You won.

Anti~semitism? You mean, like Israel bombing and murdering semitic Arabs? Or the ADL Nazifying our police on paid junkets to apartheidland?

You win AGAIN! Racebait Scrabble.

And extra points for distraction~I never mentioned a specific corporation anywhere, nor intended to.

But I like you mention of gold~next you will throw in JEWELERS for another WIN!

You are obviously NOT a leprechaun…..

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: This is well documented aka gang stalking

“You hit cyber stalker ROGS BINGO with that assinine gas lighting coment.”

Was that collection of misspelled words meant to mean something, or are you just picking them at random now?

“I never mentioned a specific corporation anywhere”

You literally mentioned Google twice in a previous comment, once in the one quoted here, plus you keep linking to your blog, which you host on a site run by Automattic, another corporation.

Are you actually this stupid, or just playing the character for entertainment purposes?

Nothing on substance, plenty of path narc abuse (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 This is well documented aka gang stalking

Moving along now.

My next research project, after research on organized gang stalking, will be researching morons with Aspergers syndrome and factitious disorder.

And corporations, of course~wouldnt want to leave them out.

Especially CIA~Google, JTRIG MOONSHOT CVE, and, for some trite reason Peter the cockminster Thiels PALANTIR, all of which are eating democracies faster than Paull blarT the factitious word puhluce can froth out the words you see there above my keypad.


CIAGoogle says:

Re: Re: Re:4 This is well documented aka gang stalking


What has that got to do with the substance of my post?

Like Microsoftand Androd, as.opposedto Linuxor Qubes, Goiglebis what “the Marxian/Bernaysian/Lippman/CassSunstein Masses”use.

Are you daft or just off your medication?

Do they not sell PMS pills at your troll farm commissary?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 This is well documented aka gang stalking

“What has that got to do with the substance of my post?”

There was substance? Huh, must have missed that. It’s just that since you keep telling people to ask Google to provide yours evidence for the claims you’re making, it’s strange that you claim to be so opposed to them. Why not link to the truth yourself, rather than trusting Google to take them there? Very strange behaviour, even by the standards of paranoid lunatics such as the one you play here.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 This is well documented aka gang stalking

…and so the child has returned to the land of fiction, as the adult word of truth and maturity was beyond his ability to comprehend.

Worry not, one day you will gain the knowledge and maturity to interact with thinking adults, and you may even be able to convince a few of them that you’re not just a raving lunatic, in time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: This is well documented aka gang stalking

I agree with almost every criticism you’ve posted, but you ate a huge handful of bait by calling that poster “antisemetic”.

Being opposed to Israel and its actions is NOT antisemetic. The state and the military of Israel do not represent the Jews or their opinions. There are many Jews who find the actions of Israel to be nothing short of abhorrent. There are even Jews who find the paranoia and racial superiority complex of Israel’s government to be… very familiar, to put it lightly, and to gently skirt around Godwin’s Law.

Israel != Jews

You should read a graphic novel called “Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me” by a man named Harvey Pekar. He’s Jewish, so you can’t call him an anti-semite. He’s also dead, so even if you did call him one, it’s not like he’d care.

GEMont (profile) says:

The Fantasy of Conviction Retaliation

“…but the mentality is that every member of the general public is just dying to escalate a car stop or frisk into Murder One charges with a law enforcement sentencing enhancement tacked onto it.”

This “mentality” can be laid firmly at the foot of Television Cop Show propaganda, where, almost as a rule, every “good” cop needs to be heavily concerned about retaliation by everyone they arrest and have convicted, as well as their friends, family and associates.

On these TV Cop shows, every convicted “bad-guy” tries to kill or have killed, the “good” cop(s) that arrested them, or gave evidence against them.

Its a theme designed to make the general public believe that 100’s of cops are assassinated daily by irate criminals seeking revenge, so that cops shooting people because they “feared for their lives”, becomes a publicly acceptable excuse for suicide-by-cop.

Its a beautiful example of Standard Operational Procedure for any fledgling Fascist Police State, actually.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: The Fantasy of Conviction Retaliation

It always amazes me how many people confuse TV and reality within certain subjects. During the Bush era, the number of people who were trying to defend torture by arguing as if episodes of 24 were documentaries was fairly depressing. Yet, they never seem to take lessons from the shows where the flipside of the issues are examined.

Amen (user link) says:

Re: The Fantasy of Conviction Retaliation


In other news, evidence is mounting that these are actually not suicides, but rather, elaborate assassinations.

Maybe, the “executive assassinations” that NYTs Seymour Hirsch alluded to….

But we would have to ask dead activists~and potential influencers~ about what they were experiencing before they were killed.

But sadly, dead men tell no tales….

Micah Johnson
Philando Castile
Aaron Schwarz
Freddy Gray
LaVoy Finicum
Gavin Long
John Lang Fresno activist
Treyvon Martin
Ferguson activists
the Tea Party and Libertarians
Mathew Riehl

Dan Loves Kill Book…

When does the data indicate a trend, versus a fad, versus organized, highly targeted planning?

But it seems that words are getting speakers stalked, online and off~framed, harassed, murdered, or mysteriously suiciding themselves.

The data indicates that the Panopticon is a one way street to NSA/Fusion Center/FVEYs/ Israel total surveillance, and more, that destroys any and all activism, and due process that is not sanctioned by the word police~whoever they are….

all of whom train in Israel these days, on privately paid junkets to Proudly Human Rights Free Gaza.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Utter Nonsense

> In rare cases, these “wellness checks” end peacefully and with a resolution in
> line with the terminology used by law enforcement.

What absolute horseshit. It is *not* rare at all for a wellness check to end peacefully. You just never hear about the ones that end peacefully because nothing of note happened. The truth is the vast, vast, vast majority of wellness checks *do* end peacefully and many of them result in someone in trouble– an elderly person who has fallen down, etc.– getting help they would otherwise never receive.

The anti-cop bias of the authors of this site is now leading them to outright lie in these articles order to pump up the drama.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Utter Nonsense

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim? I hear the police keep lots of records and statistics. Those who defend the cops as feverishly as yourself tend to be cops or at least have family in law enforcement, so I can assume you’ll have the information I’ve requested available very soon, yes?

As for the anti-cop bias here, that’s just Tim*. I don’t see any of the other contributors writing about the police. He’s definitely got something against them… not that I mind, I have a strong bias against cops, too. Mostly due to personal experience.

I am curious as to what lit Tim’s journalistic fire, so to speak. I’d like to hear his personal story. It’d be cool if his articles could be posted on some sort of spin-off site. A quick check shows that the domain is available.

* Not to be confused with Timothy.

btr1701 (profile) says:


> Unless you’re intending to kill something or someone, the guns should remain
> holstered.

More nonsense. No one sane would claim that you should serve a search or arrest warrant on someone’s home where you know dangerous and possible armed criminals will present with your gun holstered.

Perhaps in this case drawing guns wasn’t necessary but the blanket statement that “unless you intend to kill someone, your gun should remain holstered” is just pure idiocy.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Serving a search or arrest warrant unarmed.

That’s the way it was done.

Federal agents and Pinkertons would often serve arrest warrants with nothing but their own sidearm and the backup of the local precinct. Typically, suspects might try to escape, but seldom would they go after the Pinkerton.

The reason was simple: whatever you done was not (yet) worth sending the entire Bolivian army after you. But once you gunned down a federal officer, you were never going to sleep again unless you moved to a secret compound in Pakistan.

That all changed when the FBI fought the Mafia and the South American / Central American drug cartels, who were much more effective at targeting high-ranking figures. They still do.

But most people who have a warrant for their arrest — by far — would rather receive the warrant and face due process than become a Bolivian-army level fugitive, and the target of a manhunt.

Granted, since the 90s, we’ve started using SWAT teams to serve warrants, but that should not be regarded as a normal thing, and there are some law enforcement agents (the ones I know personally are in the US Marshals Service who will still serve warrants with just their side-arm and their partner.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Serving a search or arrest warrant unarmed.

Federal agents and Pinkertons would often serve arrest warrants with nothing
> but their own sidearm and the backup of the local precinct.

You’re discussing two separate issues. I’m talking about Tim’s silly rule that a cop shouldn’t take her gun out of its holster “unless she intends to kill someone”. You’re talking about the overuse of SWAT to serve routine warrants.

I guarantee that those agents and Pinkertons you mentioned above had their guns out when serving those warrants, even if (especially if) it was just them on scene. They’d have laughed at you if you’d suggested they should leave their guns in their holsters while serving those warrants.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Serving warrants, guns drawn.

Um, no.

They would be polite. No gun drawn. A knock on the door. Sir, I hold a standing warrant for your arrest. I need you to come with us.

As I said, their protection wasn’t their own sidearm, it was the fact that shooting them would lead to an implacable manhunt, and would be gunned down like a mad dog, on the field by a whooping posse.

Frankly, I think the don’t draw your gun rule is a good one, especially given police are known to accidentally discharge their weapons, sometimes killing someone Pulp Fiction style. Our law enforcement agents are a skittish lot.

The fear the police have for their lives is often disproportionate to the rate at which officer lives are lost in the line of duty — most to high-speed chases, incidentally, not ambushes.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

This may actually be a good use for a drone.

If a drone with a camera (lighting as necessary) and a two way address system (like a speakerphone) could be sent into a residence on a wellness check call.

That way it can be determined that there is an occupant or there isn’t, and if someone is there, that he’s alert and oriented, and no human officer has to put himself in danger.

And if someone attacks the done, or a body is found, (or, to consider cinematic options, a hostage with a collar bomb) then the officers know in advance that things are about to get exciting.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...