Armed With Firearms Outside FBI Phoenix AZ Office - Saturday August 13th 2022
Posted by HCN on Monday, August 15, 2022
Published Sunday evening before dark August 14, 2022 EST
The situation altogether is a serious issue. Armed individuals that appear ready for the front lines of combat in a military raid operation in a foreign war, standing outside the FBI building in Phoenix, Arizona yesterday.
Here are some of the key components of what makes it an issue:
The right to keep and bear arms.
General understanding that protesting with arms can be taken as a threat with firearms; the line in the stand between simply protesting while concurrently having the right to keep and bear arms (in the process of protesting) is extremely thin.
[It may just be a matter of time before the judgment call is made that protesters have gone too far, crossed the line and now are in arrestable offense territory.]
A popular suggestion is to gate the building off.
At that, there may be other locations susceptible to similar events.
Cordoning further off from the FBI office premises may preempt last drifting possibilities or thoughts they might thereof of the events still having memories that loom that unfolded on January 6th 2021 midafternoon at the DC Capitol.
Protestors may have left the immediate scene in Phoenix, but there are no guarantees they won't be coming back.
From an all-around safety standpoint, there are no guarantees that everyone in, were, or will be in possible events in the unforetold future, the protesting crowd, are actually Trump supporters.
Basically, the prudent rule of thumb is, if you see people with guns standing outside, the bottom line is, there are people with guns outside, regardless of their slogans, outfits, who they are standing beside and so forth.
The guns seen with some of the protesters in Phoenix flat out are very dangerous. They are not little old hand-me-down handguns brought from great grandma's house from cowboy days, they are high powered rifles that can gain precise aim and do serious damage if fired.
The scene puts the FBI in a really awkward moment. Perhaps not everyone remembers that the FBI covers a broad range of purview; they are present and put their lives on the line to react to and address major emergencies involving high round number or gun magazine incidents, usage of weapons of mass destruction and so on. Their lives are on the line after events as well, such as after investigating a terror attack, where terrorists might just want to follow them around for years. All to say, it's a tense moment to be standing armed in front of the very same entity that may have saved your life in ways unbeknownst the day before.
An altercation with both sides pointing weapons would be a serious firefight almost unheard of, like an unprecedented battle on US soil. No one wants all that.
The easiest and probably safe to say, smartest move to be made in terms of everyone involved, is to figure out a way to express your view and positions which will not involve use of firearms by anyone.
Based on information in other news sources, the protesters may feel that President Trump is having a certain aspect of post administration 'picked on', and that the FBI which is a federal agency that really sees no political party divide, is being used as a strong-arm for supporters of certain political views and actions to get their way.
On the other hand, there may be those that feel that acquisition of the 'papers', said to be in the Trump property, in this case by FBI, is standard procedure, and so there should be no cause for unrest (by protestors and supporters of a leader or political figure) for a job that would be done regardless of who was President and what the point of political argument is.
Mar-a-Lago. A house. A search warrant.
Lest mistaken, there is a thing called Due Process. Did Trump simply be asked for the papers? Here is where it might be getting sticky; the January 6th riot panel may be a point in a series in a sequence of events, where the search warrant was en segue, or it follows, the developments in the hearings. This encompasses other developments such as meetings and ascertaining of other documents. It may be possible, if the hearings went differently, the method of obtaining documents may have been different. If a search warrant, the method and manner of search and acquisition, had been more amicable, maybe the escalation of events in Phoenix would not have occurred the way it did.
Then again, methodologies are analyzed often very carefully by law enforcement bodies. This is not to say everyone is perfect. It is also to say that there may be a zone where doing a deeper analysis and slowing things down, breaking it up into smaller chunks, discussing and holding topics in hearings that are as substantive as possible, may help placate where all of this either got to or where is going.
Usually, when a raid or seizure occurs it is indicative that the party that held the documents might make an attempt at obstructing their acquisition by federal authorities. Did that happen? That might be one of the crux points why there was a reaction to the raids, that were making a statement that they felt the raid was a disrespectful affront.
That 'usually', may have some elements of folkways, rehearsed procedures again involved, it is a prickly matter.
The President's job, for conversation sake, is not to hoard boxes of sensitive data; for a long time, the beginning of the President institution, President Washington, he had advisors that help him with secret and sensitive data. Thereat, that type of data is to understood to be of some degree already shareable with applicable parties.
Which leaves these closing words, softly, there is too much gun waving going on, and for reasons that could be averted through refined approaches to what is known and unknown, benchmarks already gone through, and untraversed unidentified directions and lays.
The situation altogether is a serious issue. Armed individuals that appear ready for the front lines of combat in a military raid operation in a foreign war, standing outside the FBI building in Phoenix, Arizona yesterday.
Here are some of the key components of what makes it an issue:
The right to keep and bear arms.
General understanding that protesting with arms can be taken as a threat with firearms; the line in the stand between simply protesting while concurrently having the right to keep and bear arms (in the process of protesting) is extremely thin.
[It may just be a matter of time before the judgment call is made that protesters have gone too far, crossed the line and now are in arrestable offense territory.]
A popular suggestion is to gate the building off.
At that, there may be other locations susceptible to similar events.
Cordoning further off from the FBI office premises may preempt last drifting possibilities or thoughts they might thereof of the events still having memories that loom that unfolded on January 6th 2021 midafternoon at the DC Capitol.
Protestors may have left the immediate scene in Phoenix, but there are no guarantees they won't be coming back.
From an all-around safety standpoint, there are no guarantees that everyone in, were, or will be in possible events in the unforetold future, the protesting crowd, are actually Trump supporters.
Basically, the prudent rule of thumb is, if you see people with guns standing outside, the bottom line is, there are people with guns outside, regardless of their slogans, outfits, who they are standing beside and so forth.
The guns seen with some of the protesters in Phoenix flat out are very dangerous. They are not little old hand-me-down handguns brought from great grandma's house from cowboy days, they are high powered rifles that can gain precise aim and do serious damage if fired.
The scene puts the FBI in a really awkward moment. Perhaps not everyone remembers that the FBI covers a broad range of purview; they are present and put their lives on the line to react to and address major emergencies involving high round number or gun magazine incidents, usage of weapons of mass destruction and so on. Their lives are on the line after events as well, such as after investigating a terror attack, where terrorists might just want to follow them around for years. All to say, it's a tense moment to be standing armed in front of the very same entity that may have saved your life in ways unbeknownst the day before.
An altercation with both sides pointing weapons would be a serious firefight almost unheard of, like an unprecedented battle on US soil. No one wants all that.
The easiest and probably safe to say, smartest move to be made in terms of everyone involved, is to figure out a way to express your view and positions which will not involve use of firearms by anyone.
Based on information in other news sources, the protesters may feel that President Trump is having a certain aspect of post administration 'picked on', and that the FBI which is a federal agency that really sees no political party divide, is being used as a strong-arm for supporters of certain political views and actions to get their way.
On the other hand, there may be those that feel that acquisition of the 'papers', said to be in the Trump property, in this case by FBI, is standard procedure, and so there should be no cause for unrest (by protestors and supporters of a leader or political figure) for a job that would be done regardless of who was President and what the point of political argument is.
Mar-a-Lago. A house. A search warrant.
Lest mistaken, there is a thing called Due Process. Did Trump simply be asked for the papers? Here is where it might be getting sticky; the January 6th riot panel may be a point in a series in a sequence of events, where the search warrant was en segue, or it follows, the developments in the hearings. This encompasses other developments such as meetings and ascertaining of other documents. It may be possible, if the hearings went differently, the method of obtaining documents may have been different. If a search warrant, the method and manner of search and acquisition, had been more amicable, maybe the escalation of events in Phoenix would not have occurred the way it did.
Then again, methodologies are analyzed often very carefully by law enforcement bodies. This is not to say everyone is perfect. It is also to say that there may be a zone where doing a deeper analysis and slowing things down, breaking it up into smaller chunks, discussing and holding topics in hearings that are as substantive as possible, may help placate where all of this either got to or where is going.
Usually, when a raid or seizure occurs it is indicative that the party that held the documents might make an attempt at obstructing their acquisition by federal authorities. Did that happen? That might be one of the crux points why there was a reaction to the raids, that were making a statement that they felt the raid was a disrespectful affront.
That 'usually', may have some elements of folkways, rehearsed procedures again involved, it is a prickly matter.
The President's job, for conversation sake, is not to hoard boxes of sensitive data; for a long time, the beginning of the President institution, President Washington, he had advisors that help him with secret and sensitive data. Thereat, that type of data is to understood to be of some degree already shareable with applicable parties.
Which leaves these closing words, softly, there is too much gun waving going on, and for reasons that could be averted through refined approaches to what is known and unknown, benchmarks already gone through, and untraversed unidentified directions and lays.
