Soldiers With Automatic Weapons Checking IDs at a Social Security Office in Florida

[proud2BlibKansan]

It may have looked like they were ready for war or some deranged person looking for his late Social Security benefits.

But it was only Federal Protective Service officers with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who were conducting a random training operation early Tuesday morning when they surprisingly showed up at the Social Security Administration office in downtown Leesburg.

With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building.

"I thought someone was upset about not getting there check," said Laura Kelly, who took a friend to the office on Tuesday.

more . . . http://warisacrime.org/content/soldiers-automatic-weapons-checking-ids-social-security-office-florida-more-freedom-they-hat

http://www.dailycommercial.com/News/LakeCounty/010412shield

[graywarrior]

1. WTF?

[RKP5637]

4. Give it a few more years and imagine where we'll be at, permanently lost

democracy.

[patrick t. cakes]

2. no, no police state here......nt

[RKP5637]

3. Practice makes perfect, for the police state.

[patrick t. cakes]

6. +1

[Dawson Leery]

5. There is no way I would ever go into law "enforcement".

[Cleita]

7. So Florida has become a police state?

What a bummer.

[patrick t. cakes]

8. Florida is part of the US...

Federal troops checking I.D.s at gun point does a police state make.

scary, but apparently inevitable

[Cleita]

11. So I guess "papers please" doesn't just apply to those

who look Hispanic anymore. See what happens when you allow some people to become harassed and marginalized. Soon it spreads to everyone.

[patrick t. cakes]

15. +1

sad that that's what it takes for a nation to wake up

if it does at all

[Poll_Blind]

9. Randomly checking identifications? Is that legal without probable cause?

I have been into many federal buildings and have never had anyone check my identification unless it was part of a service. Is mere admittance to these buildings dependent on producing identification papers?

What...exactly...is...that...all...about?

What would they have done if persons attempting to enter the building were not able or unwilling to produce such documents?

From reading the article, it appears they may have decided to "expand" some of their powers on the spot.

PB

[Cleita]

12. When I lived in Chile, all of us Americans were routinely stopped and had to show our ID's and

permits to be in the country. We often talked about how this would NEVER be allowed in the states.

[Zalatix]

20. Just wanted to comment to you, Cleita... nice sig! Medicare for all! Wish there was a way to K&R you

[Ikonoklast]

14. I have to pass through a metal detector and show photo ID every time I enter the local Federal

Building.

When I do business there, I bring my passport.

[MineralMan]

25. Men with guns are "soldiers." Yeah, that's the ticket.

And all guns are "automatic" weapons. Never mind that the news story said something completely different from the headline. Sloppy all around, I think.

[Ikonoklast]

30. The guards at the entrance are armed, although most people don't realize it.

There are FBI, IRS, Treasury, Social Security, and just about every other Federal agency in that building.

An excellent target for an anti-government right-wing libertarian nutcase to enter and do stupid things if not stopped beforehand at the entrance.

[MineralMan]

31. That's true. I don't go into Federal buildings very

often, but armed guards are always there. The false title of this story was designed to do just one thing - amplify the outrage.

[michreject]

10. Where were the soldiers at?

I opened both links and only saw reports of Federal law enforcement personnel. Didn't see any mention of military.

[MineralMan]

22. The soldiers and the automatic weapons exist only in the

exaggerated title. The assumption is that people won't bother even to read a short excerpt. Sensationalism in titling.

[Politicalboi]

13. If I saw the soldiers with guns

I wouldn't have even gone up to the door, let alone show them my ID.

[Muskypundit]

16. Gross overreaction on part of DU

I don't know of major federal building you don't need to go through security and show at least a drivers license at. That's not a police state. That's a "lets not have another federal building bombing" state.

And police agencies hold training events all the time. They didn't break the law, because they did it on government property. I just had a training event where we had to convoy in humvees up i-5. We had M-4s too. That must mean the black helicopters are next, right?

"At gunpoint" ..... Give me a break. That's like saying police officers write you tickets at gunpoint.

[Pholus]

18. I guess some people are simply more comfortable with "security procedures" than others.

And that's okay. Working from the picture of the gentleman working the exercise I'd say I can understand the appeal. After all, consider the nifty trappings of the job like those nice shiny badges, the polished leather boots and all that combat webbing. It looks totally buff with those dark sunglasses and those earbuds. It's probably pretty hard not to think you look completely badass when you wear that stuff. As far as your Humvee's -- congratulations! Why were you driving quasi-military vehicles designed for offroad use up the interstate as part of an exercise? Wouldn't a plain sedan have worked better in that environment and been a bit cheaper? Oh yeah, it has to LOOK like you're working on security issues...

And I won't criticize this on those merits though. All that stuff costs money and the U.S. makes most of it. Security is one of the few growth industries we have left, and the U.S. is approximately 45% of the world's market for law enforcement equipment. Witness those tear gas canisters that made the international news back during the Egypt demonstrations: Made in Cleveland, Ohio. Can you even NAME another product manufactured in Cleveland Ohio? They used to have a reputation of being an industrial city.

And speaking of budget growth, security *is* one of the few government stimulus programs that the GOP approves of as well:

Example: TSA Viper Program budget (expanding the TSA to other transportation methods besides airports cause we love them soooooo much and think they've been so effective)

FY2009: 30 million dollars
FY2012: 109 million dollars

Wish my department's budget could nearly quadruple ever three years given the current economy.

Finally, as far as traffic tickets. Last time I was pulled over I distinctly remember the officer's hand was on his pistol as he approached my car. Isn't that standard procedure these days? So, yes, I think that only my obeying a procedure prevented the stop from being at gunpoint.

And frankly, that's okay for a traffic stop. I accept that as a dangerous business which has to be done, and I understand the need for the officer to protect his own life as he fulfills his public safety duties. For filling out social security paperwork? Perhaps that's a bit much, thank you. A rent-a-cop with a rusty 0.38 AND A RADIO is probably sufficient there.

[Zalatix]

19. Troops with big firearms = utterly useless. That does precious little to prevent bombings.

Men with guns can't stop a fast-moving truck with a bomb in it. Nor can they stop this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

It also would not have stopped Richard "shoe bomber" Reid.

Hire me to do security, I could find 200 ways around a bunch of apes with guns. ANY time you get to the entrance with explosives, lots of people are going to get dead.

Troops with firearms are useless. You need a different kind of security if you're planning on preventing a bombing.

[MineralMan]

21. Incorrect title, and not the one at the news story.

Those are not soldiers, and those are not automatic weapons. That is patently incorrect, as you can see even in the excerpt. They are federal officers and the weapons are semi-automatic. The title is deliberately deceptive.

It's bad enough that these officers were at that SS office. There is no need to exaggerate the facts. This is a bogus title, from your first link. All you have to do is to read the excerpt to know that. Why post things with bogus titles?

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. The title is from the link

I really don't care if it meets with your approval or not.

[MineralMan]

24. Do you care about accuracy? Did you read the excerpt?

Your link got it wrong. Look at the original news story. Read your excerpt. The information is available to you. There were no soldiers, and there were no automatic weapons.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Take it up with the author

We get it. Federal Protective Service officers with semiautomatic rifles, checking IDs at a government office don't bother you.

If I was younger, I'd ask you to share what you're smoking.

[MineralMan]

28. No, I care a great deal. That's why it's so important to get

things right. The whole article is wasted because the site where you found it wrote a headline that doesn't reflect the contents of the story. And people all over the internet are posting that story with that headline. Ridicule follows, since the main points in the headline are false. The author? The author works for a newspaper, not for that website, and the newspaper had an accurate headline. You're copying and pasting a copy and paste. Go find the actual source. Why rely on bogus blogs that write headlines that don't even match the story? You want the author. Go to the original source. Their headline was accurate. And you have a link to the original source in your OP. Did you not click it? Why copy and paste from a secondary source, when you have the orginal in front of you?

What don't you understand about accuracy being a critical factor when spreading information? When things are distorted as far as they are with that headline, the entire post comes under suspicion.

The original source is available. It's in your OP. There's no need to use a source that overstates the headline, then goes right ahead and posts a story that doesn't match the headline on its two strongest points.

You think I'm ridiculing the idea that armed men in uniform shouldn't be outside our Social Security offices? I'm not doing that in any way. I don't think they should be there either, but that deliberately erroneous headline makes a mockery of truthful reporting, and it's obvious the minute you begin to read. Why do you quote for sources so stupid as to do a boneheaded thing like that? Why not quote from the original newspaper story with its accurate headline?

You do your own cause a disservice by using bogus sources. Sorry, but that is simply the truth. And then, when you are informed that you've screwed up, you get angry at the messenger. Just read what you post. If there's something wrong with it, search a little longer and find a reliable source. How hard is that?

[MinervaX]

33. The Department of Homeland Security is a paramilitary organization

Therefore the description of DHS personnel as soldiers is correct. Don't forget the Homeland is a battlefield.

[MineralMan]

34. All law enforcement is paramilitary.

Soldiers is a very specific reference to enlisted members of the army. Language is important. Word choices are important.

Those were not soldiers. They were members of a specific federal law enforcement agency that guards federal buildings. That's all they do. Calling them soldiers is simply incorrect. Sorry.

[MinervaX]

36. You are wrong

Soldier is a term that is used to describe anybody who fights in combat on the land. Civilians who take up arms in an insurgency can be described as soldiers. The United States is a battlefield. The Department of Homeland Security has been tasked to defend the Homeland. That person is FPS which is an agency under DHS. The Federal and local police forces have been militarized. That person in the photo is carrying an assault rifle, wearing combat fatigues and a flak jacket. All of these items are combat dress.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Those are not soldiers

but POLICE OFFICERS, FEDERAL police officers, almost as disturbing.

[lib2DaBone]

29. The TSA has promised that they will expand to Bus and Train stations...

The average TSA supervisor makes $116,000 Per Year.

This cancer will continue to creep across free America...and the population will allow it.

[MinervaX]

32. The militarization of police forces

People on this thread are actually questioning if these are soldiers or not? That officer in that photo at that link is indeed a soldier. With the most recent NDAA that states that the Homeland is a battlefield and the mood in this country that every citizen is a potential terrorist, hell yes that man is a soldier.

I guess some would rather stay in their bliss bubbles and maintain the idea that everything is just a-okay and argue over semantics.

[L0oniX]

35. ..."and the home of the brave" ...trading freedom for security ...pffft