Swat Team Raids Innocent Woman's Home; Lawsuit Filed

Liveleak ^

[Rusty0604]

At least they didn’t burn any baby’s face or shoot a dog.

[NorthMountain]

Some people respond to jack-booted police thuggery with a lawsuit.

Some people respond to jack-booted police thuggery by rioting, looting, burning, burgling, and robbing PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

What with all of the tuff talk coming out of you cop suckers?

[Sioux-san]

This is wrong even if they had gotten the right person in the first place.

[OneWingedShark]

The claim is that the warrant was objectively reasonable -- that's irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and the Art 1, Sec 11 of the IN Constitution which is a word-for-word copy of the Fourth (the only discrepancy being the casing of of two words 'oath' and 'warrant') which direct that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Did the warrant particularly describe the computer[s] that were seized? Probably not.

[OneWingedShark]

"City attorneys contend that the force used to execute the search warrant, was “objectively reasonable” and that officials are immune from liability."

I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

I'd be looking for ways to [legally] eviscerate everyone involved, even the after-the-fact guys like this attorney… looks like there's a couple of good felony charges that can be made:

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“I’d be looking for ways to [legally] eviscerate everyone involved, even the after-the-fact guys like this attorney… looks like there’s a couple of good felony charges that can be made:”

Maybe you mistook my post.

I found the following line to be objectionable:

“and that officials are immune from liability.”

That is completely disgusting to me.

[OneWingedShark]

Maybe you mistook my post.
I found the following line to be objectionable:
“and that officials are immune from liability.”
That is completely disgusting to me.

I completely agree with you; I was just illustrating that the immunity they seek to project isn't a fact.
(But if they can convince you it is then they've already won.)

[NonValueAdded]

THINK AGAIN NIMROD.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

BELCH!

Oh, you really got me there. Gosh, that stung.

[Pearls Before Swine]

The article does not state that the subject of the warrant was objectively reasonable, which would be bad enough for the reasons you point out. It says

“that the force used to execute the search warrant, was “objectively reasonable” “

...which I find far more absurd. There’s no excuse for that level of force and the unannounced invasion absent some serious verified threat.

[sport]

I watched the video of that and got sick. Made me think of the Nazis rounding up Jews.No decent police officer would have had any part in this raid.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Amen!

[Altariel]

Unfortunately, this is the result of giving “the good guys” too much power and money, and coupling that with a lack of independent accountability.

[Altariel]

Read Balko’s book on the subject. It documents the history of the police / law enforcement since before the founding of America.

[NonValueAdded]

Thanks