Posted on 10/18/2012 12:54:46 PM PDT by Altariel
Investigators with the Richmond County Sheriff?s Office say they accidently served a search warrant on the wrong house, while looking for a suspected drug dealer in Burke County.
“The problem is “Let’s raid Mr. X’s residence and claim it was an error.””
==
Proof? There must be plenty since it is happening over and over.
.
***** “Any word on the dog ?” *****
Also
Did they confiscate all of their guns?
TT
I agree.
Right, but the ability to do it almost as a matter of course is more recent. Judges used to be more vigilant about civil liberties, and police more respectful of them. Look what jerks these cops were to this lady, a citizen and a taxpayer. If that attitude was rare, I would say it was one bad experience. It seems rare that they are NOT like that.
Now we need cops for the cops? Maybe their "legal people" should have been consulted first.
Do you have any evidence of that? Any statistics to share? How can the problem be solved if it isn't properly defined?
Look what jerks these cops were to this lady, a citizen and a taxpayer.
Apparently they were, but what proportion of warrants are improperly executed like this one? What can the below average police departments learn from the good ones?
The percentage is immaterial. An unconstitutional raid is not excusable on basis of percentage.
Are you willing to denounce this unconstitutional raid?
A constitutional problem will not be solved by determining the statistical percentage of constitutional violations.
A constitutional problem will not be solved by determining the statistical percentage of constitutional violations.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
This raid was a blatant fourth amendment violation.
Every single “wrong” house that has been raided.
Especially those “wrong” houses which have been *repeatedly* raided.
Oddly enough, the pizza delivery man, the UPS man, and the water meter reader manage to all do their jobs without intruding on the wrong residence.
When members of a particular occupation fail, repeatedly, *nationwide* to accomplish the task a minimum-wage worker can accomplish, the problem is not incompetence but *willingness* to raid Mr. X’s residence.
Every single “wrong” house that has been raided.
Especially those “wrong” houses which have been *repeatedly* raided.
Oddly enough, the pizza delivery man, the UPS man, and the water meter reader manage to all do their jobs without intruding on the wrong residence.
When members of a particular occupation fail, repeatedly, *nationwide* to accomplish the task a minimum-wage worker can accomplish, the problem is not incompetence but *willingness* to raid Mr. X’s residence.
Indeed, it’s very disturbing that the Lieutenant expected “we have a warrant” to even cover raiding a residence not on the warrant.
At least the reporter held his feet to the fire on that score.
I was surprised at the reporter’s persistence. We need more of that.
It's material to your sarcastic and exaggerated statement, and you still won't answer the question.
It would be if it were intentional. And I believe if they had found any evidence of crime it would have to be thrown out.
From a civil standpoint the lady can sue for damages, but that's not a constitutional issue.
No, it’s not material to the phrase “Another isolated incident”.
What is material to the discussion is the unconstitutionality of all the “wrong house” raids.
What is material to the discussion is the clear failure of a number of police departments to immediately fire all individuals involved in “wrong house” raids.
What is material to the discussion is the police lieutenant’s repeated attempt to claim that the presence of the warrant “warranted” this raid.
“It would be if it were intentional”
Given the repeated attempts of the lieutenant to justify this raid because they had a warrant for another address, and the fact that the lady’s house was the residence intruded, the raid was very much intentional.
Claiming that such a raid is “not intentional” is misinformation. The moment the residence was intruded the officers revealed their *intention* to unconstutionally violate the lady’s rights.
What’s next? Will you justify the average burglar if the burglar claims he thought he was entering a different residence?
How many have led to a constitutional case?
1. When the pizza man delivers to the wrong residence, it costs the pizza man money. When a cop breaks on the wrong door, knocks down grandma and shoots the dog, he gets a paid vacation.
2. If the pizza man puts his boot on an innocent customer's neck and calls him a lying scumbag, he loses his job and goes to jail. A cop laughs about it with his buddies and they go have a beer.
3. When a pizza man delivers a pizza, only one guy delivers the pizza, and he knocks at the front door. Cops need a dozen people to deliver, and they smash all the doors and throw flash bang grenades in the windows.
4. A pizza man can read a street address behind a bush, on a dirty house under a new moon...but a cop can't read the address on a search warrant even with a 500,000 candlepower titanium flashlight with a base designed to crush skulls.
5. When a pizza guy shows up at your house, he's required to be courteous, in uniform and carrying your order. When police people arrive at your door, they're allowed to look like street people or ninjas, carry automatic weapons and shotguns, and press them to your mama's head, saying drop to your knees b*tch or I'll blow your f*ck*ng brains all over the room.
6. When the pizza man makes a delivery, he sometimes carries milk bones in case the owners have dogs. When a cop comes to your house, he sometimes carries extra magazines with hollowpoints in case the owners have dogs.
7. You feel safe letting your child answer the door when the pizza man drives up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.