Posted on 07/28/2005 8:42:34 AM PDT by skyman
I normally roll my eyes and wish a swarm of locusts on people who sue. However, in this case, it seems justified.
The NEXT DAY???
Something is fishy.
>>>Because the bystander, assumed to be a bad guy, is standing on that property, SWAT assumes that the house itself is bad, so they invade it too.
I can understand them restraining the Larry that came outside.
That would keep him from getting involved with the raid on the neighbor's house.
I'm still trying to understand why they raided the house he came out of.
It isn't like they followed a perp into it.
The facts are rather obvious and the violation of their civil rights are equally obvious. Even an idiot attorney could draft the lawsuit in about 1-2 hours. Best to get them served quickly before the can workout they BS excuses.
But why do the "innocent people" they accidentally raid still have to be considered criminal scum as much as the actual criminals?
Getting the wrong address is inexcusable. Period. There is no debate. If you going in with weapons drawn, ready to kill, you get the right address.
This is not a mistake, this is total incompetence.
40 years of livin' and not one call to the cops yet. In fact, I don't know anyone who has ever "needed" a SWAT team. But I guess it COULD happen...
I'll count on my own common sense and legally owned firearms to protect my ass, thank you.
Something is fishy.
Nothing fishy. Get the law suit in as quickly as possible and have the cops make depositions as quickly as possible before they can get their stories straight (or at least bent in the same direction). Why wait?
I cannot understand them restraining him if he's standing in his front yard. This was a royal f%$k-up, and I'm on the side of the civilians this time.
That would keep him from getting involved with the raid on the neighbor's house.
I agree, but jumping on him when he could have been just a bystander was clearly excessive, especially when he had his hands up. Understandable due to the adrenaline, but not excusable either.
I'm still trying to understand why they raided the house he came out of. It isn't like they followed a perp into it.
That is exactly the point. They err on the side of caution by assuming that the bystander is a BAD guy; and since they assume HE is a BAD guy, they then also assume the house he came out of must be BAD, and feel justified invading that house too. Bad logic. Lethally Dangerous logic. Since it happened so fast, I would believe that the local top cop didn't even authorize it, even though he is responsible for the actions of his men.
A conclusion that could be drawn from this episode is that the local SWAT squad unconsciously believe that anything they do is legal -- a belief that should be squashed before someone gets killed.
Trust me, I'm reaching here. The thought of the Stalinist mentally is a bit scary.
"Yeah, like, this one old dude was totally punching my knee and boots with his face."
Civil right lawsuits are not difficult to draft, especially when the facts and issues are blatantly obvious as in this case. Nothing fishy about it.
They will. Not only are they a travesty, they are unnecessary. Just snatch them when they are out in a public place. Much safer.
I am confused
Are you a swat team member?
Special Ed Weapons and Tactics.
"This SWAT team grabbed a couple of guys by mistake and you folks are wetting your panties."
Yeah, having guys barge into your house at night, throw you to the ground and shove a gun to the back of your head is nothing, you big babies. /s/
Both of them
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.