Posted on 06/09/2006 7:38:19 AM PDT by VRing
They were after a death dealer who sold people the drugs they killed themselves with.
This was a low life druggie guy which means he was unethical, a deviant and a criminal out for the money no matter who died.
They were after a death dealer who sold people the drugs they killed themselves with.
This was a low life druggie guy which means he was unethical, a deviant and a criminal out for the money no matter who died.
"law enforcement were making a good faith effort to do their job?"
Officers of the law are not above the law and for their efforts to have been
in good faith they must have been to the letter of the law. Regardless of
an existing warrant for an adjacent or proximate property this search was
undeniably unwarranted. Therefore, the fundamental rights of these
individuals were violated violently and irrevocably. Damages should be
commensurate with the level of violation and all responsible parties should
lose their jobs for failing to uphold their oaths of office regardless of how
much they cost the state financially. It would seem your only measure of
value is in the almighty dollar.
It was an unintentional mistake while in the process of making a good faith effort to uphold the law.
There was a druggie next door polluting the neighborhood dealing poision, so go sue that criminal if they can get a dollar.
There are almost no damages beyond those to repair a door and a few other minor things.
You just have some drama queens seeing an oportunity to go for a lottery sized lawsuit and they got some scum to represent their scumy lawsuit.
I think they are oportunists and the way they want to go after taxpayer dollars, I would say massive liberals to boot.
Ya wanna have some fun? Add up how many SWAT Teams there are in your state. Wanna bet your local housing authority police has a SWAT team?
At the same time, there are hundreds of people in every county with outstanding warrants. Many for violent crimes. Let's get these guys in their cool ninja outfits to round'em up... instead of breaking down doors in 'No-knocks.' Hey, how about using them to enforce the laws about illegally entering the country?
As long as one of the addresses involved is not yours, no doubt.
Must be great to never make a mistake in life. Were you there? How dark was it? Was it raining that night? Did the house have a well-marked address on the mailbox or door? If you don't know the answer to each of the above questions, then I suggest you try and keep an open mind as to what REALLY HAPPENED that night before making your smarmy sawed-off halfwit comments!! You might be a couple of cans short of a full sixpack.
"Must be great to never make a mistake in life. Were you there? How dark was it? Was it raining that night? Did the house have a well-marked address on the mailbox or door? If you don't know the answer to each of the above questions, then I suggest you try and keep an open mind as to what REALLY HAPPENED that night before making your smarmy sawed-off halfwit comments!! "
I've made plenty of mistakes. What you're saying is that its an acceptable risk to have the swat team do a no knock and enter the wrong house risking the lives of those inside. Sure this is occasionally useful but I submit that the teams are overused and are composed of people more appropiate for a military team and not a civilian police force.
I know of two cases where this happened and they had the right house but the use of force is questionable. First, they do a no knock raid on a guy suspected of taking more bass (a fish) than the state law allowed. Because this guy was an avid outdoorsman and known to have guns they justified the use of swat. Inside they had their automatica weapons and stormed the house. One officer directed his weapon with laser sights at a 4 yr old little boy. Evidently no fish were found but perhaps he ate the evidence. Is it a legitmate use of force to attack a guy suspected of taking a couple of extra fish? I don't think its wise to risk the lives of the people or officers for a fish.
Another case, the polilce had been called to the house once for a domestic dispute. They left without arresting anyone. Later the wife called police and said her husband was threatening to kill himself. Only person in the house was the man, everyone else had vacated. Police did a no knock raid to save the suicidal man. They expended 369 round and were yelling for more ammunition a short time later. One cop was dead, one cop was wounded, and the man was shot twice. There were guns in the house but they were still locked up. The man was charged with murder but the charges were dropped when it was realized that the cops shot each other. The man never had a weapon in his hands. Why do a no knock with guns a blazin in order to save a suicidal man?
There are many other cases like this.
Just what we need: ANOTHER lawsuit....
Sounds like a scene from Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, except that unlike cartoon characters people don't magically heal.
To state that without seeing evidence is scurrilous.
As you have been reminded time and again, this is impossible under the present legal system.
You are simply attempting to use psychological jamming. I see through your schemes as though they were not even water, not even air, but an utter vacuum.
Look in a mirror as you say that.
You betrayed yourself as hypocritical when you said that there IS (not there MIGHT BE) a "reasonable explanation." In the meantime, notice that the city itself is in full damage control, they are bending over backwards to not look intransigent, because they know its not a matter of whether damages will be awarded but how much. Were I the couple's attorney, I would wish the whole city were like calistubborn and the like so that the intransigence factor would be maximized in the eyes of the jury.
Don't bet on it as you might be putting the cart before the horse. I do look at myself in the mirror every morning, and still like what I see, but thanks for your reminder....
The home was damaged, but attempting to cash in for millions of taxpayers dollars because they got shook up would be a theft of public funds in a get rich scheme. I am not for that at all.
This is an ambulance chasing lawyer's dream and scheme no doubt and why we need lawsuit reform.
Never mind . . . .
I went through what those people did, but in a stop with many police cars and guns. It was a mistake.
I know what I am saying and so does everyone else. This appears to be an attempt to get rich quick PERIOD.
I went through what they did and though it is a mistake, that is part of what will occasionally happen in a free country where law enforcement has to go get criminals.
We can't handcuff enforcement or make ourselves go further broke giving out tax dollars in the millions to people who get a lawyer who sees deep pockets all the time.
I don't know if you feel like you do because you are for trial lawyers and giving out public tax dollars left and right, but in my case I disagree with you and believe the award should be home repair and a few thousands of dollars for being put out, not a hundred thousand or MILLIONS. That is just an attempt of theft of the national treasury in a get rich quick scheme as I see it.
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.