Posted on 06/10/2011 7:51:40 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
A California man who initially claimed to a local television station that he was roughed up by "SWAT team" members who allegedly battered down his front door to execute a search warrant related to his estranged wife's unpaid student loans was targeted due to an ongoing probe into alleged financial aid fraud.
Local law enforcement officials have thus far not commented on the Stockton man's claim to ABC News 10/KXTV that he was grabbed by the neck and placed in handcuffs in back of a patrol car for six hours as his three children looked on during execution of the search warrant on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It wasn’t a SWAT team that first attacked Pastor Koresh and his congregation either. The fact that the brutal thugs who broke this man’s door, dragged him out in his undershorts and dragged his kids out of the house wasn’t an official SWAT team is irrelevant.
The Dept of Education should not have a police force. Dynamic entry should not be allowed except in the most extreme cases and should require specific approval by a judge and the head of the agency doing the raid.
There is no excuse for what happened to this man and his kids.
When I was in college, I dated a girl who worked at the mall. Except, she insisted that she didn't work at the mall, because they called the mall she worked at "The Fashion Center" even though it was obviously a mall. She liked to tell people she worked in a "Fashion Center."
You remind me of her.
“The problem with ignorant libertines like yourself, is that you don’t know the law, and you want your own personal interpretations of the law to be the standard.”
No one knows the law. Not you, not me and not even the authors of the laws. Interpretation is all we have.
Only in the mind of a libertine or one who doesn’t know the law. A lawful warrant has to be executed. Indeed, there is a duty to serve that warrant. If a person resists that service, then the officer is legally entitled to use reasonable force to execute that warrant.
Dating back to the common law in England, an officer was allowed to break open a door if the person inside refused entry. As Justice Thomas pointed out “Several prominent founding-era commentators agreed on this basic principle. According to Sir Matthew Hale, the “constant practice” at common law was that “the officer may break open the door, if he be sure the offender is there, if after acquainting them of the business, and demanding the prisoner, he refuses to open the door.” See 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *582. William Hawkins propounded a similar principle: “the law doth never allow” an officer to break open the door of a dwelling “but in cases of necessity,” that is, unless he “first signify to those in the house the cause of his coming, and request them to give him admittance.” 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, ch. 14, 1, p. 138 (6th ed. 1787). Sir William Blackstone stated simply that the sheriff may “justify breaking open doors, if the possession be not quietly delivered.” 3 Blackstone *412. The common-law knock-and-announce principle was woven quickly into the fabric of early American law. Most of the States that ratified the Fourth Amendment had enacted constitutional provisions or statutes generally incorporating English common law, see, e.g., N. J. Const. of 1776, 22, in 5 Federal and State Constitutions 2598 (F. Thorpe ed. 1909) (”[T]he common law of England . . . shall still remain in force, until [it] shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature”); N. Y. Const. of 1777, Art. 35, in id., at 2635 (”[S]uch parts of [ WILSON v. ARKANSAS, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 6] the common law of England . . . as . . . did form the law of [New York on April 19, 1775] shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same”); Ordinances of May 1776, ch. 5, 6, in 9 Statutes at Large of Virginia 127 (W. Hening ed. 1821) (”[T]he common law of England . . . shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony”), and a few States had enacted statutes specifically embracing the common-law view that the breaking of the door of a dwelling was permitted once admittance was refused, see, e.g., Act of Nov. 8, 1782, ch. 15, 6, in Acts and Laws of Massachusetts 193 (1782); Act of Apr. 13, 1782, ch. 39, 3, in 1 Laws of the State of New York 480 (1886); Act of June 24, 1782, ch. 317, 18, in Acts of the General Assembly of New-Jersey (1784) (reprinted in The First Laws of the State of New Jersey 293-294 (J. Cushing comp. 1981)); Act of Dec. 23, 1780, ch. 925, 5, in 10 Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania 255 (J. Mitchell & H. Flanders comp. 1904). Early American courts similarly embraced the common-law knock-and-announce principle. See, e.g., Walker v. Fox, 32 Ky. 404, 405 (1834); Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 186, 189 (1846); Howe v. Butterfield, 58 Mass. 302, 305 (1849). See generally Blakey, The Rule of Announcement and Unlawful Entry, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 499, 504-508 (1964) (collecting cases). “
So, what you want is a person to be free from search or arrest if they barricade themselves in the home and refuse to open a door. Yet the very people who wrote the Fourth Amendment thought it was perfectly reasonable to break down a door in such a case. Why do you think to know more than the Founders?
Blah blah blah.
A self fulfilling prophesy.
The STRU (Special Threats Response) is made up of deputies who have been specially trained in the use of special weapons and tactics (SWAT) and deputies and mental health specialists specially trained to negotiate during crisis situations (Crisis Negotiation Team - CNT). Utilization of STRU may include anti-sniper tactics, anti-terrorist tactics, barricaded subjects, apprehension of armed and/or dangerous persons, execution of search warrants in hazardous situation, crisis situations and hostage rescue operations, dignitary protection, and any other situation which would require the expertise of a well-trained team. K-9 Team"
You missed the sarcasm
LOL! You attempted to defend a cop who KILLED his K9 through negligence.
And you continue to ignore and “deflect”.
What a piece of work...
The screen name is funny. It sounds some like WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. I think OrwellianPoser is a good one.
“Dating back to the common law in England, an officer was allowed to break open a door if the person inside refused entry. “
Doesn’t that kind of assume the owner is given a chance to open the door? Maybe even given more than 7 seconds to get to the front door? Hmmm?????
what if he has a cache of weapons and demolition? (owns a .22 and box of ammo)
if every warrant presumes the Unabomber resides inside , I guess we better send black Armored Personnel Carriers to every warrant serving.
Maybe he means he want to make war on freedom. That would fit.
Deflection. Look it up. You’ll learn something.
The office of Inspector General at DOE
should be investigating the Department of Education
not operating as an enforcement arm for student loans.
So there WAS no SWAT team, but it acted just LIKE a SWAT team. Wow!! Now doesn’t THAT make a huge difference!!!! So I guess since it only acted LIKE a SWAT team, the guy should have no complaints if innocent of any wrong doing!! Since it wasn’t a REAL SWAT team, that is.
Given that the most DANGEROUS criminals in the nation right now are in charge of the Executive Branch, I’ll side with the citizen until he is PROVEN guilty of something in a case like this.
Lying piece of filth or not, why was a swat team needed? Secondly, how do you know the government isn’t lying?
Sorry, but 15 officers going on a warrant application for student loan fraud, just seems a bit much. For pete’s sakes it only took two deputies to round up a bunch of meth lab people running it out of a fancy house in the neighborhood. Then a third LE showed up with a van and hauled them off.
And just exactly WHY are Department of Education warrant officers armed...when they can be backed up by a local deputy? As a matter of fact, they have to have the cooperation of the local sheriff’s office to set foot in the county.
This is total BS! Was the man’s name even on the warrant? What’s wrong with knocking on the door and asking to speak to the woman whose name is on the warrant before you start banging people around in front of kids?
Thanks but I’ve learned all I need to just by reading your posts...
Still no comment on the NEGLIGENT cop (who you attempted to defend) who KILLED his K9?
Have a fine day!
Do you know what the standard for probable cause is? Where did you go to law school? What state are you licensed to practice law? Who elected or appointed you to make determinations about probable cause?
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.