Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The little punks damaged property. You know...property. One of those libertarian ideals. Property.
.
It also says they werent even in Seattle when the vandalism occurred.
See post #11.
Another thing...lets say they were responsible. Does that give our government the right to disregard their rights?
How were their rights disregarded?
A warrant was issued to collect evidence in full accordance with the 4th Amendment.
.
Tell me something, stormtrooper, how does a vandalism charge rate a SWAT team to search for black clothing and paint sticks?
First of all, the vandalism and other crimes did involve banks. That's federal.
Secondly, just because some link says that the crimes included vandalism and tire slashing doesn't mean that all that was involved was minor vandalism. If the investigation involved concerns with OTHER crimes -- possibly violent ones -- that would certainly lead to a desire to investigate vigorously and that includes getting warrants.
What we DON'T know about the case is voluminous. It could be answered if only we could see the warrant applications -- which we have not. I would guess (playing the hunch here) that the warrant application would provide some interesting insights into why the Feds (not a swat team) got involved.
We don't even know why the black clothing was considered to be potentially useful evidence. But that doesn't mean it wasn't.
First of all, I didn't say anything about federal, I asked about how vandalism charges rate an armed SWAT team.
Second of all, SWAT means Special Weapons and Tactics. These are quasi military units intended to respond to hostage situations, not be used for search warrants. If they had expected to find a weapons cache or meet heavy armed resistance it would justify using the tactics they used. If they actually expected that, it should have been in the warrant. That is the issue I have with this story, not whether the warrant was justified in and of itself.
The tactics were wrong, SWAT teams are used for things they should stay out of, and that gets people killed. I object to the government killing people.
It also says they werent even in Seattle when the vandalism occurred.
See post #11.
Another thing...lets say they were responsible. Does that give our government the right to disregard their rights?
How were their rights disregarded?
A warrant was issued to collect evidence in full accordance with the 4th Amendment.
.
A warrant was obtained under what premise?
To search for black clothing, masks, paint etc.... they were brought to a grand jury using books (which were not on the warrant) as evidence...evidence of what, they read?
The woman keeps getting hauled in front of a grand jury and refused legal council to represent her.
The guy is being held for contempt because he will not cooperate (Violating his 5th Amendment right) nor does he have legal council.
Lets start with those rights.
Young Persons Called to Private Grand Jury for Owning Books « Sound and Noise
Oh yeah not a police state....go back to sleep sheeple...everything is just fine...
First of all, the vandalism and other crimes did involve banks. That's federal.
Secondly, just because some link says that the crimes included vandalism and tire slashing doesn't mean that all that was involved was minor vandalism. If the investigation involved concerns with OTHER crimes -- possibly violent ones -- that would certainly lead to a desire to investigate vigorously and that includes getting warrants.
What we DON'T know about the case is voluminous. It could be answered if only we could see the warrant applications -- which we have not. I would guess (playing the hunch here) that the warrant application would provide some interesting insights into why the Feds (not a swat team) got involved.
We don't even know why the black clothing was considered to be potentially useful evidence. But that doesn't mean it wasn't.
First of all, I didn't say anything about federal, I asked about how vandalism charges rate an armed SWAT team.
Second of all, SWAT means Special Weapons and Tactics. These are quasi military units intended to respond to hostage situations, not be used for search warrants. If they had expected to find a weapons cache or meet heavy armed resistance it would justify using the tactics they used. If they actually expected that, it should have been in the warrant. That is the issue I have with this story, not whether the warrant was justified in and of itself.
The tactics were wrong, SWAT teams are used for things they should stay out of, and that gets people killed. I object to the government killing people.
I didn't say you said Federal. I said Federal.
You said SWAT. No evidence that they sent in SWAT teams. We all know what SWAT means.
And you are wrong. If they have reason to believe that the folks might be either armed themselves or associated with some folks who might be armed, they can go in prepared to come out alive. My permission or yours is simply not required.
Still no evidence that SWAT teams were used. The tactics were not "wrong." That's just your own subjective opinion. A CLAIM by the uninformed sources who blather to ignorant "reporters" who dutifully report such un-investigated claims that the earlier raids involved "SWAT" teams is hardly evidence that SWAT Teams were used.
First of all, I didn't say anything about federal, I asked about how vandalism charges rate an armed SWAT team.
Second of all, SWAT means Special Weapons and Tactics. These are quasi military units intended to respond to hostage situations, not be used for search warrants. If they had expected to find a weapons cache or meet heavy armed resistance it would justify using the tactics they used. If they actually expected that, it should have been in the warrant. That is the issue I have with this story, not whether the warrant was justified in and of itself.
The tactics were wrong, SWAT teams are used for things they should stay out of, and that gets people killed. I object to the government killing people.
I didn't say you said Federal. I said Federal.
You said SWAT. No evidence that they sent in SWAT teams. We all know what SWAT means.
And you are wrong. If they have reason to believe that the folks might be either armed themselves or associated with some folks who might be armed, they can go in prepared to come out alive. My permission or yours is simply not required.
Still no evidence that SWAT teams were used. The tactics were not "wrong." That's just your own subjective opinion. A CLAIM by the uninformed sources who blather to ignorant "reporters" who dutifully report such un-investigated claims that the earlier raids involved "SWAT" teams is hardly evidence that SWAT Teams were used.
The story said they used a flash bang, only SWAT uses flash bangs because they are special weapons. Like I said, if they have reason to believe that the people are armed the warrant should reflect that fact. There is no evidence they were expecting weapons, if they were they would have brought in the ATF. There was no evidence they were expecting violence, yet they used flash bands. That is wrong, period.
I didn't say you said Federal. I said Federal.
You said SWAT. No evidence that they sent in SWAT teams. We all know what SWAT means.
And you are wrong. If they have reason to believe that the folks might be either armed themselves or associated with some folks who might be armed, they can go in prepared to come out alive. My permission or yours is simply not required.
Still no evidence that SWAT teams were used. The tactics were not "wrong." That's just your own subjective opinion. A CLAIM by the uninformed sources who blather to ignorant "reporters" who dutifully report such un-investigated claims that the earlier raids involved "SWAT" teams is hardly evidence that SWAT Teams were used.
The story said they used a flash bang, only SWAT uses flash bangs because they are special weapons. Like I said, if they have reason to believe that the people are armed the warrant should reflect that fact. There is no evidence they were expecting weapons, if they were they would have brought in the ATF. There was no evidence they were expecting violence, yet they used flash bands. That is wrong, period.
No. Flash bangs are not used just by SWAT. Use of Flash-Bang May Constitute Excessive Force - PoliceLink
And the fact that they thought that folks associated with the people whose property they were seeking authorization to search might be armed does NOT mean that they had to mention that prospect on a Search Warrant application or in an affidavit. You are simply making shit up now.
And you have absolutely ZERO idea what they may have been worried enough about to use a flash bang (if one was even used).
Knowing that one of the robbery suspects, the Hispanic male, had not been arrested and knowing that the .357 magnum had not been recovered, the officers decided to use the Benton County SWAT team to make entry.
At a pre-raid briefing, officers were briefed concerning a loft in the apartment that would provide a dangerous area from which a sniper could shoot; the un-recovered .357; the subject still at-large and the fact that someone from the apartment had attempted to buy another firearm. Additionally, officers were told that there may be five to eight people sleeping in the apartment when the raid was to be executed. A decision was made to use a flash-bang device to provide a distraction while the officers made their entry. No one at the briefing objected to the use of the device.
During the raid, the flash-bang was put into the house by volunteer Deputy Ellis. The flash-bang landed next to Boyd, who was asleep. Boyd suffered burns as a result of the flash-bang igniting.
