Jump to content
IGNORED

Educated Deadbeats watch out


Harry_Wilshusen

Recommended Posts

Joe Frickin' Friday

Wow. They smashed his door in, which makes this a no-knock search warrant. No-knocks are generally reserved for situations where the authorities are concerned that evidence may be destroyed if they knock politely, or where an individual(s) in the building may present a threat to the officers unless they are caught by surprise. Given that they were seeking a woman who had defaulted on student loans, it's hard to imagine that they perceived either of those things to be an issue here.

 

According to the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General, the case can't be discussed publicly until it is closed...

 

Once the case is closed, I'd be interested in hearing how they justify the no-knock. It's possible the woman they were seeking has a reputation as a heavily armed thug with a short short temper and delusions of paranoia, but it seems unlikely...

 

:lurk:

Link to comment
ghaverkamp
Wow. They smashed his door in, which makes this a no-knock search warrant. No-knocks are generally reserved for situations where the authorities are concerned that evidence may be destroyed if they knock politely, or where an individual(s) in the building may present a threat to the officers unless they are caught by surprise. Given that they were seeking a woman who had defaulted on student loans, it's hard to imagine that they perceived either of those things to be an issue here.

 

It wasn't necessarily a no-knock warrant. Smashing in the door doesn't make it no-knock. Not knocking and announcing makes it a no-knock. In the video, the guy claimed to have been yelling back at them not to knock in his door. So, he knew they were there.

 

Of course, they may very well have chosen 6 AM as a time when no one would come to the door. However, that's the beginning of the federal "daytime" warrant hours.

 

It was probably not to collect on student loans. I don't know of criminal implications for failure to pay student loans. My guess is the TV station figured this out, since they seem to have pulled the story.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

Regarding the reporter's reference to the 4th amendment...it doesn't apply in Indiana, according to the IN supremes:

 

Story here

 

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

 

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

 

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
THAT is Scary! Break in whenever they want? Don't live in Indiana for sure.

 

An unlawful entry by the police means there can be official consequences for the police later; this should, in theory, dissuade them from just breaking into your house "whenever they want." The idea is to get people to sort out the mistake later, in court, rather than right now, in the heat of battle. That way people just get fired/disciplined instead of getting killed.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
THAT is Scary! Break in whenever they want? Don't live in Indiana for sure.

 

An unlawful entry by the police means there can be official consequences for the police later; this should, in theory, dissuade them from just breaking into your house "whenever they want." The idea is to get people to sort out the mistake later, in court, rather than right now, in the heat of battle. That way people just get fired/disciplined instead of getting killed.

So, you know how to raise the dead? Reverse a beating? Make a bullet wound disappear? Some things cannot be "sorted out" later.
Link to comment

It was probably not to collect on student loans. I don't know of criminal implications for failure to pay student loans.

 

Right. The story, as reported, doesn't really add up. Search warrants are issued after an application to a federal magistrate, only after finding that probable cause exists to believe that a crime has occurred and that evidence of that crime is in the place to be searched.

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
So, you know how to raise the dead? Reverse a beating? Make a bullet wound disappear? Some things cannot be "sorted out" later.

 

:confused:

 

An unlawful entry doesn't mean they come in with guns blazing and batons swinging wildly; it just means they don't have the occupants' permission. If the occupants physically resist, that only raises the odds that someone is going to get physically hurt. The search/seizure will happen with or without occupant compliance; given that, it seems sensible to me to instruct occupants who are facing an illegal search/seizure to comply with police orders for now and file a formal complaint later.

 

I feel like we've had this discussion before, in the context of traffic stops where the suspect ends up getting tazed/arrested because he's sure the cop is wrong about a moving violation and chooses to walk away from the encounter rather than accept a ticket.

Link to comment
ghaverkamp
An unlawful entry doesn't mean they come in with guns blazing and batons swinging wildly; it just means they don't have the occupants' permission.

 

Or other justification.

 

Of course, in this case, the officers had a seemingly valid warrant.

 

If the occupants physically resist, that only raises the odds that someone is going to get physically hurt. The search/seizure will happen with or without occupant compliance; given that, it seems sensible to me to instruct occupants who are facing an illegal search/seizure to comply with police orders for now and file a formal complaint later.

 

That's the way to do it. Unfortunately, this part of the equation is horribly broken.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
in the context of traffic stops
Whoa!! We're not talking about a lights and siren equipped cruiser looming in your rear view mirror. We're talking about enjoying the peacefulness of your home and suddenly having a swat team or other bang viciously on the door; or, with warrant in hand, banging it down with a ram.

 

If you can stand by calmly while that happens while you reason that anything that is/will happen will/can be redressed to your satisfaction at some later date in a court that is prone to exonerate police officers, you're a better man than I.

 

It seems to me that we're also dispelling the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty as well, i.e. that the police can act of the presumption of guilt without meaningful restraint or recourse.

 

We're conditioning people to subjugate themselves to the brownshirts.

 

Below, is reported to be an excerpt from the search warrant in the instant case. Looks like a fishing expedition. At least the magistrate or judge didn't allow that.

5633.jpg.300360c0b9b14adfaba5c9c3fba13eb1.jpg

Link to comment
ghaverkamp
Whoa!! We're not talking about a lights and siren equipped cruiser looming in your rear view mirror. We're talking about enjoying the peacefulness of your home and suddenly having a swat team or other bang viciously on the door; or, with warrant in hand, banging it down with a ram.

 

If the police have a warrant in hand, they've always been permitted to enter. The rise of the tactical teams executing warrants is certainly unappealing, and certainly the incident described here seems like the agents paying lip-service to the notion of knock-and-announce. However, allowing police to forcibly enter when they possess a warrant is hardly new. What's relatively new is the grandstanding.

Link to comment
John Ranalletta
This will certainly come as a relief to Millenial deadbeats, but the notion that "bribery, fraud, and embezzlement of federal student aid funds" is all it takes to get a paramilitary squad to bang down your door at 6 a.m, handcuff you in your boxers, and throw your three pre-teen children into the back seat of a squad car, all in the service of a warrant aimed at someone who no longer lives in your home, is frankly every bit as terrifying.
Link to comment
I feel like we've had this discussion before, in the context of traffic stops where the suspect ends up getting tazed/arrested because he's sure the cop is wrong about a moving violation and chooses to walk away from the encounter rather than accept a ticket.

The case that comes to mind is Police Raid Berwyn Heights Mayor's Home, Kill His 2 Dogs. Imagine the outcome if the victim had been a poor minority, rather than mayor of the town.

Link to comment

The case that comes to mind is Police Raid Berwyn Heights Mayor's Home, Kill His 2 Dogs. Imagine the outcome if the victim had been a poor minority, rather than mayor of the town.

Well, quite obviously the Mayor & his wife were up to something. Police don't just barge in because (as Mitch said) they wouldn't want to deal with the after affects of a bad search like getting fired or sued (...or having to make up shit & a story & getting all the other boys on the team to testify that their version of the story is true) because despite this evidence to the contrary they wouldn't make stuff up.

 

And besides as Mike said they had to get a judge or a magistrate to agree with them that a crime was occurring or evidence of a crime was there. So the cops & a judge know bad stuff is happening and are just trying to protect those of us who don't do bad things.

 

If you're innocent you don't have anything to hide so why would you be concerned that they're rooting around in your house for 6 hours while you sit in the cruiser in your boxer shorts? Such a lot of distress over something in a 230 year old document - not like it was important enough to be the First Amendment. Sheesh.

 

(Tongue firmly planted in cheek here)

 

:rofl:

 

Link to comment
Harry_Wilshusen

These aren't real cops. It's the Dept of Education. Teachers....Maybe they hired some nuns.

 

 

Harry

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
These aren't real cops. It's the Dept of Education. Teachers....Maybe they hired some nuns.

 

Nuns with guns?

 

ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=5635&filename=nuns_with_guns.jpg

5635.jpg.fbd41ff3a8e04b5b292646483aa019db.jpg

Link to comment
Harry_Wilshusen
These aren't real cops. It's the Dept of Education. Teachers....Maybe they hired some nuns.

 

Nuns with guns?

 

ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=5635&filename=nuns_with_guns.jpg

 

The second nun from the right looks like Sister Mary Ellen. If I saw her with a shotgun I'd pay YOUR student loan.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...