The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the DEA’s use of force against the 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters of Thomas and Rosalie Avina–which included putting a gun to the youngest girl’s head–was “excessive,” “unreasonable,” and constituted “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Given the court ruled that it was excessive, why would I list this as a Sponsored Criminal? Quite simple really.
Attorneys for the Obama administration defended the raid, and Reason has obtained the brief the DOJ filed to the Ninth Circuit. In it, the Obama administration argues that “the DEA agents’ conduct was plainly reasonable under the circumstances.”
To put the icing on the cake, this also was a wrong door raid. They attacked law-abiding citizens, violating their rights and committed assault with a deadly weapon. This is non-negotiable. I don’t care if the officers claim they thought they were acting in good faith, every officer is responsible for his own actions.
The courts however have stated that you can be shot, threatened, and your rights trampled by officers of the state as long as it wasn’t with malice a forethought.
I find that the odds of me being killed by a law enforcement officer considerably higher than by “illegal” drugs or someone on drugs. This is a prime example of the cure being worse than the “disease”. Yet here our government is saying it isn’t worse and that we should all live in terror to continue treating the “disease”.
Doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
State Sponsored Criminal #354: The DEA
Because a girl sleeping in her own bed means you need to totally fear for your life, including putting a loaded weapon to her head and hand cuffing her. It’s a totally reasonable action that requires the threat and use of lethal force.* Eric Holder’s office says so!
*If you point a gun at something that means you’re willing to shoot it. Period.