SSCC #354 – DEA

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.

SSCC #353 – ATF

Rochester police and federal agents made a mistake in Charlotte this week that has one woman baffled and frightened. She wants to know how they could mistake her house for one they were supposed to raid in a drug bust.

Simple really, they don’t hire the best and brightest.  Tyrannical bureaucrats don’t want enforcers who can think, much less read and tell the difference between the address on the warrant and the house they just arrived at.

How close was this almost a fatal screw up for the ATF as well as the home owner?

“My son had heard me arguing with this man and it was not a voice he’d recognize. My son is a hunter, he put a bullet in the chamber of his gun. They heard that, they yelled down long gun, at that point there he told another ATF agent that was with me, handcuff her and take her out,” Dominicos said.

However the real take away is the following:

“I’m still terrified. It’s almost like a P.T.S.D. experience, you keep hearing things. You think oh my God I hear a door slam, I hear someone pulling into my driveway. I see a light it’s like oh my God are they back?”

That’s the point.  Law enforcement and the government want us to live in fear.  Their actions exercise the very definition of the word terrorism.    The best part of the story though is the discrepancy between the home owners story, which is considerably more believable, and the statement released by police.

“Upon encountering an elderly resident, the team realized that they were at the wrong location at that time and left the premises.”

No you did not, you put her in cuffs and took her outside until someone bothered to read the house number and street name and noticed it didn’t match the warrant.

Considering this can happen to anyone, anytime, and quite easily can have dire consequences, why is this considered acceptable?  Especially since unsurprisingly the bad guys pretend to be cops.  At this point it’s better to just let the bullets file and sort it out afterwards.  Maybe if cops would knock first and be civil about it this wouldn’t be a problem.  If you think the screw ups are rare:

View Original Map and Database

Don’t give me the line about how serving a warrant is dangerous because the majority of warrants served are for non-violent offenses.  When the criminal is actually dangerous, they negotiate him to come out to reduce collateral damage.  There is the argument about the destruction of evidence, well if we weren’t serving warrants over victimless crimes involving nouns that wouldn’t be a problem now would it?

Even better though, with the consistently increasing use of SWAT teams in unnecessary circumstances, the number of people caught in the middle who are innocent continues to increase.  You can not use the service more and expect it to also become more accurate about it’s use, if anything it will become less accurate.

No knocks, like the TSA, need to be done away with.  They have both grown since September 11th and it’s eroding and destroying the last semblances of freedom and liberty.  The police state is here and we need to put an end to it.

State Sponsored Criminals 353: The ATF

Because it’s not the job of the swat team to read the warrant or make sure they’re at the right house.  If there’s collateral damage, the law-abiding citizen should have just behaved, he had no reason to defend himself.

via Uncle.

Quote of the Day–Joe Huffman(03/27/2012)

As long as people carrying books or guns into their home worry about the police breaking down their doors in the early morning hours we have more work to do.

Joe HuffmanClimbing the Clock Tower stairs with my rifles

March 25, 2012

[Sadly as great as things have gotten lately Joe nailed this problem right on the head.  Many of us still live in fear of the state randomly deciding they don’t like us anymore for one reason or another.  Some would call us paranoid.

The problem there though is if you have been paying attention you realize yes we should be concerned.  All it takes is some scared sheep calling the police to get a no knock or guns blazing visit from some officer he wants to get his rocks off.  You and I both know how that can and will probably end.  Even in the best circumstances they’ll show up and take your property without cause or warrant and refuse to return it.

I grew up in the 90s and I understood there was some fear then. What I have noticed though, strongly over the past 5 or 6 years my fear level has been steadily rising.  As much as gunnies are “coming out of the closet” we are hearing more and more of the no knock and innocent people being killed.  Back in the 90s you just worried about the state.  Now you have to worry about some puritan calling to complain about your choice of hobbies and how the inanimate objects scare them.  That’s what has changed.  Our neighbors have bought hook line and sinker in to 1800-Dial-A-Nazi in the “War on Terrorism”

We still have a long way to go.  Until police stop treating every gun owner as a second class citizen because of that puritan we are going to have to continue to fight.  It’s a two front battle though, we must first get people to stop having an irrational fear of inanimate objects.  Secondly we need to get the officers who behave in such a manner to realize we are an asset, not a hindrance. 

My local sheriff looks at the wife and I as an asset that can help him if necessary should the need require.  He knows us and he knows there is nothing to fear from us.  It is not gun owners who have perpetuated this us versus them mentality and sadly I’m not sure how to best combat it.  At least I’m not the canary in the coal mine, but I’m close enough I might as well be.  Time for new tactics. 

Please remember this even if you think those of us who worry are just paranoid, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get you.  -B]