Thought police are real

[FastEddy]

"Online threat — but SWAT team raids wrong house" - MSNBC.com
"18-year-old was watching Food Network when door came down, stun grenade went off"

" ... The {Evansville Indiana} Courier & Press said the police had been investigating "anonymous and specific online threats made against police and their families on the website topix.com," and had obtained a search warrant for the Milan house. An Evansville police officer said one of the threats that came from the Milan household mentioned explosives and said, "Evansville is going to feel the pain."

Whoever made these threats, the Courier & Press said, likely remotely routed them through the Milan's open Wi-Fi connection, which means it could have been used from an outside location. It's possible the Milans, or specifically Stephanie, were targets of "swatting," a particularly nasty prank by which the perpetrator — often through hoax 911 calls — tricks a SWAT team into raiding a house of his choosing.

Last July, Parry Aftab, a prominent Internet security advocate, became the victim of such an attack. Police swarmed her northern New Jersey home after pranksters placed a 911 call through a computer that cloned her number and said a man had killed four people and was holding another hostage in her house. "

There is another alternate story here. 1) How can a Judge issue a search warrant based on erroneous information and not be held accountable? 2) How come local police even care about on-line gossip? 3) Are law enforcement officials going to continue to refine these practices until they get it right? ... 4) Should the average citizen / blogger / web poster / reporter be concerned that his or her (or someone else's) postings will bring about the destruction of his or her own front door and freedom of speech?

[Bemused]

.

I can remember things like this happening back in the 70's, maybe earlier, with the DEA breaking down the door of the next door neighbor to the real target, holding families at gunpoint for hours, then leaving without so much as a "sorry about that". That was back in the days of the "no knock" warrants, which originated under the theory that big time drug dealers might flush the drugs, might be armed and dangerous, or both. I can remember a column written by humorist Art Buchwald in which he called for a "no flush" law

Sad to see that this still happens.

.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by FastEddy

There is another alternate story here. 1) How can a Judge issue a search warrant based on erroneous information and not be held accountable?

How does the judge know the information is erroneous? Should the warrant process become bogged down by requiring judges to independently verify the information on the warrant?

Originally Posted by FastEddy

2) How come local police even care about on-line gossip?

Said as we continue to work our way into the brave new world of 1984....

Originally Posted by FastEddy

3) Are law enforcement officials going to continue to refine these practices until they get it right? ...

See my post about these kinds of incidents happening as far back as the 70's

Originally Posted by FastEddy

4) Should the average citizen / blogger / web poster / reporter be concerned that his or her (or someone else's) postings will bring about the destruction of his or her own front door and freedom of speech?

Apparently so.

Welcome to The Tyrannical States of America

PS IMHO we are more willing to trade freedom for convenience than we are trading freedom for security.

[FastEddy]

Originally Posted by Bemused

How does the judge know the information is erroneous? Should the warrant process become bogged down by requiring judges to independently verify the information on the warrant?

Warrant Process bogged down? It should be as bogged down as possible, unless the Judge is just "rubber stamping" warrant requests. This is where The Judge should "trust AND verify" every single warrant request ... as The Judge should be held accountable, period.

Said as we continue to work our way into the brave new world of 1984....

And: "All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others."

See my post about these kinds of incidents happening as far back as the 70's ... Apparently so.

Welcome to The Tyrannical States of America

PS IMHO we are more willing to trade freedom for convenience than we are trading freedom for security.

Mmmmm ... Yes, the "progressives" are both the elitist AND the willing dupes of Fascist Tyranny going back even further to pre-World War I and the Wilson Years of "change". All "progressive" ideals and endeavor lead ultimately to Fascism.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by FastEddy

Mmmmm ... Yes, the "progressives" are both the elitist AND the willing dupes of Fascist Tyranny going back even further to pre-World War I and the Wilson Years of "change". All "progressive" ideals and endeavor lead ultimately to Fascism.

Originally Posted by Bemused
How does the judge know the information is erroneous? Should the warrant process become bogged down by requiring judges to independently verify the information on the warrant?

Warrant Process bogged down? It should be as bogged down as possible, unless the Judge is just "rubber stamping" warrant requests. This is where The Judge should "trust AND verify" every single warrant request ... as The Judge should be held accountable, period.

Said as we continue to work our way into the brave new world of 1984....

And: "All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others."

See my post about these kinds of incidents happening as far back as the 70's ... Apparently so.

Welcome to The Tyrannical States of America

PS IMHO we are more willing to trade freedom for convenience than we are trading freedom for security.
Mmmmm ... Yes, the "progressives" are both the elitist AND the willing dupes of Fascist Tyranny going back even further to pre-World War I and the Wilson Years of "change". All "progressive" ideals and endeavor lead ultimately to Fascism.

Bogged down except when The Powers That Be are chasing terrorists?

Come on, FastEddie, you know danged well that plenty of conservatives have defended obvious violations of privacy rights. Never heard the mantra "if you have nothing to hide then....."

In the news recently have been announcements of local police agencies planning to initiate surveillance by drone. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about drones surveilling you back yard, visible only from the air?

I continue to find it amusing that so many who see things one way most of the time change their tune when the same thing effects their own ideology.

As for the trust but verify argument, so the criminals, terrorists, child molesters, should have ample opportunity to disappear while the warrants are lost in the machinery? Ever hear the story that Pearl Harbor could have been prevented because we already knew the attack was coming? Ever hear the same kind of story about 911?

Personally, I dont think there is a simple answer here. I do think it of importance to question all assumptions in the argument.

.

[FastEddy]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Bogged down except when The Powers That Be are chasing terrorists?

Here in San Francisco we have more than a dozen armed police forces plus military police (We even have three sets of Park Rangers carrying guns = city, state and fed.) ... Yet that big Mosque on Gerry Street still spouts violent public acts, mostly against gays and women. How come no door busters there?

Come on, FastEddie, you know danged well that plenty of conservatives have defended obvious violations of privacy rights. Never heard the mantra "if you have nothing to hide then....."

Next up: People Mag. / National Enquirer Mag. Paparazzi with drone photos of Barbara Streisand at pool side

In the news recently have been announcements of local police agencies planning to initiate surveillance by drone. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about drones surveilling you back yard, visible only from the air?

See ya' there?? Unless one of 'em mistakes my cigar for a joint ...

I continue to find it amusing that so many who see things one way most of the time change their tune when the same thing effects their own ideology.

Kind of like the ACLU on the one hand (free speech) and Martin / Zimmerman (right to carry) on the other ...?

As for the trust but verify argument, so the criminals, terrorists, child molesters, should have ample opportunity to disappear while the warrants are lost in the machinery?

It should not be easy for the heat to bust in, loaded for bear or sleeping dopers. Just 'cause they have all that cool cop equipment does not mean they should be able to use it without the proper check and balance from the free and independent citizenry. (Petaluma Ca., pop: 65,000, has a huge SWAT Team bus full of all kinds of home invasion equipment. Likewise does Rohnert Park Ca., just 4 miles away.)

Ever hear the story that Pearl Harbor could have been prevented because we already knew the attack was coming? Ever hear the same kind of story about 911?

"Just because I appear to be paranoid does not mean that people aren't out to get me." - Gordon Moore, notorious Libertarian and past CEO of Intel.

Personally, I dont think there is a simple answer here. I do think it of importance to question all assumptions in the argument.

I do believe there is a simple answer here: Any warrant to search any man's or woman's home castle should be seriously, doubly verified by any warrant issuing Judge, otherwise "prior restraint" should be on the Courts = not allowing the issuance of such warrants.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by FastEddy

I do believe there is a simple answer here: Any warrant to search any man's or woman's home castle should be seriously, doubly verified by any warrant issuing Judge, otherwise "prior restraint" should be on the Courts = not allowing the issuance of such warrants.

My concept is that when a judge issues a warrant, that should obligate the tax payer to compensate fully anybody wrongly searched. The bill for careless search warrants would most likely put the brakes on such matters. Right now if they tear your house apart, it's your problem.

The motivation for obtaining a warrant was that you had to do your homework, not just want to go fishing. The trend by court rulings has been to make it easier to search with no consequences.

You idea of making the judge "double verify" would be a bad idea. Part of the reason some entities are allowed to write their own warrant is because time is of the essence. If the cop is faced with a reduction in pay if he does not use due diligence, being fired, or even criminally prosecuted for taking shortcuts, the trend in wrongful searches would be reduced. The judge's duty is to consider evidence presented to him, not be the investigator. Too many in government are exempt from being held accountable for their mistakes. And that is what encourages more mistakes.

[FastEddy]

Originally Posted by jtdc

My concept is that when a judge issues a warrant, that should obligate the tax payer to compensate fully anybody wrongly searched. The bill for careless search warrants would most likely put the brakes on such matters. Right now if they tear your house apart, it's your problem.

If would be better if the warrant issuing Courts/Judge had a bit more responsibility for errors, law enforcement errors and fraud, misconduct of any g'ment agencies' part.

The motivation for obtaining a warrant was that you had to do your homework, not just want to go fishing. The trend by court rulings has been to make it easier to search with no consequences.

You idea of making the judge "double verify" would be a bad idea. Part of the reason some entities are allowed to write their own warrant is because time is of the essence.

BS & Road Apples ... There is always plenty of time to carefully evaluate the warrant purpose, remove errors, clarify the IDs and location of the said crime ... Example: Holder lied, people died.

If the cop is faced with a reduction in pay if he does not use due diligence, being fired, or even criminally prosecuted for taking shortcuts, the trend in wrongful searches would be reduced.

Agreed, absolutely. And it is the Courts' responsibility to "trust but verify" ... and prosecute as required.

The judge's duty is to consider evidence presented to him, not be the investigator. Too many in government are exempt from being held accountable for their mistakes. And that is what encourages more mistakes.

Again: Trust But Verify, every time.