Holy Hell!!! Another SWAT style entry...for late student loan payments?

[Texas1911]

What would they have done if she had been there?

Shot her and the husband, beat the kids, and raped the animals ... but that's just a guess.

 

[Greg_TX]

I better get that overdue library book in...

 

[Charlie]

I would seriously question the intelligence and/or sanity of anyone who would buy into an initial "media" story without further investigation.

 

[matefrio]

Education Department says it doesn’t send SWAT teams after loan defaulters - Yahoo! News
But Education Department Press Secretary Justin Hamilton said in a statement to The Lookout that the department "does not execute search warrants for late loan payments." He said the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) "conducts about 30-35 search warrants a year on issues such as bribery, fraud, and embezzlement of federal student aid funds." Hamilton said the department cannot comment on this particular case until the investigation is over, but did add that the claim the warrant was executed for late loan payment is untrue. The raid was related to a criminal investigation of Wright's wife.

[video]http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?bctid=983606109001[/video]

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

So...white collar crimes need SWAT teams to pick up suspects now?

I think my claim that the entry was an unwarranted use of force has yet to be dis-proven.

And Charlie, you may question my sanity but not my intelligence, LOL.

 

[Texan2]

I think my claim that the entry was an unwarranted use of force has yet to be dis-proven.

Your claim that their entry WAS an unwarranted use of force has also yet to be proven.
The SWAT team is innocent of wrong doing until proven guilty, not vice versa.

They dont have to dis-prove anything. An accuser would have to prove something out of line was done, and as next to zero facts have been released, making a decision on who is right or wrong would be remiss.

Funny how we like that innocent until proven guilty line when it applies to us or our friends/family, but we dont seem to extend that benefit of the doubt to the police...

 

[San Antone RR]

Gentlemen... Deep breaths. I don't wanna work today.

 

[Texan2]

I know you cant tell through the computer but I am very mellow and in a pretty good mood today. That having been said.

Some of the discussions on here are great. They can be enlightening and educational. I know I have learned plenty just by reading threads.

I simply dont seem to grasp the rush to judgement that occurs with EVERY police action that gets posted. Sometimes cops are wrong, sometimes they are vindicated.

Doesn't the idea of having all of the relevant facts available for review before passing judgement (on anyone) sound reasonable?

Im just curious.

 

[majormadmax]

Exactly, it's OK to post news articles but for Pete's sake let's quit acting like they are well-researched and analyzed intelligence! There is a well-known mantra in the Air Force that states "never talk to the media!" as they few that have always have it come back to haunt them. As a matter of fact, I was "volunteered" for a brief interview for a military documentary by my commander many moons ago and to this day I still get buds giving me shit when it shows up on the History Channel or somewhere.

But the bottom line is we need to rise above these speculative discussions based on so little verified info; and if anyone feels like bad-mouthing local law enforcement, instead go talk with the widow of BCSO Sergeant Vann and hear her thoughts on how these fine men and women risk their lives daily for our safety.

Cheers! M2

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

No worries SA_RR, it's just a good natured debate. Nothing heated, just opinions.

I think our disagreement is mostly academic and maybe bad word choice on my part. I should have said appears instead of was.

Your claim that their entry WAS an unwarranted use of force has also yet to be proven. Yep, 100% true also. I don't disagree that it's not proven, just that based on the facts in that article it appears correct. Our conclusions aren't mutually exclusive.
The SWAT team is innocent of wrong doing until proven guilty, not vice versa.

They dont have to dis-prove anything. An accuser would have to prove something out of line was done, and as next to zero facts have been released, making a decision on who is right or wrong would be remiss. I would say that unless there's some other significant facts (missing from the article) that it appears out of line/unnecessary to me.

Funny how we like that innocent until proven guilty line when it applies to us or our friends/family, but we dont seem to extend that benefit of the doubt to the police...

The state does bare a burden of explaining itself when it's citizens ask. As citizens these teams answer to us. The agencies answer to us. They are there to do our bidding and exist on our tax dollars. They are beholden to us and must answer these questions when we, the citizens, pose them.

Does it suck for them to be second guessed all the time? I'm sure it does. Does it mean we can't scrutinize them? Absolutely not, and it's our DUTY as citizens to question things that seem out of line to us.

I wouldn't consider them guilty as in "court of law guilty" without a full examination of evidence and an opportunity for defense. But I would absolutely say that based on the article it looks like an unwarranted use of force to me, even if it was for fraud/embezzlement. I would pursue asking the followup questions of the agency to validate/invalidate my conclusion if I had a horse in the race.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

PS - If we waited for all the evidence we would never get to discuss it. It's just the internet, and this is just an academic discussion of ideas for me.

If we're ever all in the same spot I'll buy everyone beers, LOL, including the SWAT team!

 

[majormadmax]

PS - If we waited for all the evidence we would never get to discuss it. It's just the internet, and this is just an academic discussion of ideas for me.

Sorry old friend, but the last thing someone can label any discussion based on Internet garbage is "academic!" I've spent plenty of time in academia (I've got three college degrees) and my last graduate program was all about research methods and analysis. That is what irks me so much about these painfully prolonged discussions that go on about such matters, as there is so little true evidence to be debated that it quickly gets emotional instead of logical.

Honestly, I'd much rather discussion something less controversial, like guns!

Cheers! M2

 

[Charlie]

So...white collar crimes need SWAT teams to pick up suspects now?

I think my claim that the entry was an unwarranted use of force has yet to be dis-proven.

And Charlie, you may question my sanity but not my intelligence, LOL.

Hmmm?? I don't think I mentioned anybody's name in my post. It was a general statement. But, I do stand by my statement. LOL

And.........I'll take a Shiner Bock!

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Sorry old friend, but the last thing someone can label any discussion based on Internet garbage is "academic!" I've spent plenty of time in academia (I've got three college degrees) and my last graduate program was all about research methods and analysis. That is what irks me so much about these painfully prolonged discussions that go on about such matters, as there is so little true evidence to be debated that it quickly gets emotional instead of logical.

Honestly, I'd much rather discussion something less controversial, like guns!



Cheers! M2

Ok, maybe "academic" should have been "theoretical", I'll give you that. But if you're going to make the assertion that we only debate facts then we need to get rid of the entire "News Articles" section

PS - I have multiple degrees of my own. Arguing theory vs fact doesn't make an argument invalid; it just precludes a fact-based conclusion in that specific situation.

 

[Texan2]

No worries SA_RR, it's just a good natured debate. Nothing heated, just opinions.

I think our disagreement is mostly academic and maybe bad word choice on my part. I should have said appears instead of was.



The state does bare a burden of explaining itself when it's citizens ask. As citizens these teams answer to us. The agencies answer to us. They are there to do our bidding and exist on our tax dollars. They are beholden to us and must answer these questions when we, the citizens, pose them.

Does it suck for them to be second guessed all the time? I'm sure it does. Does it mean we can't scrutinize them? Absolutely not, and it's our DUTY as citizens to question things that seem out of line to us.

I wouldn't consider them guilty as in "court of law guilty" without a full examination of evidence and an opportunity for defense. But I would absolutely say that based on the article it looks like an unwarranted use of force to me, even if it was for fraud/embezzlement. I would pursue asking the followup questions of the agency to validate/invalidate my conclusion if I had a horse in the race.

You indeed are entitled to an explanation and you will get one....just not always 24 hours after the incident. As I stated earlier, it amuses me how we all make fun of the media and their pathetic ability to get the facts correct, yet when something like this story hit the air, it is instanly decided it was an unwarranted use of SWAT. I wouldn't base anything on any story that comes out from any media outlet directly after an incident.

Not to revive a dead thread but once Pima Co. released 500 pages of documents about their case against that guy they shot a few weeks back, there is zero uproar...hmmmm wonder why? Facts typically vindicate agencies involved in use of force incidents....occasionally they dont.

 

[ROGER4314]

I simply dont seem to grasp the rush to judgement that occurs with EVERY police action that gets posted. Sometimes cops are wrong, sometimes they are vindicated.

Let's try reasoning through this......................

In my life experience, forced entry in my home was a reality and it has been a sore point ever since. I promise to NOT bore you with the details again but it happened, it wasn't correct, fair, factual or legal. My knee jerk reaction when I read stuff like this is to flash forward to a picture of my lifeless body surrounded by a huge pile of expended brass.

I've posted in these hallowed halls that I just passed my 30 year anniversary of being clean and sober. I have a "chip" from AA and should have one from NA with three "XXX's" on board. Thirty friggin years sober and I'm supposed to act better than the picture I portrayed above.

What I learned in the self help programs was that I will ALWAYS choose the crazy route if I'm surprised, frightened or think that I'm cornered. I will fight, tear flesh and cripple whatever threatens me. Given a moment to collect myself, a better course of action will emerge.

So it goes like this: action.....crazy reaction .....moment to think......more civilized reaction.

My first reaction to what I read in this thread was rage. Then I dialed in my rule of thumb......"Never believe ANYTHING you hear, see or read in the media!" I took a deep breath and saw it differently. I do not believe what I saw & read. There is more to the story and I refuse to surrender to the media manipulation that I believe is 100% certain.

So......read it, take a deep breath, consider another course of action then act OR don't react at all. That's how it works.

Now...all this crap being said, breach my door, corner me and my reaction is guaranteed.................snicker!

Flash

 

[M. Sage]

All news stories on this link back to that "News10" story. I would also give this one some time to play out and see what the specifics were. I would think that there is much more to this story. We have only heard the homeowner's version.

We have the police version, too. They're looking for the psychic who gave them the "tip." As if anything a psychic tells you is credible...

 

[Texan2]

We have the police version, too. They're looking for the psychic who gave them the "tip." As if anything a psychic tells you is credible...

Huh? I think that is a different story, different state.

 

[M. Sage]

Huh? I think that is a different story, different state.

The posts above yours were referring to the raid here in TX that relied on info provided by a psychic, just thought yours was, too. Oops.

BTW, I do think that every SWAT raid has to be justified. Innocence has to be proven in using tactics like that.

 

[Texasjack]

Well, I'll sleep better tonight knowing that our gov't is cracking down on those student loans.

I'll sleep a helluva lot better when they SWAT in on the fat cats that raked in all that bailout money.