Federal judge: Drinking tea, shopping at a gardening store is probable cause for a SWAT raid on your
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
If we let our imagination run a bit, this could be a good plot point in the script. Maybe they aren't so "former".
I understand it just fine. Both sides get to throw out potential jurors they don't like.
They don't like smart ones. If you're a lawyer, or a scholar, or... I dunno... a human resources director... you're not going anywhere near the jury box.
If you're a Walmart associate, you have potential.
I acknowledge your point, and did fret about it. It was the best way I could think of to deal with the dilemma. What would you have done?
I'm not sure. I'd like to think that Id be open minded and follow the instructions, but it would be hard to actually pull the trigger (!) on conviction.
I just found your thought process interesting. Admitting you will NOT follow their dames rules, and following their rules in telling them so.
I like it.
I think I would have struggled with it as well. I imagine I would respond honestly if asked, but I wouldn't volunteer that information if not asked.
Hyperbole and myth. Certainly neither side of a criminal case will want lawyers, they are too "close" to it and surely share opinions/biases that at least one side can't account for. I'm not sure why you'd think a "scholar" would be scratched, other than classic jokes in TV shows.
But like I said, I get what you are saying in general.
The type of juror each side would like is highly dependent upon what kind of case they have. I'm sure a side with a highly technical case that involves a lot of details and perhaps things that need to be learned quickly would prefer a smarter candidate.
But I don't know how often intelligence is really a bias they look for. A lot of other biases they are concerned about.
Well, yes, I would start there. I have never been harassed or in any way confronted by a cop. Remarkably, I have found that following the law and not being a dick leads to this.
Secondly, on at least two occasions, I was stopped for major speeding (10 - 15 mphs over) and was let off with only a warning. Dead to rights, but the cop let me go.
Thirdly, my family and I have not been a victim of any crime that I can recall. I suspect some of this is due to the police (their presence discouraging crime) and the criminal justice system (its actions locking perps away). Some certainly is luck.
Ya just gotta wonder how much money was spent from top to bottom on these operations to rid the world of a little weed.
Really? Do YOU think the war on drugs is working?
Last edited:
It is too complex to be a binary "it's working" or "it's not working". I don't know how to evaluate the system down to either of these overall conclusions. Do you?
I AM certain that one botched (perhaps even corrupt/criminal) SWAT operation says nothing about whether "the system" is working or not.
If you think this is a rare occurrence you are mistaken. A friend of mine in college (This was about 6 or 7 years ago now) had a police task force break into his apartment because he was part of an "Ongoing Drug Operation." Well, it turns out my friend was a criminal justice major with career plans to be a State Trooper. He never touched drugs and lived alone. But it didn't matter, and he had to replace a bunch of broken furniture that the cops messed up while searching his drug free apartment. There's countless things like this that go un-reported, and un-punished across this country.
It's hard to research because the FBI doesn't keep data on it. They only log "justified" shootings.
Even one, (such as this instance) is too many. Policies should be reviewed and adjusted to make sure it does not happen again, unfortunately the judge did not see it that way. So nothing will change, in fact it will get worse. Now police know they have precedent on their side to support their actions.
Even if it turned out to actually be marijuanna in the garbage instead of tea, I personally do not believe a swat team is justified to be sent in. They had absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing. Scary, I guess if you really want to fu&k with somebody, plant some seeds and stems in the neighbor's garbage and call in an anonymous tip.
These "over the top" raids on people's homes for such lowly crimes as marijuana possession and/or growing are crazy. In addition to the police that should be held accountable, the judges that sign off on the search warrants/raids should be brought to light too. Invading a home is something that should be reserved ONLY for much more serious crimes, coupled with some real evidence.
If a bunch of SWAT teamers rushed into my house/shop on a raid I am not sure that I wouldn't get shot as I reacted to that disturbance. Crazy stuff...minimally, the homeowners should be compensated for what was broken and damaged in the asinine raid.
If a bunch of SWAT teamers rushed into my house/shop on a raid I am not sure that I wouldn't get shot as I reacted to that disturbance. Crazy stuff...minimally, the homeowners should be compensated for what was broken and damaged in the asinine raid.
"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.
Botched swat raids as compiled by The Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.
Botched swat raids as compiled by The Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/raidmap
Hard to believe that the judge squashed all of the initial claims. I find that troubling.
This highlights one of the glaring problems of this (and OISs) - they refuse to keep statistics.
Sure they have their number of "good" searches, they result in criminal charges ... but how many are bad? Fail to turn up anything? How many essentially prove they were wrong?
Simply put, there isn't much, if any, accountability. Some are ok with a wide net approach, I.e. a lot of failed searches in order to root out and find the bad guys, but there is always a line, and I'm not sure where that line is. Surely 2 "bad" searches to 1 caught bad guy is ok, but what about 3-1? 5-1? Is 10-1 unconscionable? Is that a "broken" system?
Most searches go "expectedly", so little to no damage, no complaints, etc. how many of those occur we never find out about?
Until we demand those statistics be kept we are willfully allowing this shit to continue. It isn't like it is difficult, they just actually write and file their reports, even when nothing is found and no one charged.
It is crazy that we can't pinpoint exactly how many OISs occur in specific departments.
