No knock warrant for...

[Avalon]

I'm willing to bet there's more to this, like she's possibly involved in some sort of loan fraud.

I'm with you there. It's the only thing that sounds plausible.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I've said it a dozen times or more. Shit like this won't stop until people start executing the cops, the judges, and everyone involved in the government agencies that do it. ONLY death on a massive scale is going to change anything. Until people suffer mortal terror over these decisions it will keep happening.

Round the swat team up, and publicly execute them.

 

[UNCjigga]

/starts writing a big check to Sallie Mae...

 

[mugs]

I've said it a dozen times or more. Shit like this won't stop until people start executing the cops, the judges, and everyone involved in the government agencies that do it. ONLY death on a massive scale is going to change anything. Until people suffer mortal terror over these decisions it will keep happening.

Round the swat team up, and publicly execute them.

Reported


To the FBI, you dirty terrorist





I'm surprised you were able to come to any conclusion about the propriety of the warrant based on the almost complete lack of facts that we have.

 

[Linflas]

Still spewing I see,... this time it seems like your ass is leaking shit as well; which goes to show you, you really are full of shit.

Oh, wait,.. "lol who's full of shit?" is your response.

Great! A more illiterate version of another long time poster fascinated with all things scatological.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Reported


To the FBI, you dirty terrorist





I'm surprised you were able to come to any conclusion about the propriety of the warrant based on the almost complete lack of facts that we have.

It doesn't matter. The ONLY time/purpose for SWAT or no-knocks is with imminent threat to innocents...reliable evidence that the people inside are constructing a bomb, or brewing biological agents, or similar. That's it. Otherwise it's a fascist abuse of power, and should be met with lethal force.

 

[JS80]

Still spewing I see,... this time it seems like your ass is leaking shit as well; which goes to show you, you really are full of shit.

Oh, wait,.. "lol who's full of shit?" is your response.

lol who is full of shit?

 

[mugs]

It doesn't matter. The ONLY time/purpose for SWAT or no-knocks is with imminent threat to innocents...reliable evidence that the people inside are constructing a bomb, or brewing biological agents, or similar. That's it. Otherwise it's a fascist abuse of power, and should be met with lethal force.

I'm sure there actually was a SWAT team there, because the article says there was. There aren't any pictures of this event in progress, and reporters are well known for never getting the details wrong.

Which is more plausible - the Department of Education sent a SWAT team (whose SWAT team? The local police only provided one squad car) to search for a woman who is behind on her student loans, or a bunch of guys in black jackets with yellow lettering showed up at the guy's house and the reporter mistakenly called it a SWAT team?


Regarding the no-knock warrant, it doesn't sound at all like it was a no-knock warrant. By the guy's own account he was at the door for two of their attempts to break it down. They would have been through the door before he was out of bed if they were executing a no-knock warrant, let alone with a SWAT team.


I'm not saying that what happened here was ok, just that we don't have many facts on which to form an opinion. We have one side of the story, filtered through the local media which rarely has high journalistic standards. I've never seen a media account of an event that I witnessed in person that didn't contain some inaccuracy. When things are implausible and not supported by evidence, an intelligent observer will ask questions rather than accepting everything at face value.


I'm pretty certain that we're going to be reading about you in the media some day. I hope they get the facts straight.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm sure there actually was a SWAT team there, because the article says there was. There aren't any pictures of this event in progress, and reporters are well known for never getting the details wrong.

Which is more plausible - the Department of Education sent a SWAT team (whose SWAT team? The local police only provided one squad car) to search for a woman who is behind on her student loans, or a bunch of guys in black jackets with yellow lettering showed up at the guy's house and the reporter mistakenly called it a SWAT team?


Regarding the no-knock warrant, it doesn't sound at all like it was a no-knock warrant. By the guy's own account he was at the door for two of their attempts to break it down. They would have been through the door before he was out of bed if they were executing a no-knock warrant, let alone with a SWAT team.


I'm not saying that what happened here was ok, just that we don't have many facts on which to form an opinion. We have one side of the story, filtered through the local media which rarely has high journalistic standards. I've never seen a media account of an event that I witnessed in person that didn't contain some inaccuracy. When things are implausible and not supported by evidence, an intelligent observer will ask questions rather than accepting everything at face value.


I'm pretty certain that we're going to be reading about you in the media some day. I hope they get the facts straight.

I agree, we need more info, but I also think that we've had enough examples of this lately to know it's sop for modern law enforcement/government. Even if you take this incident out, there's more than enough cause for a forceful stand against government.

 

[dmcowen674]

No knock warrant for...

...defaulted student loans. Yea, that makes total sense.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/141072/2/Dept-of-Education-breaks-down-Stockton-mans-door

Obviously a lot of taxpayer money is on the line here.

They absolutely must recover that money as the U.S. is now being declared in "restricted default" as seen on Fitch reports:

http://reports.fitchratings.com/coms2/page_browseRR


They should turn his kids over to the state and sell off his assets towards the loan. Oh and course find the "estranged" wife and nail her ass.

 

[waggy]

I'm not too good with Constitutional rights...

but I thought we were protected against debtor's prisons, and I would assume by extension, being arrested for simply owing money.

thats what makes me wonder if there was more to this then a outstanding loan.

 

[HAL9000]

Wow. I'm very pro-police, but even I'm not going to try and defend this stupidity.

 

[PingSpike]

ok thanks to mugs saying the guy was funny i watched the video. that guy was great!

and WTF does it take 6 hours to search the place for the women? sheesh.

It takes 6 hours to turn a house upside down searching for anything that might be remotely illegal to retroactively justify kicking a door down and handcuffing a innocent man in his underwear over some one else's unpaid student loans.

 

[I Saw OJ]

Even if they did find some money, how much cash to people really leave lying around at home? Surely not enough to make a sizable dent in a student loan.

 

[KeithP]

...defaulted student loans. Yea, that makes total sense.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/141072/2/Dept-of-Education-breaks-down-Stockton-mans-door

After watching the video and reading the story, the only thing I am sure of is that most of the people that posted in this thread based their comments on the thread title and original post and not the actual video and story or they lack the ability for critical thought.

-KeithP

 

[SpatiallyAware]

After watching the video and reading the story, the only thing I am sure of is that most of the people that posted in this thread based their comments on the thread title and original post and not the actual video and story or they lack the ability for critical thought.

-KeithP

In what way??


They kicked the guy's door down with a swat team. It might not have been an official 'no knock' warrant, but do you seriously think this is an ok thing to do??

Announced or not, if the police/swat/whatever are going to force their way inside your home they should have a damn good reason for it... And anything to do with someone who is not at the home is unjustified.

In other words, I don't care if the ex-wife is a drug dealer murdering loan sharking convicted felon escaped prison inmate they should ONLY be able to force their way in if there is not a safer alternative AND they know for a fact she's home.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Link is dead now.

 

[spidey07]

What did you think was going to happen when government took over student loans?

 

[rivan]

Link is dead now.

How strange. I wonder how different the edited-to-journalistic-standards article will be.

 

[Linflas]

It takes 6 hours to turn a house upside down searching for anything that might be remotely illegal to retroactively justify kicking a door down and handcuffing a innocent man in his underwear over some one else's unpaid student loans.

And then claim it was in plain sight to get around the terms of the original warrant.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I'll preface this with the statement that a relative of mine is a federal agent with the dept of education.

Several points:

1. The news does not always have all the facts, or the correct facts, before they report a story;

2. The news is a for profit entity, and makes money based on viewership and advertising. One means of increasing viewership and advertising revenue is to sensationalize a story, which is almost but not quite equivalent to "making shit up."

3. Apart from the news10 link cited in the OP, all the cites reporting this story are absofrootly ridiculous. Are you really going to believe news reported by www.defensivecarry.net and www.gunbloggers.com?

4. At least some of the reports I have read indicated that an agent from the department of ed confirmed that the department issued the warrant. I have confirmed with my relative that the department does not have the power to issue warrants. They have to go through DOJ or another legal avenue.

5. Chances are there was something else involved in this matter that is not being reported in the story. E.g., identity theft, fraud, etc. I.e., crimes for which a conviction turns on evidence that can be easily and quickly erased or destroyed. Hence, the no-knock warrant may have been appropriate.

6. No one on this forum knows jack squat about the alleged victim or his wife. Perhaps he/she had a criminal background or a history of violence? If any of you had relatives that were police officers, you would not be outraged to learn that certain tactics, such as no knock warrants, are employed in circumstances where officer safety is a concern. What is more of a tragedy? A guy having to sit for a few hours in a car (albeit possibly wrongly), or a law enforcement officer who was killed in the line of duty?

That is all. If I learn more about the story and can post about it, I will do so.

 

[waggy]

Even if they did find some money, how much cash to people really leave lying around at home? Surely not enough to make a sizable dent in a student loan.

and if the warrent was to find enough cash to pay it off then the amount was very low. Wich leads to why the fuck would they have so much manpower and shit to do it?

im sure in a few days we will find she was scamming teh system or something. because it sure smells fishy

 

[JTsyo]

The no knock should depend on how dangerous the suspect is, not actually the crime you're going to arrest them for. If it's someone with a history of violence but you're arresting him for shoplifting I would be OK with a no knock. The no knocks should come with more supervision than a regular warrant too. Be sure you got the right house and are going after the right people. Maybe even do a few hours of surveillance before you move in.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I'll preface this with the statement that a relative of mine is a federal agent with the dept of education.

<snip>

5. Chances are there was something else involved in this matter that is not being reported in the story. E.g., identity theft, fraud, etc. I.e., crimes for which a conviction turns on evidence that can be easily and quickly erased or destroyed. Hence, the no-knock warrant may have been appropriate.

6. No one on this forum knows Jack squat about the alleged victim or his wife. Perhaps he had a criminal background or a history of violence? If any of you had relatives that were police officers, you would not be outraged to learn that certain tactics, such as no knock warrants, are employed in circumstances where officer safety is a concern. What is more of a tragedy? A guy having to sit for a few hours in a car (albeit possibly wrongly), or a dead law enforcement officer who was killed in the line of duty?

That is all. If I learn more about the story and can post about it, I will do so.

Identity theft and fraud should never, ever justify a no knock warrant. These are 'trivial' reasons to jeopardize so many lives with historically horribly planned home invasions.

If I had a family member that was a LEO and they were killed serving a no knock warrant on someone who stole an identify I would consider the judge signing the death 'warrant' as the tragedy.

History of violence means maybe kicking a door down in the early morning and surprising them just might not be the best idea. Capturing them as they pull into their driveway from the grocery store seems to make more sense to me, but then they wouldn't be able to justify having all these swat teams and toys, would they?

 

[p0nd]

Wow. You'd think the federal government would have better things to do than spend umpteen thousands of dollars pestering its civilians.

Why is the federal government doing collections for student loans anyway? Isn't Sallie Mae supposed to be a "privately run" entity?

And I thought defaulting on a loan wasn't a crime. Isn't that why we've given all the deadbeats that bought houses they couldn't afford money and forgiveness on their loans?

Thought i could clarify these questions for you.

Federal Student loans are are fully guaranteed by the government, private are not. Meaning if you default on your Sallie Mae or whatever, the government can legally pursue and get the money from you through various methods such as taking it directly from your paycheck for x years. Since 2005, student loans are not wiped clean after bankruptcy (barring a few exceptions). This makes the loans very low risk for lenders, and some say is part of the reason why universities in the U.S. have been able to increase tuition by such large amounts - because most students will have to take out loans that they will be forced to pay!