SWATing the latest fun and games from the progressive left

[Jaskalas]

This could be more of a statement of our police state, than the people abusing the police.

 

[Craig234]

This could be more of a statement of our police state, than the people abusing the police.

That's a pathetic ignorance of what a police state really is, which this incident has nothing to do with. It's like hearing an off-color joke about Jews and saying it's the Holocaust again.

Read up on real police states - one example is Pinochet's Chile, written about in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, another the Khmer Rouge - and then get a clue about them.

 

[jackstar7]

If I was a conservative, I'd just stop sleeping.

Vigilance is the only answer to these terror ploys.

Eyes open! All the time!

 

[Jaskalas]

Pathetic ignorance is thinking we're not going there, as homeowners are taken unawares at night and butchered. People have something to fear in this country and its not the criminals, its this and crap like it.

Apologies if broaching this aspect of SWAT raids is off topic, it just irks me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

hard to tell really with the Loughner one, right wingers fit the definition perfectly of paranoid schizophrenia -vast conspiracies against them the eternal victims with a huge sociopathic delusional complex that they are the one and only crusaders of righteousness.

I think its more right wing media attracts schizophrenics, so when you see one unaffiliated it is a fluke.

The ron paul/new world order/gold standard types are more severe cases who are past the point of mainstream right wing talk radio schizophrenic delusion.

That looks remarkably schizophrenic.
Fail234 looks at an act by an individual and because he did something that the Right would do it doesn't matter what he is. It's a "right wing act" or some nonsense.

That's schizophrenic. By that criteria the anti-war extreme leftists are really right wing organizations. Back during the VN era government was the target. Only an idiot would argue that the Weathermen were right wing extremists. Yes the left can bomb and maim as much as they please too. There was an extreme distrust of government from the far Left. "The Man" was government authority.

But now the far Left seeks to control government for it's purposes, to be "The Man", and now the Right are the terrorists.

I have no doubt that some here would try to make a distinction by justification, but that's what split personalities do.

Back to the topic at hand, if the right does this for political reasons and the left does the same thing then they are both wrong AND guilty for dangerous acts of ideology.

 

[Craig234]

Pathetic ignorance is thinking we're not going there, as homeowners are taken unawares at night and butchered. People have something to fear in this country and its not the criminals, its this and crap like it.

Apologies if broaching this aspect of SWAT raids is off topic, it just irks me.

I'm not saying there's no problem. I've posted about a similar case where the drug forfeiture laws were practically making criminals of some police, where police targetted a nice estate of an innocent man, and raised his home killing him with no apparent justification.

But as terrible as some cases are, we're far from an epidemic of the police shooting people, of a 'socialist' movement using the police and military to create a police state (the irony in that accusation shows great ignorace of socialism as well), and this story isn't a terrible example of police abuse. I don't see they did anything wrong here. The criminal who filed a false report - who you say isn't the main problem - is just that.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm not saying there's no problem. I've posted about a similar case where the drug forfeiture laws were practically making criminals of some police, where police targetted a nice estate of an innocent man, and raised his home killing him with no apparent justification.

But as terrible as some cases are, we're far from an epidemic of the police shooting people, of a 'socialist' movement using the police and military to create a police state (the irony in that accusation shows great ignorace of socialism as well), and this story isn't a terrible example of police abuse. I don't see they did anything wrong here. The criminal who filed a false report - who you say isn't the main problem - is just that.

The asset forfeiture laws, put to use under Ronnie Rayguns don't even need a conviction for the government to keep your stuff...a simple "probable cause" is usually enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

United States

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender. Since the government can choose the type of case, a civil case is almost always chosen. The costs of such cases is high for the owner, usually totaling around $10,000 and can take up to three years.

The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently manages around $1 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies. The goal of both programs is to maximize the net return from seized property by selling at auctions and to the private sector and then using the property and proceeds for law enforcement purposes.

A form of asset forfeiture is roadside forfeiture during a vehicle stop. Usually enforcing State policies by Highway police, local law enforcement have built up seized funds and spent them with oversight only from local judges who sometimes benefit from the expenditures of such funds. The presumption is that travelers hiding large amounts of cash are transporting drug money. Often, the vehicle occupants are required to simply sign a waiver that they will leave the State and not return, thus also not attempt to retrieve their funds. Some complain that this is law enforcement action requires more oversight in order to minimize the impact on travelers who are not involved in drug money but who simply wish to avoid further involvement with law enforcement agents and sign the waiver anyway. Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee is investigating the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal.

There have been "horror stories" for years about asset forfeiture laws being used against people who have committed no crimes...

I have no problem with the assets of convicted criminals being seized, drug dealers and the like...and wouldn't bitch if they started seizing the assets of illegal immigrants to help defray the costs of deportation...but a conviction should be required to allow them to keep any assets seized.

 

[monovillage]

Par for the course for you, you are offensive, and you lie.

My impression from what I've seen is that the shooter had a right-wing orientation.

At the worst, my impression was incorrect - not 'a lie'. If I determined he wasn't right-wing, I'd apologize for the error.

But it's not clear that's not the case. A quick review of the information suggests that in fact he was right-wing oriented - though he had problems much more dominant.

For example:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/sorry-right-wing-talkers-loughners-r

So, it's arguable he was in fact a 'right-wing shooter' as I said, though I would use another example in hindsight to make the point.

The point was only that one or a few examples of right-wing people acting badly being said to be 'the right' doing those things would be the equivalent of the OP saying that the one or few people who happen to be on the left doing acting badly means it's 'progressives now do these things'.

So just substitute any other right-wing bad action in my statement - take the guy who was arrested onhis way to shoot up the liberal institute in San Francisco, for example.

Your post, though, is offensive and a lie.

Crook and Liar? Thanks for identifying yourself. I've always known you were a liar.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You're asleep in bed, your wife next to you and the kids sound asleep in their rooms. You're awoken in the middle of the night by a SWAT team with guns drawn looking for you because you called the Police saying you'd murdered your wife. With Police helicopters overhead, you're taken out in handcuffs, your house searched and your wife and children traumatized.

Your crime? Writing a blog the progressive left doesn't agree with.

http://patterico.com/2012/05/25/con...ert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism

It's not an isolated incident.

http://www.13wmaz.com/politics/article/183164/318/Erick-Erickson-Victim-of-SWAT-ing

It's a game of hardball that's being played. With take no prisoners, scorched earth tactics used by progressives that never grew up but learned to play children's games at a whole new level.

Fight back this fall. Think before you vote.

Voting is extinct. Only the execution of the people responsible will have any impact now.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Thanks for the rant. I linked to articles backing up my post. You?

Since you asked so nicely:

1. The guy is quoting a very "reliable source", Andrew Breitbart to assert his claims. As we all know, this is the guy that brought you things like:

On May 28, 2011, Breitbart posted a sexually explicit photo on his BigJournalism website of New York Representative Anthony Weiner obtained through Weiner's Twitter account.[36] Weiner initially denied that he had sent a 21-year-old female college student the link to the photograph, but after questions developed, he admitted to inappropriate online relationships. On June 6, 2011, Breitbart reported other photos Weiner had sent, including one that was sexually graphic. On June 8, 2011, the sexually graphic photo was leaked after Breitbart participated in a radio interview with hosts Opie and Anthony, though Breitbart stated that the photo was published without his permission.[37] Weiner subsequently resigned from his congressional seat on June 21, 2011.

Shirley SherrodMain article: Resignation of Shirley Sherrod
In July 2010 Breitbart was accused of smearing USDA official Shirley Sherrod with the viral video "Proof NAACP Awards Racism". Breitbart's video showed Sherrod speaking at a NAACP fundraising dinner in March 2010 admitting to a racial reluctance to help a white farmer get government aid. The NAACP condemned Sherrod video comments and approved her July 19 dismissal from government service. After being criticized for presenting Sherrod out of context, Breitbart posted the full 40-minute video of the speech.[38][39][40][41] In the full video Sherrod said the reluctance to help a white man was wrong, and she had ended up assisting him. Following the release of the full video, the NAACP also reversed their rebuke of Sherrod,[39][40], and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized and offered Sherrod a new government position.[42] In 2011, Sherrod sued Breitbart for defamation,[43] Breibart said that the point of the piece was not to target Sherrod, but said the NAACP audience's reception of the parts of the speech demonstrated the same racism the NAACP's President had accused The Tea Party of harboring.[44]

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy
Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy. Hannah Giles[45][46] posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.[47] Subsequent criminal investigations by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office and the California Attorney General found the videos were heavily edited in an attempt to make ACORN's responses "appear more sinister",[48][49][50] and contributed to the group's demise.[51][52]

GOProud
Breitbart was also embroiled in a controversy within the conservative movement related to the participation of gay group GOProud in the Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC), an annual conference held in Washington, D.C., by the American Conservative Union. In 2011 he was the primary host of a party that served to "welcome" the "homocons" to the convention (though it was the second year they had been participants). This flew in the face of a boycott staged by a few social conservative groups that were offended by the inclusion of GOProud within the conservative fold. Writer, producer, and publisher Roger L. Simon referred to the group as a "game-changer" for the Republican party, and asserted that it represented a turning point in the appeal that the conservative movement might hold for young people. Breitbart was on the Advisory Board of GOProud until he stepped down in the wake of the group's inadvertent outing of a senior Rick Perry aide.[53][54]


Here's a few more of his "reporting" stories: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210054

Rock solid proof you got there

2. What you and the rabid righties are calling "SWATing", I call standard police procedure. From your second link:

As he and his family ate dinner, sheriff's deputies arrived to investigate a call to 911 claiming that there had been an accidental shooting. The call had been made to appear as if it came from the Erickson home.

A couple of deputies come and knock on the door to investigate a call of a shooting which turns out to be a false report? Seriously? This is cause for major concern? What about the rabid righties influencing their supporters to actually perform the act of shooting?

I can post a thousand links here to leftie bloggers to back up my claim like you are doing by linking to a right wing blogger to assert yours.

3. The biased, conservative blogger that is the subject of the first link and your primary premise of this post IS a self-proclaimed conservative blogger yet you seem to think, by asking for proof to substantiate my claim that this is a right-winger and, as an ADA, should have tried to file charges for the false police report. Here's the proof that you are asking for that he, your source, is an ADA:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/169227

Why he didn't file charges is most likely either he is not being 100% truthful or, he doesn't know who is behind it which, anyone with an ounce of integrity would have to admit that it is also possible that it could be another conservative as well as a liberal. Unless you want to show that you a completely dishonest person, I don't believe you will have too much trouble saying so.

4. You are the one parroting the conservative bloggers' claims that this is a widespread liberal tactic. I think that it is you that should have to provide proof that these two instances represent "wide spread liberal acceptance of "SWATing"".

Two instances (if reported accurately) does not constitue a pattern of "scorched earth tactics used by progressives" that you can't even prove were consumated by progressives. I can just as easily make the claim that they both did, in fact, make the calls from their own homes instead of the calls being spoofed so that they could use the response as a call to arms. You know, just like Rove did when he bugged his own offices and then claimed that the evil Democrats did it to spy on him.

Here's a litany list of some of Rove's tactics where he has shown that conservative and democrats alike can do things to themselves, blame the other party and then reap the benefits of it.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Rove-s-dirty-tricks-Let-us-count-the-ways-1246665.php

Your turn.

Prove your claims of this "scorched earth tactics used by progressives" extending beyond these two isolated incidents and prove that they were actually committed by and supported by progressives. Something like actual criminal charges in relation to the incidents and proof that those charged are in deed progressives should be sufficient.

Unless you'd like to admit that you are also a conservative that likes to make wild claims to smear to your ideological oppenent without any evidence other than you insistance that they are true than prove otherwise.

 

[bononos]

The right needn't worry since they are far better at playing this sort of game as the more recent Gary Webb and Steve Kangas's mysterious suicides show. The link above about Rove's tricks missed the part about the character assassination rumour about McCain being a Manchurian candidate from Nam.

 

[waggy]

IF true then the police/fbi needs to be trying to find who called. that person should be charged. with what? not sure.

such tactics need to stop. It makes whatever you are fighting for look insane and people will stay away.

 

[OrByte]

Since you asked so nicely:

1. The guy is quoting a very "reliable source", Andrew Breitbart to assert his claims. As we all know, this is the guy that brought you things like:



Shirley SherrodMain article: Resignation of Shirley Sherrod
In July 2010 Breitbart was accused of smearing USDA official Shirley Sherrod with the viral video "Proof NAACP Awards Racism". Breitbart's video showed Sherrod speaking at a NAACP fundraising dinner in March 2010 admitting to a racial reluctance to help a white farmer get government aid. The NAACP condemned Sherrod video comments and approved her July 19 dismissal from government service. After being criticized for presenting Sherrod out of context, Breitbart posted the full 40-minute video of the speech.[38][39][40][41] In the full video Sherrod said the reluctance to help a white man was wrong, and she had ended up assisting him. Following the release of the full video, the NAACP also reversed their rebuke of Sherrod,[39][40], and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized and offered Sherrod a new government position.[42] In 2011, Sherrod sued Breitbart for defamation,[43] Breibart said that the point of the piece was not to target Sherrod, but said the NAACP audience's reception of the parts of the speech demonstrated the same racism the NAACP's President had accused The Tea Party of harboring.[44]

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy
Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy. Hannah Giles[45][46] posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped meetings with ACORN staff.[47] Subsequent criminal investigations by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office and the California Attorney General found the videos were heavily edited in an attempt to make ACORN's responses "appear more sinister",[48][49][50] and contributed to the group's demise.[51][52]

GOProud
Breitbart was also embroiled in a controversy within the conservative movement related to the participation of gay group GOProud in the Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC), an annual conference held in Washington, D.C., by the American Conservative Union. In 2011 he was the primary host of a party that served to "welcome" the "homocons" to the convention (though it was the second year they had been participants). This flew in the face of a boycott staged by a few social conservative groups that were offended by the inclusion of GOProud within the conservative fold. Writer, producer, and publisher Roger L. Simon referred to the group as a "game-changer" for the Republican party, and asserted that it represented a turning point in the appeal that the conservative movement might hold for young people. Breitbart was on the Advisory Board of GOProud until he stepped down in the wake of the group's inadvertent outing of a senior Rick Perry aide.[53][54]


Here's a few more of his "reporting" stories: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210054

Rock solid proof you got there

2. What you and the rabid righties are calling "SWATing", I call standard police procedure. From your second link:



A couple of deputies come and knock on the door to investigate a call of a shooting which turns out to be a false report? Seriously? This is cause for major concern? What about the rabid righties influencing their supporters to actually perform the act of shooting?

I can post a thousand links here to leftie bloggers to back up my claim like you are doing by linking to a right wing blogger to assert yours.

3. The biased, conservative blogger that is the subject of the first link and your primary premise of this post IS a self-proclaimed conservative blogger yet you seem to think, by asking for proof to substantiate my claim that this is a right-winger and, as an ADA, should have tried to file charges for the false police report. Here's the proof that you are asking for that he, your source, is an ADA:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/169227

Why he didn't file charges is most likely either he is not being 100% truthful or, he doesn't know who is behind it which, anyone with an ounce of integrity would have to admit that it is also possible that it could be another conservative as well as a liberal. Unless you want to show that you a completely dishonest person, I don't believe you will have too much trouble saying so.

4. You are the one parroting the conservative bloggers' claims that this is a widespread liberal tactic. I think that it is you that should have to provide proof that these two instances represent "wide spread liberal acceptance of "SWATing"".

Two instances (if reported accurately) does not constitue a pattern of "scorched earth tactics used by progressives" that you can't even prove were consumated by progressives. I can just as easily make the claim that they both did, in fact, make the calls from their own homes instead of the calls being spoofed so that they could use the response as a call to arms. You know, just like Rove did when he bugged his own offices and then claimed that the evil Democrats did it to spy on him.

Here's a litany list of some of Rove's tactics where he has shown that conservative and democrats alike can do things to themselves, blame the other party and then reap the benefits of it.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Rove-s-dirty-tricks-Let-us-count-the-ways-1246665.php

Your turn.

Prove your claims of this "scorched earth tactics used by progressives" extending beyond these two isolated incidents and prove that they were actually committed by and supported by progressives. Something like actual criminal charges in relation to the incidents and proof that those charged are in deed progressives should be sufficient.

Unless you'd like to admit that you are also a conservative that likes to make wild claims to smear to your ideological oppenent without any evidence other than you insistance that they are true than prove otherwise.

nicely done.

bravo.