Author Topic: Jackboots Need To Watch Where They Tread (Read 15628 times)

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #50 on:** May 25, 2014, 03:49:08 PM »

Quote from: Sindawe on May 25, 2014, 01:59:02 PM

From the link detailing the geology student neighbor of the raided store:

The cops said the SUSPECTED he had mushrooms, not that the FOUND any. Of course, the cops could not be bothered to get a search warrant BEFORE they entered the students home, they only got one AFTER they had searched the place and confiscated some rocks (odd thing for a geology student to have) and some frankincense incense.

They took 2 bags of shrooms away that shrooms boy denied were his.
I sure hope get wore gloves handling those bags so his claim of they weren't mine doesn't bite him in the butt. Wanna take bets?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fitz · « **Reply #51 on:** May 25, 2014, 04:20:06 PM »

Whether or not shroom boy had shrooms is *expletive deleted*ing irrelevant.

These kind of heavy handed tactics over some shrooms...

Put it this way. I would get in lots of trouble for buttstocking a suspected terrorist

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #52 on:** May 25, 2014, 06:15:38 PM »

What do you believe was heavy handed about this? Which version of events do you endorse? Shrooms were a bonus. Not a focus.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

Scout26 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 26, 2014, 12:25:04 AM »

How much you want to bet that no 'shrooms were found? They took rocks, incense, and hard/flash/thumb drives.

Did you happen to catch the part where the local LE was smart enough to stay outside because he knew they were in the wrong place and didn't have a warrant?

You really hate the 4th Amendment don't you?

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #54 on:** May 26, 2014, 01:50:03 AM »

I'll taks that bet. Shrooms boy did sn interview denying they were his magic shrooms.

I missed the local le stayed outside

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

Fitz · « **Reply #55 on:** May 26, 2014, 06:04:15 AM »

Turned around cameras, buttstock mark on a face?

Jesus csd, you really have an le hard on

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #56 on:** May 26, 2014, 06:08:57 AM »

What legitimate law enforcement purpose can be served by turning CCTV cameras away/off?

cordex · « **Reply #57 on:** May 26, 2014, 07:29:14 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2014, 06:08:57 AM

What legitimate law enforcement purpose can be served by turning CCTV cameras away/off?

If they passively record then nothing at all. However, if they are actively monitored, it gives the defenders the advantage of knowing where the attackers are at any given time. If the defenders are of a mind to repel the attack or ambush the attackers, knowing where the opposition is, what side of the door they are stacked on, etc. provides valuable intel.

dogmush · « **Reply #58 on:** May 26, 2014, 08:20:48 AM »

Would that defender be the girl on the ground outside that was trying to give them the door code? Was there any sign of people in the store? Any active resistance at all? So that reason doesn't really fit this situation.

(I know you were answering the broader question, I'm just bringing it back before CSD takes off on another tangent.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #59 on:** May 26, 2014, 08:38:36 AM »

Quote from: Fitz on May 26, 2014, 06:04:15 AM

Turned around cameras, buttstock mark on a face?

Jesus csd, you really have an le hard on

You decide which narrative you are using yet? How did you pick?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #60 on:** May 26, 2014, 08:39:53 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on May 26, 2014, 06:08:57 AM

What legitimate law enforcement purpose can be served by turning CCTV cameras away/off?

And you/we presume they did in fact do that. The allegation comes from a questionable source. Self impeached once already

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #61 on:** May 26, 2014, 08:47:04 AM »

Well, at least threads like this serve to ID who the quislings will be.

freakazoid · « **Reply #62 on:** May 26, 2014, 01:10:37 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 25, 2014, 03:58:04 AM

Are you gonna try to claim thats what happened here? Not read the reports well?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

Not read the OP?

Quote

The agents later admitted to Branson that they did not have a warrant for his address, and obtained one after the raid, based on frankincense incense seized from his apartment as well as the rocks he had collected to study. The agents allegedly entered Branson's residence at 10am without a search warrant, and only afterwards were granted a warrant by the court.

One agent, realizing they did not have a warrant for that address, directed other agents to leave the premises. Then, according to Branson, another agent, the one who allegedly choked Arielle Lipsen, told Branson he had to leave. At that point, Branson asked to see a warrant.

“He said, ’I don’t need to show you a F-----g warrant.’"

Branson said, "I need to see a warrant, based on the fourth amendment…"

"The agent answered ‘Oh you’re a F-----g lawyer now. We can do this the easy way or the hard way and put his finger on the trigger of his M16. That’s when I just backed up,” Branson said.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #63 on:** May 26, 2014, 02:47:46 PM »

Nice try. Their warrant was for the store and when they realized that shroom boys place was a separate property they left till they got another warrant for his place. He's got a prayer on that one but I wouldn't loan him money. Heck I bet he rolls over.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk