Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: ‘You all need to leave’: SWAT uses woman’s home without permission. 3/4 A violation.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    ‘You all need to leave’: SWAT uses woman’s home without permission. 3/4 A violation.

    "“The cop goes ‘You all need to leave, you can’t be in your house,’” Deborah Franz said, describing the SWAT team response to her next-door neighbor’s loud fighting, to a local station. She did leave — for the whole six hours standoff that ensued between SWAT agents and someone in her neighbor’s home. Afterward, officers cleared the scene and allowed her to access her home."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-camp-absent-/

    G00gle Real time coverage

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...A84zuVtzH4h0DM

    "JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Deborah Franz feels violated. She claims the SWAT team went into her southside home without her permission during a standoff involving her neighbor Sunday afternoon."

    http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...Z4KJq__tA.cspx
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    "Even worse, the mess in Franz’s house didn’t help the cops’ cause; after a near 6-hour standoff that blocked off access to most of the neighborhood, the police finally realized that the suspect had escaped the residence and and the SWAT team effort missed him completely."

    "The tactic is similar to one used by Massachusetts authorities during the aftermath of the Boston bombing. At the time, police outfitted in tactical gear swept full neighborhoods while looking for the suspects."

    There ya go.....a trend begins...

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...returned-home/

    Sounds like most of this is nothing new.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	keystone cops.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	8.8 KB 
ID:	11240

    Same ol' gang, newer equipment.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    "Even worse, the mess in Franz’s house didn’t help the cops’ cause; after a near 6-hour standoff that blocked off access to most of the neighborhood, the police finally realized that the suspect had escaped the residence and and the SWAT team effort missed him completely."

    "The tactic is similar to one used by Massachusetts authorities during the aftermath of the Boston bombing. At the time, police outfitted in tactical gear swept full neighborhoods while looking for the suspects."

    There ya go.....a trend begins...

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...returned-home/

    Sounds like most of this is nothing new.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	keystone cops.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	8.8 KB 
ID:	11240

    Same ol' gang, newer equipment.
    Hey I get it.... train wreck? Lol

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    what an opportune time to treat those termites with bug bombs ...

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    What would have happened has she said "No!"?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    125
    I've never heard of SWAT taking "no" for an answer.

    I would like to see a 3rd Amendment case come out of this - classifying SWAT as military would be an interesting precedent.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Seigi View Post
    I've never heard of SWAT taking "no" for an answer.

    I would like to see a 3rd Amendment case come out of this - classifying SWAT as military would be an interesting precedent.
    I'd like to see them prosecuted for violent home invasion.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by seigi View Post
    i've never heard of swat taking "no" for an answer.

    i would like to see a 3rd amendment case come out of this - classifying swat as military would be an interesting precedent.
    qft

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    Charlie Condon, South Carolina Attorney General 1995 - 2003

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Sounds like a reasonable position.
    And home invasions largely ended for his tenure. I put on a gun in 1996 and started to leave SC in 2003 when I moved to a walled, gated and guarded condominium in darkest benighted Charleston. I left SC on Friday 13 January 2006, leaving room for two more yankees.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Seigi View Post
    I've never heard of SWAT taking "no" for an answer.

    I would like to see a 3rd Amendment case come out of this - classifying SWAT as military would be an interesting precedent.
    Send the city/police a bill for unauthorized use of the property.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Send the city/police a bill for unauthorized use of the property.
    In addition to a law suit demanding hefty monetary restitution/compensation and personnel discipline?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Seigi View Post
    I've never heard of SWAT taking "no" for an answer.

    I would like to see a 3rd Amendment case come out of this - classifying SWAT as military would be an interesting precedent.
    The 3rd has never been incorporated to my knowledge ...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The 3rd has never been incorporated to my knowledge ...
    In the Second Circuit

    Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on rem. 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd. per curiam 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983)

    ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey

    The Tenth Circuit has suggested that the right is incorporated because the Bill of Rights explicitly codifies the "fee ownership system developed in English law" through the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the Fourteenth Amendment likewise forbids the states from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law. United States v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1510 n.1 (10th Cir. 1988)
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-07-2014 at 01:03 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    In the Second Circuit

    Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on rem. 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd. per curiam 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983)

    ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey

    The Tenth Circuit has suggested that the right is incorporated because the Bill of Rights explicitly codifies the "fee ownership system developed in English law" through the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the Fourteenth Amendment likewise forbids the states from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law. United States v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1510 n.1 (10th Cir. 1988)
    lawyers...they get paid to muddy things up I guess

    thx for the correction (or education)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	no_trespassing_sign.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	103.2 KB 
ID:	11241

    Maybe some no-trespassing signs are in order.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ...the Fourteenth Amendment likewise forbids the states from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law...
    Quote Originally Posted by cop
    ...You all need to leave, you can’t be in your house...
    The new definition of "due process."
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	no_trespassing_sign.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	103.2 KB 
ID:	11241

    Maybe some no-trespassing signs are in order.
    That signs mentions "emergencies" ... they'll use that to their advantage

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    That signs mentions "emergencies" ... they'll use that to their advantage
    How about this one?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •