WTF? SWAT for defaulted student loans???

eye95 · Jun 9, 2011

OC for ME said:
Not being the target of the investigation will not deter LE from investigating the person not the target of the investigation. He was in the house listed on the warrant, therefore he must be involved....oops, our bad.

Some things require answers, and this event highlights that need.

1. Why does the Education Department have cops? We have a perfectly good FBI for them to use for criminal investigations.

2. Did they have reason to believe that there was evidence of the crime they were investigating at that home? Or did they simply lack the information that the woman no longer lived there? The latter would be an indication of incompetence in conducting their investigation.

3. Did the homeowner do something to resist the warrant? Or was breaking down the door and then placing the family in a squad car "routine"? I would hope that such actions would only be taken with a valid reason. There are reasons for breaking down doors and detaining occupants when serving warrants. I just don't see them in this case. Of course, that could be because we simply don't have the information.

If the department won't be forthcoming, then the Republican House ought to ask these questions.

JamesCanby · Jun 9, 2011

This story isn't going away

The citizen has retained an attorney and Channel 10 News has expanded their coverage:

http://www.news10.net/news/article/141108/2/Questions-surround-feds-raid-of-Stockton-home

There is more information in this report, but IMHO it all continues to show that an egregious amount of unnecessary force was used by federal agents executing a search warrant for a non-violent alleged crime.

JamesCanby · Jun 9, 2011

OC for ME said:
No arguments there. I wonder if local LE saw this one coming and wanted to be as far away from the sure to come collateral damage as possible. Local LE has been quite busy defending themselves due to overzealous officers. I think the local presence was a mere token presence, as a CYA...."yes we provided support to the feds" kind of thing.

Man, I'd like to be fly on the wall in the local squad room, any comments the locals had about this would be quite interesting.

The updated news report indicates that the single Stockton police officer dispatched to be on scene during this federal escapade took no part in the incident ... it's obvious that he was there just to show "coordination" between the feds and the local PD. Smart move by Stockton's PD not to get involved.

The updated Ch. 10 report will be continued to include eyewitness reports from the citizen's neighbors.

randian · Jun 9, 2011

eye95 said:
There is yet more to the story.

Not really. DoE's own website says their troops are for student loan related "bribery, fraud, and embezzlement". None of those crimes justify anything more than a couple of cops knocking on the door and delivering their warrant.

This is another example of the problems of federal law enforcement. None of those crimes (and many others) should be federal to begin with. The relevant crimes are already illegal in all 50 states, and could be more than adequately investigated and handled by local law enforcement. The only reason for Federal cops is to remove accountability. Local law enforcement with a reputation for being abusive tend to get their bosses fired, and chief LEOs like keeping their jobs.

Dreamer · Jun 9, 2011

JamesCanby said:
The updated news report indicates that the single Stockton police officer dispatched to be on scene during this federal escapade took no part in the incident ... it's obvious that he was there just to show "coordination" between the feds and the local PD. Smart move by Stockton's PD not to get involved.

Cooperation = Complicity

They WERE involved. They knew about it, they OK'd it, and they had a rep on site.

"We were just following orders..."

Where have we heard THAT before in history?

just sayin'...

Aknazer · Jun 9, 2011

eye95 said:
Oh, we're doing "SWAT-equipped" now. Excuse me.

It wasn't SWAT. The term was used to get folks riled. It worked.

I prefer to remain rational and not be emotionally manipulated. Such usually, in the end, gives me a better handle on reality.

They could call theirselves the lolipop gang for all I care. What matters is the weapons and tactics used. And to me using assault rifles, assault rifle-look-a-likes, and shotguns would be "special weapons" compared to the average cop. And going in looking like a ninja and busting down the door, grabbing people, and clearing the house in the manner that was described to me would be "special tactics" compared to what should be the normal way of executing a search warrent. So even if they aren't called "SWAT" they still used those methods and the term can still be easily applied.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well...

Dreamer · Jun 9, 2011

randian said:
This is another example of the problems of federal law enforcement. None of those crimes (and many others) should be federal to begin with.

Well, no, I have to disagree with you on that one...

If someone is committing fraud and is making phone calls or sending stuff through the mail to do it, and is acting across state lines, then the Feds TOTALLY have jurisdiction. Interstate wire fraud or mail fraud is CLEARLY a federal offense...

But if someone lies on their FAFSA and obtains student loan money fraudulently, then yeah, making an argument that a forced-entry search warrant by a mysterious Federal team of tactical LEOs is appropriate is a little difficult...

Yard Sale · Jun 9, 2011

JamesCanby said:
the single Stockton police officer dispatched to be on scene during this federal escapade took no part in the incident ... it's obvious that he was there just to show "coordination" between the feds and the local PD. Smart move by Stockton's PD not to get involved.

F--- him. He witnessed a crime and didn't make an arrest, make a report (?), or apply for an arrest warrant. Fire him for dereliction of duty. Then prosecute him as an accessory.

jgregel · Jun 9, 2011

The problem I have with this...

Anyone kicking in your door is not your friend!

The problem I have with any police organization using armed officers and busting through your door is the possibility of encountering a home owner who believes that it is a home invasion and is going to defend his/her family. When my dogs or something wakes me up the first thing I do is grab my gun and head down stairs to investigate. If at that moment the SWAT team comes busting through the door there is a good chance that I will end up being killed. Killed for doing what everyone should be prepared to do, defend your home and family from harm.

The more this is allowed to happen the more people will be killed. Just look at the number of militarized police units that are around now. Seems like every city has its own. Some of them even have fully armored vehicles with machine guns mounted on them! We do live in a police state people... Wake up!

John

randian · Jun 9, 2011

Dreamer said:
If someone is committing fraud and is making phone calls or sending stuff through the mail to do it, and is acting across state lines, then the Feds TOTALLY have jurisdiction. Interstate wire fraud or mail fraud is CLEARLY a federal offense...

"Can" is no argument for "should". Let the state with personal jurisdiction prosecute under their fraud statute. The federal statute is redundant.

Jeff Hayes · Jun 9, 2011

Yard Sale said:
F--- him. He witnessed a crime and didn't make an arrest, make a report (?), or apply for an arrest warrant. Fire him for dereliction of duty. Then prosecute him as an accessory.

That was my first thought as well.

eye95 · Jun 9, 2011

randian said:
Not really. DoE's own website says their troops are for student loan related "bribery, fraud, and embezzlement". None of those crimes justify anything more than a couple of cops knocking on the door and delivering their warrant.

This is another example of the problems of federal law enforcement. None of those crimes (and many others) should be federal to begin with. The relevant crimes are already illegal in all 50 states, and could be more than adequately investigated and handled by local law enforcement. The only reason for Federal cops is to remove accountability. Local law enforcement with a reputation for being abusive tend to get their bosses fired, and chief LEOs like keeping their jobs.

Nice job of editing my post without indicating that you did so. That, BTW, is a rules violation here.

paramedic70002 · Jun 10, 2011

IIRC there used to/still is a legal requirement that the feds use local LEOs to make the search/arrest legal.

Anybody know about this?

eye95 · Jun 10, 2011

OC for ME said:
What happened to the good ole days of....lots of bright lights shinning on the house....using bullhorn...."THIS IS THE POLICE....COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP AND NOBODY WILL GET HURT"?

Would this be considered a consensual encounter if you voluntarily came out?

Now that is "duress." So, no, it would not be consent.

The tactic of breaking in to serve a warrant is generally intended to prevent the destruction of evidence. The bullhorn technique is ineffective in this regard. Since the Education Department has not been forthcoming about the crime that was being investigated, we can't know yet whether the bullhorn technique would have been appropriate. I suspect it would be, but we don't know yet.

Thundar · Jun 10, 2011

eye95 said:
Could be. I just don't see why the Education Department should be doing law enforcement. Do we really want every agency having its own cops? Do we even need that department?

Every agency does want that.

Lets face it. The ability to enforce an agencies regulations is much easier when done by pointing the barrel of a gun.

riverrat10k · Jun 10, 2011

I swear, Thundar...

..the longer I live, the more I see Rand's novel being acted out in real time.

'Oh no, why use such words? Who said anything about guns? Why use such ugly words? We just know you want to comply for the good of society."

Alexcabbie · Jun 10, 2011

I just finished reading this thread and noticed all the debate about whether or not it was a SWAT team and if so, whose?
Meanwhile, one thing is as clear as beer piss: Somebody did not repay a Government loan, so the Government sent agents to kick down the door.
This is a clear violation of the (Federal!) "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act". (no duh). These people ought to pursue it under civil RICO and get triple damages.

(Correction: sorry, I forgot that the Feds tend to exempt themselves from the rules they make for the rest of us. My bad. Never mind....)

eye95 · Jun 11, 2011

Alexcabbie said:
...Meanwhile, one thing is as clear as beer [vulgarity removed]: Somebody did not repay a Government loan, so the Government sent agents to kick down the door...

That is not clear at all. The Education Department has flat-out stated that the warrant was issued as part of a criminal investigation, and not repaying loans is not criminal. They could be lying. We don't know.

Whom folks believe and whom they assume is lying tells us a lot about their predispositions. Me? I'll wait for verified facts before reacting. That was the whole point behind the SWAT discussion. It made no sense that a SWAT team was used. So I raised the question about the story being factually incorrect on this point. It was.

Let's react to facts, not to emotion-laden buzz-words, planted specifically to evoke emotional, not rational, reactions.

Dreamer · Jun 11, 2011

Alexcabbie said:
Meanwhile, one thing is as clear as beer piss: Somebody did not repay a Government loan, so the Government sent agents to kick down the door.
This is a clear violation of the (Federal!) "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act". (no duh). These people ought to pursue it under civil RICO and get triple damages.

Actually, it is nowhere near that clear...

Actually, the Dept.of Ed has DENIED that this event had ANYTHING to do with delinquent loans.

Actually, you apparently didn't read the entire thread, and the associated links to real news reports, or you would have know this.

Crotchety Curmudgeon with Strong opinions based on facts, using pointed language to drive a point home = entertaining.

Spewing opinions based on bias, prejudice and sensational "reports", with complete disregard for the facts of a case = stepping on your dick.

You chose...

Alexcabbie · Jun 11, 2011

eye95 said:
That is not clear at all. The Education Department has flat-out stated that the warrant was issued as part of a criminal investigation, and not repaying loans is not criminal. They could be lying. We don't know.

Whom folks believe and whom they assume is lying tells us a lot about their predispositions. Me? I'll wait for verified facts before reacting. That was the whole point behind the SWAT discussion. It made no sense that a SWAT team was used. So I raised the question about the story being factually incorrect on this point. It was.

Let's react to facts, not to emotion-laden buzz-words, planted specifically to evoke emotional, not rational, reactions.

Okay. niner-five; so if it was a criminal investigation, what was the crime? And doesn't the investigation of Federal crimes belong to the FBI??

Yeah, I know that every Exec branch agency has its own armed LEOs, heck even the United States Information Agency (Voice of America and Radio Free Europe) has sworn special agents.

As a matter of fact, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (and printing and printing and printing) has a four-man police force with two fully equipped marked Crown Vics, whose sole function appears to be to park on D street SW and catch and cite drivers who violate the NO TURNS sign on 14th Street.

The Effa Bee Eye has a uniformed branch called "F.B.I. Police" who drive around the J. Edgar Hoover building all day, likewise in marked Crown Vics.

All these cops, plus local and State agencies into the mix, and the Department of Education has its own band of door-busting goons??

Pretty soon everyone who isn't a cop or a bad guy is gonna be a lawyer, and then God help us.

WTF? SWAT for defaulted student loans???

Well-known member

Activist Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member