D.C. Police Versus Veteran With PTSD
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 1 month ago
Veteran suffering from PTSD calls suicide hotline, admits to gun ownership, but repeatedly explains he doesn’t have a weapon at the ready. His interlocutor calls D.C. police anyway, who send in SWAT. He surrenders. Police search his home, see nothing concerning in plain view. Hours later, they re-enter, rip the place apart — and (allegedly) leave the stove on and the front door unlocked for two weeks while he’s in jail. D.C. Circuit: The second search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Well, what the hell else did you expect to happen? The cops were involved.
On November 17, 2016 at 9:50 am, Ned Weatherby said:
I often wonder if some people are living in a vacuum – never hearing about this stuff. Of course what happened was the most likely scenario. Thought police would show up and ask if he was OK?
On November 17, 2016 at 11:45 am, Archer said:
Yes, put him in jail for two weeks and ransack his home. Go full Gestapo. THAT’ll help his suicidal thoughts. [/sarcasm]
Did they ever find a firearm, “illegal” or not?
I’d be pressing criminal and civil charges, against the cops involved and whatever judge signed the warrant. This reaction is so far out of bounds that I think this person just might be able to prove actual malice, which is VERY difficult to do but is required to overcome cops’ and judges’ immunity. Being depressed and possibly suicidal is not a crime, nor grounds for reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Neither is seeking help.
So why a SWAT team response?
(And you just KNOW the city will bill the veteran for their police “services”.)
On November 17, 2016 at 1:40 pm, Billy Mullins said:
Looks suspiciously like he may have a basis for action under 18 USC 242 – Denial of Civil Rights Under Color of Law. 42 USC 1986 might apply, too. Of course all that is predicated upon finding a lawyer to take your case and/or a prosecutor willing to prosecute the miscreants or a judge stupid enough to hear such a case in the first place.
Think about it:
In a criminal case you are
Tried in a courthouse OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Your case is heard by a judge PAID (OWNED) BY THE GOVERNMENT
You are prosecuted by a lawyer PAID (OWNED) BY THE GOVERNMENT
You are represented by a lawyer LICENSED (OWNED) BY THE GOVERNMENT
In a civil case against any government official/agent your case is
Tried in a courthouse OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Heard by a judge PAID (OWNED) BY THE GOVERNMENT
and
You are represented by a lawyer LICENSED (OWNED) BY THE GOVERNMENT
Does that sound like a recipe for anything even remotely resembling justice to you?
Me, neither!
All criminal defendants and plaintiffs suing the government or any official/agent of the government should be required to enter the courthouse through an entry over which is the legend:
ABANDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE!
On November 17, 2016 at 2:08 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Unfortunately Billy, that’s what a lot of people think today, and they think it because of the evidence. This is a recipe for big, big problems in the country. Yes?
On November 17, 2016 at 6:56 pm, Billy Mullins said:
It is quite literally a recipe for rebellion, Herschel. Governments – all governments – derive their power – just or otherwise – from the consent of the governed. If sufficient numbers of the governed – and it need not be a majority – withdraw their consent their consent then revolution occurs. This is so even in a monarchy. In a near perfect demonstration of Jefferson’s words, beginning in 1789 the French abolished a government (monarchy) which had existed for OVER A THOUSAND YEARS (talk about a government long established) and replaced it with something they thought would better serve their needs. We – you and I, Herschel – could very well see the beginning of such an event.