Swat raid Kansas home. Couple spends $25k to find out why.

[planetdoc]

http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/...o-familys-home

Full story at the link. Summary with excerpts below.

SWAT raids a leawood couples home with guns drawn. Put them and their young kids on their couch. Find nothing illegal, and seize nothing. Kansas law prevents them from finding out why they were raided.

After the raid, the couple thought they could access public records to find out why law enforcement suspected drugs were in their home. They told 41 Action News they were shocked to find out they could not access any of those records under Kansas law.

Turns out they were raided because they made a LEGAL purchase from a Legal buisness that was under LEO observation.

Records show on Aug. 9, 2011, a Missouri Highway Patrol trooper observed a man leaving the Green Circle hydroponics store in Kansas City, Mo., in a KIA with his children and a small bag.

Bob said he had been to the store to get supplies for a science project he was working on with his son: a basement hydroponic garden.

LEO performed field tests of tea leaves in the couples trash, prior to the swat raid, that was a false positive for marijuana. They only sent those samples in to the crime lab AFTER the swat raid that indicated they did not contain any illegal substances.

The embarrassing misstep for deputies would have remained hidden if the Hartes had not had the means to spend money to gain access to the records. The family has also been contacted by people across Kansas trying to figure out how to access records about themselves. Addie said many of the people who have reached out to her do not have the same resources financially to fight to get records released.

“This not what justice in the United States is supposed to be. You shouldn't have to have $25,000, even $5,000. You shouldn't have to have that kind of money to find out why people came raiding your house like some sort of police state,” Addie Harte said.

[planetdoc]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

I'm positive if you look hard enough, you'd find a lawyer who would love to take your case.

I've always been a fan of the statement, "good fences make good neighbors", thus I would rather be pro-active and work on ways to prevent civilians and LEO from being in such encounters than work retro-actively to compensate someone after a traumatic encounter and violation of their rights.

IMO, Clearer "rules of engagement" and more transparency will benefit both LEO and civilians.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by planetdoc

I've always been a fan of the statement, "good fences make good neighbors", thus I would rather be pro-active and work on ways to prevent civilians and LEO from being in such encounters than work retro-actively to compensate someone after a traumatic encounter and violation of their rights.

IMO, Clearer "rules of engagement" and more transparency will benefit both LEO and civilians.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Kansas sounds really ****ed up, by judges, and politicians the most. I was answering the suggestion of shooting the cops for entering, if the homeowner feels they are entering illegally.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by planetdoc

I've always been a fan of the statement, "good fences make good neighbors", thus I would rather be pro-active and work on ways to prevent civilians and LEO from being in such encounters than work retro-actively to compensate someone after a traumatic encounter and violation of their rights.

IMO, Clearer "rules of engagement" and more transparency will benefit both LEO and civilians.

You're assuming said "rules of engagement" will actually be followed.

Many law enforcement agencies now operate without any fear of consequence for their actions. They basically do whatever they want.

We need accountability. If you want a very simple example, more than once I've had a state trooper pass me in a 70mph zone going AT LEAST 10mph over the speed limit, with no lights or sirens. I've seen that state trooper later at the rest stop taking a piss. He wasn't speeding to an accident or following a perp. He was creating a traffic hazard by speeding simply because he really needed to relieve himself.

It sounds trivial but it's not. There's zero accountability. A lot of these guys don't live by the same laws they enforce.

[planetdoc]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

I was answering the suggestion of shooting the cops for entering, if the homeowner feels they are entering illegally.

I value life as precious and would not advocate lethal force by either LEO or civilians unless they clearly thought their life (or a victim) was in danger. Unfortunately "clearly thinking that their life was in danger" is subjective and the best that people can do is to work to minimize LEO-civilian encounters.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You're assuming said "rules of engagement" will actually be followed....We need accountability.

I agree that their needs to be accountability. One way would be body cameras for LEO. Another would be legalizing the ability of citizens to form a criminal grand jury (after meeting some strict threshold) for when DA refuse to prosecute.

there has to be checks and balances in the system.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

I didn't excuse this. I've already said this is how you handle cops overstepping their bounds. Don't "shoot them" as philfree suggests, use litigation. And to you, don't presume to know me.

I didn't really suggest shooting the cops I just pointed out that if didn't have a warrant you would be within your rights. Then the other point is that exercising your rights won't end well for you. You'll be dead or in prison. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most people who have their rights violated by law enforcement end up with nothing and the violators end up with maybe a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all. They were just following orders and doing their job.

[Kaepernick]

[LOCOChief]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

Are you just another dumbass warrant officer over stepping?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

These LAPD officers needed more firepower......

Almost a decade has past. Now the LEO's are armed to the gills.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by LOCOChief

Almost a decade has past. Now the LEO's are armed to the gills.

Peaceful, low-crime towns need their police forces to have tanks. It's because of all the terrorists, you see.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Peaceful, low-crime towns need their police forces to have tanks. It's because of all the terrorists, you see.

Exactly.

[crazycoffey]

St. Louis is not a low crime peaceful neighborhood......

[Al Bundy]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

Are you just another dumbass warrant officer over stepping?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

These LAPD officers needed more firepower......

1 time in the thousands of times that they have more than enough fire power.

[Randallflagg]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

Lolzzzzz..... You sooo got me.

It's not about "getting" anyone and isn't rather childish of you to characterize it like that. And to think that you carry a loaded weapon.

Take a long hard look at that picture:

http://therionorteline.files.wordpre...20244555_n.jpg


The idea that it probably doesn't make you cringe should tell you where we are as a country.

[Pepe Silvia]

Originally Posted by Kaepernick

We're so ****ed.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by BiStateNo

It's not about "getting" anyone and isn't rather childish of you to characterize it like that. And to think that you carry a loaded weapon.

Take a long hard look at that picture:

http://therionorteline.files.wordpre...20244555_n.jpg


The idea that it probably doesn't make you cringe should tell you where we are as a country.

It was meant as, you're a troll, I don't believe your even a vet or were a warrant officer. As far as that picture, it's hyperbole. Spin it how you want, enjoy the bash fest.

Let's see, you would court martial 7 guys based off a 4 minute video without so much as an interview. Yup, if you were a CWO, you were a dumb one.

As far as stereotypes go, you tried saying I was a community college drop out who still thinks he's in Iraq. (Bold statements from Vietnam era vet, if you really are). Guess what, after my first 8 I spent 6 years getting my degree, 6 years ago I re-enlisted and they wanted me to be a warrant officer. I declined. I wanted to be with the real men doing real work, enlisted.

Now you show an Internet meme, and say it's the scary reality. But it's not, not even close. Not even in north or east St. Louis are the everyday uniforms like SWAT gear.

And because it's an Internet forum I use mostly to read sporting news, jokes and the girlie picture threads, I gave you a brush off. Which you took as me being childish, and accuse me unfit to carry a gun. Without so much as knowing more than one opinion of mine. Way to continue perpetuating the dumbass warrant officer stereotype again, cur.

[Randallflagg]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

It was meant as, you're a troll, I don't believe your even a vet or were a warrant officer. As far as that picture, it's hyperbole. Spin it how you want, enjoy the bash fest.

Let's see, you would court martial 7 guys based off a 4 minute video without so much as an interview. Yup, if you were a CWO, you were a dumb one.

As far as stereotypes go, you tried saying I was a community college drop out who still thinks he's in Iraq. (Bold statements from Vietnam era vet, if you really are). Guess what, after my first 8 I spent 6 years getting my degree, 6 years ago I re-enlisted and they wanted me to be a warrant officer. I declined. I wanted to be with the real men doing real work, enlisted.

Now you show an Internet meme, and say it's the scary reality. But it's not, not even close. Not even in north or east St. Louis are the everyday uniforms like SWAT gear.

And because it's an Internet forum I use mostly to read sporting news, jokes and the girlie picture threads, I gave you a brush off. Which you took as me being childish, and accuse me unfit to carry a gun. Without so much as knowing more than one opinion of mine. Way to continue perpetuating the dumbass warrant officer stereotype again, cur.

Hit a raw nerve didn't I Barney? I have no doubt that you are a cop . you stand by your brothers well with your "us versus them" mentality. And yes, I would have charged those "heroes" with every court martial offense I could come up with. "I wanted to be with real men doing real work" . Uh -huh. And that "real work" followed you home with your Guard unit, didn't it? I'm in no way belittling the work you did during your service. I applaud it. My biggest problem with vets that come home and go to work for the police is that they can't put Iraq, or Afghanistan or whatever, behind them.

The picture IS reality mister. Show me one SWAT team that doesn't put on their little GI Joe uniforms. Just one. And I am NOT a "Viet Nam era vet" I joined in 1967 as an E1. Basic Training and AIT at Fort Benning, GA - 11B. Got orders to Viet Nam in March 1968 and fought at Li Trau, and the Ashau Valley. Wounded once and spent 3 months in hospital at Frankfurt Germany. Returned to the 25th Infantry and remained there until I was wounded AGAIN North of Quang Tri June 1970. When I left Viet Nam - I was a SSG 11B40. I then transitioned from 11B to 97B and attended Warrant Officer School at Fort Devens MA and then at Fort Huachuca AZ. I then returned to Germany where I served at Heidleberg (USEURER) Command and the 8th Inf for the next 2 years and then at Berlin ( at both the Berlin Brigade and the American Embassy at Berlin) and then at the embassy at Moscow for 2 years.

I retired in 1989 as a CW4. I am a life member of the VFW, the American Legion AND, as a bonus, the NRA.

While I understand your anger, defending the indefensible will get you nowhere. There are fine police officers out there. I STILL believe it. But there are FAR too many out there who believe that this "us versus them" mentality gives them free reign to turn the public into the enemy.

I was talking to one of those retired "First Sergeants" that you are so fond of the other night at the hall. We were enjoying a beer and talking in general and he asks me "Chief - are we losing this country?" And I told him that we (he and I - won't see it) but I have a feeling that our great grandchildren will live in a totally different country that we defended and live in. Think I'm kidding? Just ask the NSA, The IRS, police agencies. The NSA operates in direct violation of Federal Law on American Soil, The IRS has one of the most extensive Security Forces on the planet, Police agencies routinely deny Americans their Constitutional Rights (and then laugh it off) and are being armed (Again, against the Constitution) as though they are an invading force. Why?

Tell your buddies to go on with their "us versus them" mentality but I will caution you with this: There are a hell of a lot more of "Them" than there are "us".