Department of Education calls out SWAT over student loan default

[divona2000]

...even a cursory review of the facts shows this looks like a much bigger deal than the husband could ever imagine. For example, the affidavit in support of the search warrant is forty pages:
http://www.fatwallet.com/static/attachments/93797_ed_dept_wright_warrant_060711.pdf

Wifey must be up to her ears in some huge scheme.

...Financial Aid Fraud...Conspiracy...Theft of Government Funds...False Statement to Government Agency...Wire Fraud...

and it reads like she was running a scam with false IDs to get more money.

 

[BOR_]

They should do this for any late student loan ! Pay up or ELSE.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Pity. You had an opportunity to give an insightful introspective answer and chose not too. I thought better of you than that.

I always take for granted that Carl's posts will adhere to the highest standards of both this forum and his own sense of integrity and reason. My continued assumptions have been reinforced by his posts in this thread.

Last year, I had a very personal lesson in the tendency of "respected" news media to use inflammatory hyperbole when reporting on the actions of law enforcement. Hyperbole? Try outright lies. Coupled with the mob-stupidity of the Internet? Not the basis for a sound opinion, by any means.

LOL...and The Huffington Post???...yeah.

 

[CdwJava]

Pity. You had an opportunity to give an insightful introspective answer and chose not too. I thought better of you than that.

DC

And exactly what "insightful introspective" response would you expect me to provide in an incident that is both wildly exaggerated on the internet and lacking in detail anywhere else? Should I have shaken my fist in the air and yelled, "Yeah! Bad news! Hang 'em!" without knowing the truth?

I have no specific knowledge of this event, but have a great deal of knowledge of media portrayals of police actions and the legal and practical limitations impeding agencies abilities to respond.

Sorry, but if you expected me to be a sheeple and blindly follow baseless, uninformed internet anger, you will be disappointed every time.

 

[TigerD]

And exactly what "insightful introspective" response would you expect me to provide in an incident that is both wildly exaggerated on the internet and lacking in detail anywhere else? Should I have shaken my fist in the air and yelled, "Yeah! Bad news! Hang 'em!" without knowing the truth?

No, but you could have acknowledged the growing tension between civilians and police. You could have discussed why you feel dynamic entries are good as opposed to simple knocking. You could have used your experience to cast a light on the other side of a situation that goes more troubled every day. Instead you chose to echo the mindless my-side-is-always-right mentality of the blue wall, ignoring the very truthful fact that mistakes are made and bad cops exist. You chose to further the attitude that is creating tension between militant police and a citizen base that should expect better from their police forces.

I have no specific knowledge of this event, but have a great deal of knowledge of media portrayals of police actions and the legal and practical limitations impeding agencies abilities to respond.

Ah, more us v them. When the police are picking a side like that, they cease to be a valid law enforcement organization and reduce themselves to being a street gang. I've read your postings, come on, you're better than that.

Sorry, but if you expected me to be a sheeple and blindly follow baseless, uninformed internet anger, you will be disappointed every time.

I don't know you well enough to have have expectations of you. I had hoped you would have contributed to the discussion of the great issue of militant-style policing and perhaps comment on how the community-policing model evolved to this state.

You don't have to discuss the issues I raised in my points.

Trying to play off the militant-policing problem that has been growing in America is just silly. Everyday more and more rights are stripped from our fellow citizens under the guise of safety. Why bother with waiting for a warrant - just sign one yourself. The feds are doing it - it will work its way to the state soon enough. The fourth amendment - bah, ancient law unfit for a modern world. What would really make people safer would be to take away the guns, so police don't have to worry when they are kicking in the doors of law-abiding people. Second amendment, don't need it. And the media -- always talking bad about the police and other government agencies -- well, we can't shut 'em down yet, but we can threaten, obfuscate and obstruct the gathering of news. Then we'll refuse to comment because it's an ongoing case, dontcha know. Wink wink nudge nudge. But they never tell our side of the story. That silly little first amendment thing, we should of gotten rid of that long time ago.

And then what's left. The bullies from high school wearing badges lording over the suspects --- I mean citizens --- like, well, like street gangs in California or northern Mexico.

DC

 

[CdwJava]

No, but you could have acknowledged the growing tension between civilians and police.

Funny, I don't see that. If it exists, it is because of those groups that feel they have a right to behave poorly. In some communities there might be growing tensions, but, if you dig deep enough you tend to find that the causes are not solely the responsibility police and very often agitators that stir the pot at every opportunity taking one aspect of an incident or story and highlighting it to stir emotions. History is rife with such actions, not just in our country.

You could have discussed why you feel dynamic entries are good as opposed to simple knocking.

I am not going to enter into a treatise on officer safety. As I may have mentioned, for some reason the officers felt that there was a safety issue so they felt that dynamic entry was preferable to calmly waiting for a knock to be answered.

If the information is that the suspect might be armed, or might destroy evidence, the police will ask for a waiver to the knock and announce rule. We don't know that this was waived here. For all we know they knocked, announced, and after receiving no answer they forced the door (which is permitted by the search warrant, FYI). We also do not know why they felt it necessary to make entry with a group of officers. It may have been overkill on their part, it also may have been as a result of intel that said the suspect(s) were armed or might destroy evidence.

Dynamic entry with sufficient bodies to quickly make entry and secure the residence is an outstanding way to prevent injury or death. Rather that giving people time to arm themselves, barricade themselves, destroy evidence, or take hostages, everyone is detained as quickly as possible. Can it be scary? Certainly. Is cared better than being dead or injured? Yes.

Until the FACTS come out - something which you and others seem to care little about - we do not know any of the background here.

You could have used your experience to cast a light on the other side of a situation that goes more troubled every day. Instead you chose to echo the mindless my-side-is-always-right mentality of the blue wall, ignoring the very truthful fact that mistakes are made and bad cops exist.

Of course .. that's what I did. Perhaps you need to re-read it and find where I ever have once said that mistakes are never made.

Though, what I am saying we should wait for the facts. Apparently you are satisfied to base your anger on an oft-repeated, copy and pasted story zipping around the internet and has little evidence to support any of the details.

Ah, more us v them. When the police are picking a side like that, they cease to be a valid law enforcement organization and reduce themselves to being a street gang. I've read your postings, come on, you're better than that.

Gee, I am sorry ... I did not realize that posting the truth was contrinuting to an "us vs. them" atmosphere. I guess I miss where posting that I don't know the facts, and that law enforcement agencies cannot effectively respond in detail to accusations of wrongdoing were contributing to this matter.

Or, do you believe that they CAN respond to accusations and that I DO know the facts?

I don't know you well enough to have have expectations of you. I had hoped you would have contributed to the discussion of the great issue of militant-style policing and perhaps comment on how the community-policing model evolved to this state.

Oh, I can wax poetic on policing styles, but this is not a story on policing styles nor is this a website to discuss theories of policing. The question is not whether or not a dynamic entry can be a good tactic, because it most certainly can be. The question for a civil court (if it goes to a civil court) will be whether or not the force used was reasonable given the information the agency knew or believed at the time. Once again, we don't have the information to make that determination, do you?

Trying to play off the militant-policing problem that has been growing in America is just silly. Everyday more and more rights are stripped from our fellow citizens under the guise of safety. Why bother with waiting for a warrant - just sign one yourself. The feds are doing it - it will work its way to the state soon enough. The fourth amendment - bah, ancient law unfit for a modern world.

Things must be okay if you are complaining about rights being stripped away, and the cops are complaining about the crooks having too many rights.

And, you keep harping on this "militant policing" thing. Truth be told, the trend has gone far away the styles of policing you might consider "militant" for many years. By militant, I suppose you mean that any time the cops have to get tough, look tough, or gear up they are being militant. Well, my friend, there are times that this is necessary. Barney Fife is not equipped to handle much of what we have to deal with today. And with 2011 being a banner year in officer murders, you can probably expect cops to get a lot more in tune with their safety. That will mean an increase in safety measures during detentions, potentially "cold" encounters with suspicious officers, and more multiple officer and dynamic entries on search warrants.

It is the world that we all live in, not the world that the police made. So get off that wagon and put the blame on society, not the cops. Law enforcement is a very reactive culture, they react to the events around them. If they are getting more robo-cop like in some places, or more "militant" it is because the societal pressures about them have compelled them to turn to these methods.

What would really make people safer would be to take away the guns, so police don't have to worry when they are kicking in the doors of law-abiding people. Second amendment, don't need it.

Ah, I see, the Fourth is good, the Second is bad. Any other Amendments you dislike?

The police have to abide by ALL the laws. That includes the Second Amendment.

And the media -- always talking bad about the police and other government agencies -- well, we can't shut 'em down yet, but we can threaten, obfuscate and obstruct the gathering of news.

Nah, the news media is doing it to itself. They are becoming largely irrelevant because of the bias present or perceived in most major media outlets today. People now search for news sources on the internet that present stories and spin that they agree with. You can break down people by belief systems or political ideology to some degree by finding out where they receive their news, and which sources are most trusted by them.

The media - mainly the non-mainstream media on the internet - is becoming far more intrusive than the police ever could be.

Then we'll refuse to comment because it's an ongoing case, dontcha know. Wink wink nudge nudge.

Yeah, darn those pesky laws! We shouldn't have them!

DC, on one hand you claim to support the law demanding that the police follow it, then on the other hand you seem dismissive of the law. You can't have it both ways.

But they never tell our side of the story. That silly little first amendment thing, we should of gotten rid of that long time ago.

Didn't say they SHOULD NOT tell their side. Never said it. What I said was that there is most often only ONE SIDE of a story told in the media because that is about all of the story the media can get, at least early on. No one has ever remotely hinted at preventing the press from publishing the claims of an aggrieved party, victim, witness, or loud mouth rabblerouser. As with most things, a reader should keep an open mind and understand that he or she is not getting the full story from the media. And, the more you understand about the local TV news and the print media, the more you will understand why breaking news stories are often incomplete and have to rely heavily on regurgitated info often without corroboration in order to fill line space or time on the air (30 seconds). I have many friends in the media and I understand their constraints, and the pressures to come back with something - even an incomplete something. Some outlets don't care and will be careless with the info they get, others will keep it short and to the point when they do not have all the facts. But, if they have someone on camera spinning a tale, that's someone that will get air time. It's the natrure of the beast and we all have to live with it.

And then what's left. The bullies from high school wearing badges lording over the suspects --- I mean citizens --- like, well, like street gangs in California or northern Mexico.

That's so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a reply.

 

[TigerD]

DC, on one hand you claim to support the law demanding that the police follow it, then on the other hand you seem dismissive of the law. You can't have it both ways.

The last part of my last post was satire. I am the staunchest supporter of the 2nd that I've ever met. The point was to take the attitude portrayed amplify it and present it back taken to an extreme.

Again from everything I read of your postings in the past, you seem to be a good chap, but on this issue, we are destined to disagree. You are not going to acknowledge a growing problem with militant policing and I will not accept premise that "she was asking for it" as a valid defense to law enforcement excesses.

We can revisit the discussion again in three years when I am not merely discussing the issue, but rather actively countering it.

DC

PS: Full disclosure - My undergraduate degree is in journalism and I worked several years as a reporter and editor - even owning a newspaper in Missouri for a period of time. I have an MBA and a Masters in Communication. After leaving active duty I spent balance of my reserve time as an MP. I have seen both side of this discussion and I am not anti-cop. I actually worry about the effect this trend of policing is having.

 

[CdwJava]

<Sigh>

Not ONCE did I EVER say anything remotely akin to "she was asking for it." You seem to be bent on exaggerating what I have written in an effort to support your claim. A claim which I disagree with.

And in three years there will not a be a whole lot to oppose as law enforcement is getting gutted across the country. In my state we are about to suffer thousands of layoffs in less than three weeks if state funding fails to come through. Now, I can offer my opinion of what is going to happen when you have fewer officers on the street attempting to address ever increasing and violent crime, but that, too, is beyond the scope of these forums.

Returning to the topic of this post, the bottom line is that we know few facts and only the hyperbole contained within a single story repeated and slightly modified numerous times as it has been forwarded around the internet. With a highly inaccurate and misleading headline attached, of course.

When and if the real facts come out and they are as you seem to think they are, I will be happy to agree that this incident was overkill. However, I strongly suspect that when the facts do come to light, and they show something that runs contrary to the goals and objectives of those that have copied this about the ether, it will take Sherlock Holmes to find THAT particular story.

 

[TigerD]

And in three years there will not a be a whole lot to oppose as law enforcement is getting gutted across the country. In my state we are about to suffer thousands of layoffs in less than three weeks if state funding fails to come through. Now, I can offer my opinion of what is going to happen when you have fewer officers on the street attempting to address ever increasing and violent crime, but that, too, is beyond the scope of these forums.

And that is a shame. There will be large increases in crime and more violence against cops - especially in states like California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York where laws restrict people's ability to defend themselves.

Perhaps we should this on a point of agreement. I hope that you are not one of the ones to face layoff.

DC

 

[CdwJava]

And that is a shame. There will be large increases in crime and more violence against cops - especially in states like California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York where laws restrict people's ability to defend themselves.

Perhaps we should this on a point of agreement. I hope that you are not one of the ones to face layoff.

DC

I have too much seniority where I am. I'm just seeing my work hours forcibly reduced and the prospect of my retirement (which was negotiated through a loss of wage increases over the years and payment into insurance) being yanked out from under me. I'm looking for new employment and possibly out of state. And, if I can hold out for a couple more years, I'll take a partial retirement and move into something else.