backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by BZDTemp.. on May 24 at 12:51 PM


Two separate New York state homeowners recently found their doors kicked down and were arrested on suspicion of distributing child pornography. In both cases the men were innocent -- the true culprit was a neighbor cybersquatting on their Wi-Fi connection.  (Source: UTNE Reader)

Increasingly, cyber-criminals are turning to open networks to commit crimes, including distributing child porn. Government agents often miss clear clues that point that the true suspect might be someone other than the network owner. For example, in one of the N.Y. cases, the culprit had connected on a college network under the same alias -- a lead which would have led officers to a different door, had they followed up on it.  (Source: Chicago Title Co.)

At the end of the day about the only thing citizens can do to prevent their house being subjected to a police raid is to secure their wi-fi connections. But even that isn't 100 percent foolproof as secure routers can be hacked.  (Source: Chronicle UK)
Homeowners arrested, held and gunpoint for neighbors' child pornography

It's a common practice that seems like generosity, but could lead to your home being invaded by federal agents.  Recent cases underscore the dangerous nature of having an unsecured Wi-Fi router.

I. A Rude Awakening

On March 7 at 6:30 a.m. a resident of Buffalo, New York received the scare of a lifetime.  With a thunderous crash his front door was broken, awaking the man and his wife.  Putting a robe on and rushing downstairs he saw federal agents wearing a strange acronym I-C-E (which he would later discover stood for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

An ICE agent charged the stairs, hurling him down it, leaving him cut and bruised.  The man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recalls the agents screamed at him, "Get down! Get down on the ground!", to which the man screamed back, "Who are you? Who are you?"

Armed with assault weapons the agents began to hurl slurs at the injured suspect that gave him the first inclination of what was going on.  "Pedophile!" and "pornographer!" they screamed.

He dressed at gunpoint in the bathroom and was escorted to an interrogation room at a government facility.  Agents accused him of using the name "Doldrum" and downloading pornographic images.

The man was flabbergasted.

He recalls the agent grilling him, stating, "We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night."

He recalls arguing, "No, I didn't. Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that."

Unconvinced an agent sneered at him, "You're a creep ... just admit it."

II.  You've Got the Wrong Man!

Only he wasn't a creep.  

After having his family's laptops, iPads, and iPhones seized, federal agents would later conclude that the man was right -- he had no stash of child porn.  However, they would later discover that his 25-year-old neighbor who was accessing the man's Wi-Fi was downloading explicit videos and images.

That neighbor, John Luchetti, was arrested March 17.  

The irony is that if police had conducted a more thorough initial investigation they likely would have had a far different encounter with the first man.  Mr. Luchetti was tracked down because "Doldrum" also accessed two internet protocol (IP) addresses at State University of New York at Buffalo using a secure token.  When the university revealed the student's identity, federal agents realized that the true "Doldrum" was a man living in an apartment complex very close to their original suspect.

To be fair, Mr. Luchetti himself has pleaded not guilty to the distribution of child pornography.

The case was a tough one because in theory the feds could have done everything right in gaining warranted entry in the original suspect's home.  The feds began their investigation on February 11 when they received peer-to-peer file transfers from "Doldrum" and grabbed the IP address.

They tracked the IP downloading the files to that address, thanks to cooperation from the internet service provider.  So in theory, the homeowner could have been the primary suspect.

On the other hand, as mentioned, "Doldrum" also connected from other IPs and a thorough investigation would have revealed that.  

U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak reportedly have apologized to the homeowner.  

Amazingly, in today's era of "fast-food lawsuits" the homeowner is not suing the government.  He just wants to share his story with the media as a warning to other homeowners and to pressure federal agents to be more thorough in their searches.

III. Unsecured Wi-Fi: Not Uncommon

According to a study conducted by Wakefield Research on behalf of the Wi-Fi Alliance, approximately 32 percent of adults have used someone's unsecured Wi-Fi connection without their knowledge or permission.  The study, which polled 1,054 Americans age 18 and older, also estimates that America has 201 million Wi-Fi connections.  

Ironically 40 percent of people said they were more likely to give their house key to someone than their Wi-Fi key.  The admission illustrates the dichotomy between those with some knowledge of security and those who fail to understand the repercussions of leaving your virtual door open.

Some understand the risks and willing open their connections, though.

Rebecca Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues argues that people shouldn't be afraid to leave their networks unsecure.  In an interview with the Associate Press, she states, "I think it's convenient and polite to have an open Wi-Fi network.  Public Wi-Fi is for the common good and I'm happy to participate in that — and lots of people are."

Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, disagrees.  He states, "[Whether you're guilty of downloads on open networks] you look like the suspect."

He adds that accessing open networks without permission is a legal gray area today.  He explains, "The question is whether it's unauthorized access and so you have to say, 'Is an open wireless point implicitly authorizing users or not? We don't know.  The law prohibits unauthorized access and it's just not clear what's authorized with an open unsecured wireless."

The Federal government for its part argues that homeowners shouldn't leave their networks open.  The Computer Emergency Readiness Team -- a federal organization -- suggests users disable their networks from broadcasting their presence.  They also suggest that users change the default passwords (which are widely known) and keep their routers patched (to prevent exploits).  At the end of the day, though, many users won't have the knowledge and skills to follow through on such suggestions.

It's also important to consider that there are ways to break into most consumer "secured" network routers, as well.  Having password-protected encrypted traffic is no guarantee that your connection is completely safe from savvy cyber-miscreants.

However, it's perhaps best not to make things easy for abusers by leaving your connection wide open.  

Stories of bad experiences are mounting.  A Sarasota, Fla. man had a cybersquatter download tens of thousands of child porn images from his marina's network by boosting his signal using a potato chip can.  And in North Syracuse, N.Y. a man this spring was greeted by authorities who suspected he was downloading child porn.  It turned out it was his neighbor, who was arrested April 12.

Aside from law enforcement and child porn, thousands have received threats from the Recording Industry Association of America and other industry groups for infringed copyrighted materials that were downloaded over their connection.  Some of these individuals were forced into payouts totaling thousands of dollars.

The issue of open networks and how law enforcement should deal with them is an issue that seems certain to only grow as time passes.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Swat team for a this?
By theapparition on 4/25/2011 11:01:00 AM , Rating: 5
This is ridiculous.

Pedo's are cowardly worthless scum. But why do you need a federal battalian with basically swat tactics to break down someones door in the middle of the night and hold someone and thier family at gunpoint.




RE: Swat team for a this?
By theapparition on 4/25/2011 11:01:41 AM , Rating: 5
This could have been accomplished by knocking on his door, asking him to step outside and calmly taking him into custody while the investigation continued. That's the worst that should have happened, at best, they could have done more dilligence in the first place and not even tried to arrest this person.

Had to post this as a reply since DT's spam filter is fubar.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrTeal on 4/25/2011 11:11:07 AM , Rating: 4
I think the some police departments have watched one too many hacker movies, and think that everyone has kill switches installed where a couple keystrokes will secure erased all the hard drives in the house before they can secure them.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By therealnickdanger on 4/25/2011 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
That or a thermite reaction. haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-ckechIqW0


RE: Swat team for a this?
By heffeque on 4/25/2011 11:49:53 AM , Rating: 4
What I don't understand is why the police think that an IP address equals a person. Why is the owner of an internet connection he main subject? Why does the police think that only one person can access an internet connection? Don't they know that an internet connection can be shared and even open to anyone who passes near your wifi AP? Will they do the same to the Starbucks owner if some pedo downloads kiddy porn from his store?

IP is NOT what identifies a person even if that person uses a secured wifi network.

I'm shocked that the policemen didn't learn that years ago.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By ekv on 4/25/2011 8:02:34 PM , Rating: 1
umm, IIRC an IP does identify you according to DT.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By jconan on 4/26/2011 3:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
but not all ips are static. There is a limited number of ips, and typically those are pooled or shared aka dynamic ips. That's why it's impossible to host a site on dynamic ips.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By dsumanik on 4/26/2011 8:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
Actually even this is possible with the use of dynamic DNS Services(DDNS)

I had to set up a clients website and mail server in a remote location that was only connected via satellite uplink.....the satellite provider would not provide a static IP for them for some lame ass reason so DDNS was the only route... sure it can be prone to intermittent outages, but if you set all your polling rates on a tight schedule and time your IP refresh during non peak hours in the middle of the night, for the most part no one even knows unless something wierd like a power bump happens, and even then its temporary DNS routing problem, the mail just piles up and comes through all in one big gulp after heh.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By ekv on 4/26/2011 4:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nor is my IP static. However, if you're ISP simply reassigns you the same IP continually ....

Not hosting a site. However, if you torrent videos or pictures, as was the case with the OP, no?, then your IP can be tracked, and hence 'you.'


RE: Swat team for a this?
By BZDTemp on 5/24/2011 12:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not that it means one IP = one person, but ISP's will log what IP number is given to a specific account at a specific time. So and IP + time can normally tell what person/company is the main go to, but of course not if there is one or a thousand people using that IP adress.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By HrilL on 4/25/2011 8:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Completely agree. NAT has been around for ages and as IPv4 is about maxed at this point its likely to be used more widely because making the switch to IPv6 is going to take a lot longer then you might expect.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By dragonbif on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrBlastman on 4/25/2011 11:57:06 AM , Rating: 4
In my State, we have something known as "Castle Doctrine," or at least, pretty darned close to it. Basically, the gist behind it is your house, your car or any other property of yours that you can reside in--is your "castle." As such, you are permitted to use deadly force against anyone who you suspect has invaded your home.

Basically, if you see someone in your house and you don't want them there (as you concur they aren't supposed to be there), you can fill them full of lead, give them flow-through ventilation assistance, or, if you really are crazy, ginsu them with a katana better than the guy on the home shopping network did to himself (look it up).

Granted, New York is not a "Castle Doctrine" state (due to their oppressive gun laws that give criminals far more advantages than the innocent), had this been carried out in many of the other states that DO have it (31 to be exact), this could have ended very badly for the officers who at the time might have had a warrant and probable cause, they had no specific proof of guilt nor a conviction to base their action upon. I argue that it clearly could turn into a gigantic legal battle that might go as high as the Supreme Court. I'm waiting for it to happen, actually.

Some innocent homeowner is going to be awakened in the middle of the night and plug a bunch of officers (you have
no idea what kind of heavy firepower they might have in their house), possibly get plugged themselves or wounded and a massive lawsuit/criminal proceeding ensuses plus a countersuit. Just wait. It is going to happen.

Granted, New York has a weak or unspecific doctrine that states thus:

quote:
(May not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor.)


I will say that the police and FBI have literally "dodged a bullett" on this one. What I gather from the article is complete recklessness on the part of the invading authorities. They had no idea...

a. What the man in question looked like.
b. The background of this man (other than the non-existence of a criminal background).
c. Whether or not he was armed or a eminent danger to society.

Per the tidbits of the article that they did know, I feel they did a really, really poor job here. I also think they should feel extremely lucky and fortunate the homeowner is not pursuing a lawsuit against them.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By aegisofrime on 4/25/2011 12:05:52 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not American, so allow me this opportunity to learn something about America...

While I like the idea of the Castle Doctrine, what do you think is going to happen in this case? The police in question in the article were presumably, rather heavily armed (assault weapons, M-4 or M-16s?), so how will it end? Innocent civilian defending his home, fires a M1911 at the police. Police returns fire, kills civilian due to overwhelming numbers. What will the case be treated as? A civilian who died defending his home, or a civilian attempting to kill law enforcement (I have no idea what it will be called). In this case the defendant is dead, so who will be able to argue castle doctrine?


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrBlastman on 4/25/2011 12:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
We don't all own just M1911's or 9 mm handguns here in the states. Many of us pack high-caliber assault rifles with steel core (or better) ammunition optimized for kinetic energy injection into the target. Also, much of this ammunition goes right through steel and kevlar plating.

This is all perfectly legal here, also. In fact, with the proper documentation, Americans can also still own fully-automatic weaponry and additionally own supressors (in the evil media they are known as silencers used by murderers!--but they aren't really all that bad). With the inclusion of the ownership within trusts, you can tiptoe around several stipulations such as giving up your right to search and seizure.

But, I digress now and move to your point.

quote:
In this case the defendant is dead, so who will be able to argue castle doctrine?


His spouse. The article specifically mentions he was in bed with his wife. He also might have had children.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By RivuxGamma on 4/25/2011 2:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
Please keep in mind that "many," in this case, doesn't mean most, or even half. It means more like "several." While I don't know the specific numbers, I'd take a guess that the number of people in the US with high-powered rifles and armor-piercing ammo is much closer to 1% than 50%.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Regected on 4/26/2011 8:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the state. Here in Texas, I know the number is around 20 percent of households owning a high power fire arm. Alaska and Montana are higher. Rhode Island is close to 1 percent.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By adiposity on 4/25/2011 2:45:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We don't all own just M1911's or 9 mm handguns here in the states. Many of us pack high-caliber assault rifles with steel core (or better) ammunition optimized for kinetic energy injection into the target. Also, much of this ammunition goes right through steel and kevlar plating.


And yet, if SWAT breaks down your door and you try to fight back with your legal weaponry, you will probably die. If you kill all of them, you will probably be executed.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By marvdmartian on 4/25/2011 3:28:51 PM , Rating: 1
Better just to emulate this scene, from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles (NSFW, due to language).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I
(start it at ~2:15 into the clip)

Still one of the best scenes, ever!


RE: Swat team for a this?
By hyvonen on 4/25/2011 3:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
You, sir, sound like a dangerous paranoid who is starting to believe that the guns you own are meant for offense - not defense. It almost sounds like you're looking for an excuse to test your kinetic energy injection optimization of your ammo.

I understand the idea behind the american gun laws, but it seems like one can get mentally corrupted by the destructive power of the guns they have. Your rhetoric here is an example of why I feel uneasy about the gun laws in the USA.

An individual snapping is all it takes to give us yet another headline of innocent people dead. It has happened too many times already.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrBlastman on 4/25/2011 4:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you just go dig a hole in the ground then and hide in it? You can live a life rich in groundwater, secluded in darkness and no longer need your eyes, ears and nose to have a long life. You can sustain yourself on canned goods and other tidbits that trickle down--and perhaps even hydroponically grow plants from piped in sunlight.

Yes, what an existance. Slave to your own abode due to being afraid of people who wish to live "free" and actually cherish it. Is living in your own personal prison really worth holding this fear?

Yeah, I'm totally a dangerous paranoid for believing in Americans having a right to defend their homes against an invader--and moreso a paranoid for actually taking the time to research weaponry and ammunition to know what might shoot through a wall and might not (in most situation you'd want to chose a magazine with ammunition that will fragment upon contact with walls so as to not harm people on the other side).

Yes. I'm _totally_ a lunatic trying to do harm.

Wake up! It is YOU, the fear-filled, gun-fearing public that are the ones that are a danger to our country! You harp and moan all day about how dangerous these weapons are yet you take very little to no time trying to understand them. I shudder that should you ever be forced to stand up and defend yourself with a firearm that you shoot someone next to you or even yourself.

I would easily say that about 99% of the people I have met that have firearms are among the most responsible and trustworthy people out there. They understand the power and lethality of what they have in their hands and recognize it is their absolute need to practice learn as much as they can about it so they use them in a safe, responsible manner.

Guess what? You're right about ONE thing--all it takes is another "individual snapping." Yes, correct. It is always the nutcase behind the trigger, not the weapon itself that gives us a bad name.

However, have you ever wondered why the news typically does not report on homeowners successfully defending their property and instead, only reports on murders? There are exceptions, of course, like that woman with a pink gun--usually though they only report the bad. Why? Because they don't want you to know of all the lives saved by people carrying.

Do you really think the police are here to save you? I quote a fellow police officer, a friend of mine, "We're not here to save you, we're here to show up after a crime occurs and to solve it while picking up the pieces."

The majority of these so called "nutcase" massacres have occured on properties or locations that either have laws preventing individuals from carrying to defend themselves, or in areas where nobody was carrying. The nutcases who do try and do something insane around those who are armed usually are the ones you hear about on the news getting taken out by the general public.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By ekv on 4/25/2011 8:14:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is YOU, the fear-filled, gun-fearing public that are the ones that are a danger to our country!
I'm reminded of the bumper sticker 'Education is national defense.' Education about how to use a gun correctly [vs. incorrectly] goes a long way towards keeping all concerned alive.

Most, if not all, states already have mandatory education on one of the more dangerous weapons that is easily available. Nevertheless, people still drink 'n drive. Perhaps we ought to have background checks, etc. for drivers? More laws on the books for guns than for any other activity.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By hyvonen on 4/26/2011 3:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - a lot of people driving shouldn't be driving.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By hyvonen on 4/26/2011 3:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
Nowhere in your long, emotional reply did you comment on my suggestion that it seemed you might be considering your guns to be for offense - not defense. This is the key issue I have with gun ownership.

I'm all for defending your own home, but when the discussion moves to the topic of rights to have assault weapons, fully automatic weapons and suppressors, it is steering a bit too much away from the idea of 'defense'. Do you think a suppressor is needed for defending your home?

I've met a lot of very responsible folks that own firearms. I've also met a few that - in my opinion - aren't mature enough to own them. With these people, having a gun seems to bring about aggressive behavior and veiled threats - having a gun seems to 'empower' them to be aggressive. If 1% of gun owners fall into this category, it's too much. Better screening to weed out these folks would make me much more comfortable... I'm just not sure how the screening should be set up.

A nutcase killing a bunch of people wouldn't be prevented by somebody carrying. Most likely the nutcase would shoot them first (the biggest threat). It would also be possible that they would get shot by the police, or by someone else carrying. NOBODY carrying would obviously prevent these massacres... but with the gun ownership laws being what they are, that's impossible.

And don't worry. I won't shoot myself with a gun - I have military training.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrBlastman on 4/26/2011 10:34:36 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, a supressor for home defense is invaluable. A .223 round or larger puts out enough sonic energy in decibels to cause permanent hearing loss after only a couple of shots when fired indoors in a confined space. When you are lying in bed and an intruder breaks in, are you really going to have time to put earplugs in or put electronic earmuffs on with sound amplification?

Probably not.

Also, what about your family members such as your wife or children? What about their hearing? A supressor allows you to prevent this hearing loss by a significant margin and allow you to focus on defending your surroundings and not worry that if you pull the trigger it might be the last thing you ever hear.

Also, how would the assailant nutcase know who the biggest threat was if people were carrying in a concealed manner? All you have to do is apply for a concealed carry permit and this problem is solved. It isn't hard to do at all.

Yeah, I agree there are some loons that really let it go to their heads. They get the "big man with a gun" syndrome. The problem is, there really isn't any easy way to weed these individuals out--unless you perform some sort of psychological profiling before you allow them to purchase a weapon. Sadly, even some of the greatest psychopaths fall completely under the radar until it is too late, even if they were profiled. You'd also have to get around the barrier of the second amendment which many would argue in court that putting such measures in place violate it.

It's a tough spot. America is full of guns as it is now. All increased gun control does at the moment is harm the people who are innocent who only want to stand up for their families and defend themselves while letting the crazies and criminals get away with whatever they want to do.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Jalek on 4/26/2011 2:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be that tough, a two year service requirement would get everyone at least a bit familiar with small arms and they would have an opportunity to find and classify the clearly defective people.

That said, it sounds like more guns is exactly what is needed if government agents like Immigration use assault weapons to arrest someone for non-violent crimes without any indication that the suspect is dangerous. I still don't know what ICE had to do with this, much like the TSA agent that went to someone's house to seize his computers.

The rule of law and reasonable procedures should apply to law enforcement as well as people. What were the terrorists supposedly after? I think they got it.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By EricMartello on 4/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Swat team for a this?
By nolisi on 4/28/2011 2:54:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Think about it - in all these news reports where you see one or two people go into a populated area and start shooting, do you ever hear about anyone shooting back?


This is a nice idea, but in practice, it's a weak argument. The likelihood is that anyone who's willing to riddle a crowd with bullets isn't going to care whether someone in that crowd might have a gun to shoot back with. They're already far beyond the barrier of common sense.

The other likelihood is that if someone decides to shoot you and you don't know it (much like these crowds don't know it), it doesn't matter if you're carrying a loaded, fully automatic weapon. If they shoot you first when you're not suspecting it, you're likely not going to be able to shoot back, so owning that gun isn't going to do anything against a threat you don't know is going to hit you first.

The defense logic is total BS- guns are offensive tools by nature. It is impossible to "defend" yourself or your family with them. There are only two possibilities with a gun:
1)Shoot before a threat shoots you (unless you're in a war or a gang member, 9 times out of 10 you don't know if someone's going to harm you)
2)Shoot after being shot at/harmed (which constitutes revenge/payback, not defense)

Anyone who decides they're going to shoot you knows that you might shoot back, realizes the risks, and decides it's worth it. Or, they don't, and are crazy, therefore it doesn't matter anyway.

There is no possible way to use a gun for defense as it cannot prevent harm.*

*I own a gun a believe in my second amendment rights.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By nolisi on 4/28/2011 2:59:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is no possible way to use a gun for defense as it cannot prevent harm.*


By the way, look up what the word defend/defense means before you get emotional and attack my argument.

If you want to shoot someone back after they've shot you, fine, I can accept that, and I'm for that idea. Just don't call it defense.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By EricMartello on 4/28/2011 5:16:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is a nice idea, but in practice, it's a weak argument. The likelihood is that anyone who's willing to riddle a crowd with bullets isn't going to care whether someone in that crowd might have a gun to shoot back with. They're already far beyond the barrier of common sense.


I didn't say it was a deterrent, I meant that if there were more armed citizens, it would be a lot more difficult for someone to go on a shooting rampage. Sure, he may still take out a few but he'd be put down long before he can do any real damage.

quote:
The other likelihood is that if someone decides to shoot you and you don't know it (much like these crowds don't know it), it doesn't matter if you're carrying a loaded, fully automatic weapon. If they shoot you first when you're not suspecting it, you're likely not going to be able to shoot back, so owning that gun isn't going to do anything against a threat you don't know is going to hit you first.


You're making some weak assumptions here. First of all, you're assuming that only one person in the crowd would be armed and capable of retaliating. You're also assuming that the "surprise attack" would take out the only person capable of retaliating right away.

You clearly didn't put much thought into your response. If I hear gunshots and I am not hit, I'm running for cover...and if I have a gun, I will do my best to identify and neutralize the threat. Since most people do not carry guns they have no recourse other than to hide. My point is that if most people were carrying guns, then they could retaliate and stop "lunatics on a rampage". I never said the body count would be zero.

quote:
The defense logic is total BS- guns are offensive tools by nature. It is impossible to "defend" yourself or your family with them. There are only two possibilities with a gun: 1)Shoot before a threat shoots you (unless you're in a war or a gang member, 9 times out of 10 you don't know if someone's going to harm you) 2)Shoot after being shot at/harmed (which constitutes revenge/payback, not defense)


Really hung up on the word "defense" but you don't seem to understand it...in a life or death situation, you DEFEND until you are either dead or the threat is eliminated.

quote:
Anyone who decides they're going to shoot you knows that you might shoot back, realizes the risks, and decides it's worth it. Or, they don't, and are crazy, therefore it doesn't matter anyway. There is no possible way to use a gun for defense as it cannot prevent harm.* *I own a gun a believe in my second amendment rights.


The act of defending is basically defined as "warding off or stopping an attack". Why are you talking about harm? It's not a qualifier for defense. Defending does not mean "preventing harm". If you are shot and you can shoot back, you are DEFENDING YOUR LIFE. Obviously someone who shot you is intending to kill you, and if they did not it is a logical conclusion that they will continue to attack until you are dead.

You wasted time to make a long post full of asinine assertions and completely fail logic, when you do not even grasp the fundamental meaning of SELF DEFENSE. I'm increasingly less surprised at how low the bar has fallen for the average DT reader/poster.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By glennc on 5/2/2011 3:12:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I didn't say it was a deterrent, I meant that if there were more armed citizens, it would be a lot more difficult for someone to go on a shooting rampage. Sure, he may still take out a few but he'd be put down long before he can do any real damage


we may be ignorant but you are delusional. a lot more people are killed by guns that are not from a shooting rampage. the world is in trouble with your nation in the mindset it is in.

OH MY GOD


RE: Swat team for a this?
By EricMartello on 5/4/2011 5:47:54 PM , Rating: 1
A rampage happens when an armed person or people are able to attack without anyone shooting back, and therefore they can rack up a hefty body count BECAUSE NOBODY CAN STOP THEM.

If more "regular citizens" were packing heat as a matter of personal protection, rampages would be prevented due to the fact that the people who were previously the victims could now shoot back and stop the attacker BEFORE it becomes a bloodbath.

Try to grasp this difficult concept...I know the idea I'm presenting - leveling the playing field - may be a challenge for some of you to comprehend.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By tastyratz on 4/25/2011 4:04:32 PM , Rating: 1
"An armed society is a polite society"

Everyone has a right to and should absolutely own a weapon for self defense. I am a firm believer in that. The difference is that guns are easily and readily available to those who should not have them. You either arm the innocent or leave the felons to know they are the only ones with guns. Home invasions certainly get kept in check by the stories of the homeowners who choose to defend themselves.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2011 12:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
This situation has been discussed at lenth on a gun forum I regularly visit. I think the concensus was that if the authorities for one reason or another raid the wrong house, the best case scenario for the innocent homeowner is that he gets forcefully detained in front of his family. If you're sound asleep and a SWAT team busts down your front door in the middle of the night, you probably won't be awake enough to realize what's going on. In that situation, if you're prepared to defend your home (as I believe you should be), you'll likely die at the hands of the authorities. However, I belive the odds that the authorities will raid your home instead of your neighbor's home is a tiny fraction of the odds that you'll be facing an armed intruder (which is quite low to begin with), so I still think it's wise to arm yourself in defense of your family.

FYI, there has been at least one case where a homeowner whose house the authorities chose to raid in error successfully defended his home (killed one officer/agent, standoff ensued). I don't remember if he was charged. IMO, he shouldn't have been. If the authorities decide it's important enough to bust down a door with weapons drawn, IMO they should get the right house.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By ICBM on 4/25/2011 12:54:50 PM , Rating: 3
Lets not make us look too gun toting crazy. It is generally NOT a good idea to just shoot someone or something without knowing what you are shooting. I am 100% for defending your home with a firearm, however I think it needs to be done responsibly. Remember you are going to be taking a life, and you better be damn sure you are shooting an intruder and not a kid sneaking back into the house, or something along those lines.

Assume you are this guy, wake up, and see what looks like a small military squad in your home. I don't care what weapon you have, it is probably not a good idea to open fire on them if you value your life.

We need common sense from home owners, not random shooting. For that matter, we need MORE common sense from the police. I think they should have the shit sued out of them, and they should be allowed to be individually sued for the name calling and roughness of someone completely innocent.

Remember this, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. So there is NO reason to smash someones face into asphalt and scream at them.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrBlastman on 4/25/2011 1:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
I actually admire this man for _not_ suing the police over this. We are in far too a litigious society these days and it is refreshing to see someone sensible enough to take the high road on this and not try to profit off of this unfortunate and potentially catastrophic mistake. I really applaud him for instead trying to spread awareness of this issue in the public forum.

Remember, Lawyers create nothing. They only transfer money and wealth from one party to another.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By corduroygt on 4/25/2011 1:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
Disagree, if they got sued, regardless of who makes money, the police will be more careful next time during their investigation, because then, the mayor would pressure the Police Department.

If that shit happened to me, I'm suing all the way.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Black1969ta on 4/27/2011 12:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
I agree; however, I think the names of the officers involved should be published. For these officers to treat a person like that is uncalled for. Monetary damages would hurt them and a few people would find out, but widespread ridicule would lend itself to being a detriment for this department and others, I don't believe these officers are ultimately responsible, policy and attitude rolls downhill, when the Chief is voted out for the behavior of his or her officers other Chiefs in other departments will take notice.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By metaltoiletry on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Swat team for a this?
By cjohnson2136 on 4/25/2011 3:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember this, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty


Fixed it for you. Regardless of the perception you have of the law and police. It is still innocent until proven guilty.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By slyck on 4/26/2011 2:13:16 AM , Rating: 1
Tell that to all the innocent convicted of crimes they did not commit.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Adonlude on 4/25/2011 2:24:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Assume you are this guy, wake up, and see what looks like a small military squad in your home.
You make a good point. I think we need to legalize hand grenades. This was clearly a hand grenade situation. Poor homeowner cant take on a squad all by himself with just a firearm. Hand grenades for homeowners!


RE: Swat team for a this?
By rcc on 4/25/2011 2:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, no hand grenades. Claymore mines for superior home defense!


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrTeal on 4/25/2011 2:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
You don't even want to think about what going to happen to your home insurance premiums once you get those installed.

Besides, what's with the lack of love for cobra pits and pressure triggered arrow traps? No one goes old-school anymore.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Lazarus Dark on 4/25/2011 7:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
screw old school. I want automated infrared-heat-activated turret guns. Shoot first, scoop up unidentifiable meat later.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2011 2:34:35 PM , Rating: 3
Oh I'm not saying he should have engaged in a firefight. But, let's play out a hypothetical here. Let's say you and your wife are sound asleep. You are startled awake by the sound of your door being kicked in. Do you go do you bedroom door and yell "YooHoo! Who's theeeeere?" Probably not. It might be in your best interest to arm yourself with a weapon and a flashlight first. (the flashlight is important for indentifying someone before you decide to shoot them). Now you just retrieved your safely locked-up yet easily accessible firearm of choice when your bedroom door gets kicked in as well and the guy who kicked it in is pointing a gun at you. If you're alert and have time to see that it's a police officer (assuming he's in the appropriate uniform), you *might* drop the gun fast enough to avoid getting shot. If it's a homicidal maniac and you try to make this distinction (remember, the guy is already pointing a gun at you), you're probably going to act too late.

I'm sorry if I came across as gun-toting crazy. I pray I never, EVER need to even retrieve a firearm to check out a strange noise (I haven't so far). I'm well aware of the legal trouble one can endure for engaging a suspect, even in a legally justified way. And that would take a back seat to knowing you altered/ended someone's life. It's not something I or anyone should take lightly.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Schrag4 on 4/25/2011 7:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an example to back up my position that if the police decide to raid your home, whether you're guitly or not, and whether you have a gun or not, it's a very dangerous situation for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU&feature...

Again, I believe if someone breaks into my house, they're far more likely to be a bad guy than the police, so I'll still arm myself. And of course if I believe it's the police then I'll make myself appear as non-threatening as possible. From the looks of it, though, this poor guy didn't have a chance.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By MrBlastman on 4/25/2011 11:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
The officer in question that shot the suspect should face a criminal proceeding. Anything less is injustice. The man had a golf club--yeah, not even a gun. This is the officers second killing in a few years, too. The first one was justified but in no way was this one.

I also think that just from watching the video the whole process of no-knock warrants need to be completely revised.

That video makes me sick to even watch.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By hyvonen on 4/26/2011 3:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yes - ugly stuff.

Just for the sake of the argument - if the person living there didn't have a right to own a gun, do you think the police would've felt as stressed to make a quick kill-or-be-killed decision? My guess is that without the risk of getting shot himself, the police wouldn't have pulled the trigger so quickly.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Schrag4 on 4/26/2011 8:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
Having the right to own a gun and actually owning one are 2 different things. In this particular case, I believe the owner of the house might have been in trouble with the law before and therefore actually probably didn't have the right to own a gun.

I think the point of your post, though, was to suggest that as a society if we didn't have the right to own guns then the police wouldn't have to go in with guns drawn. That seems to be the response after something bad happens involving a firearm. As MrBlastman suggested, though, the proper response to these sorts of things is prosecution of the officer(s) who pulled the trigger without justification and revision of police policy.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By RagingDragon on 4/28/2011 6:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Even in countries where guns are heavily restricted, illegal guns are so commonplace, police have no way to know whether or a homeowner is armed or not. I'm not american, but based on american it sure seems that alot of American law enforcement officers seem to think they're action movie stars with a god given right to beat anyone they please, shoot first, and never ask any questions.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Lerianis on 4/29/2011 3:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head about most officers in the United States. I wish that police officers were not like that, but most of them are.

The few that are left have a bad habit of thinking that they are on a mission to 'protect society' which really equates to forcing their personal likes and dislikes through fiat of law on everyone else.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By jhb116 on 4/25/2011 7:05:31 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed - I think I'd be suing just to make that point. I bet this guy would have let them in without a warrant to conduct a search to discover the truth. All they need to bring was a few officers and a computer forensics specialist to conduct a first order investigation.

So - switching gears - how do we provide internet service to all of America with these kind of issues hanging over our heads? I'll be it is this issue that will eventually force id cards for everyone - much like the US gov't uses to access networks.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By dxf2891 on 5/2/2011 2:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily. This could have been the tip of a sex slave trade. Just because you have a picture in your mind of what a pedophile is, doesn't necessarily mean that they all fall into that stereotype. Law enforcement has to be prepared for the unknown. In this case they didn't do their due diligence on their information side, but this could have just as easily been a miscalculation on the tactical side.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By tigz1218 on 4/25/2011 12:04:11 PM , Rating: 3
Completely agree. This is what happens when you have a government on a power binge.

Used to be innocent until proven guilty, but the opposite is looking more and more like the true case.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By kattanna on 4/25/2011 12:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
almost makes you want to drive by your local PETA office and connect to their wireless ;>)

but seriously, some time back i once drove around with a buddy of mine and a laptop that i had installed a decent wireless sniffer on just to see how many unsecured wireless connections there where.

a few places we pulled up out front, stopped, and surfed for a few to test. what was scary was the number of businesses and of all places, some public schools that also had open wireless.

some of those open units were completely open as we could also then access the config screens as the default passwords were still used. like someone literally opened the box and plugged it in without changing a single thing.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By masamasa on 4/25/2011 12:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just goes to show that even the feds make the assumption that you are guilty before determining if you are innocent. Backwards ass approach that just landed them in some hot water.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By Jalek on 4/26/2011 3:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
No hot water. Someone issued an apology, nothing more will come of it since there's no lawsuit.

What judge gave them a no-knock warrant based on just an IP address? So much for them being any sort of reality check.


RE: Swat team for a this?
By deathwombat on 4/29/2011 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. You send a SWAT team if you have reason to believe that the suspect is heavily armed (i.e. drug dealers, organized crime, etc.). Unless you have specific information indicating that this suspect is heavily armed, why would you need to take extreme measures to apprehend someone who is, let's not forget, presumed innocent until proven guilty?


"Secure" networks
By nafhan on 4/25/2011 10:36:18 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's also important to consider that there are ways to break into most consumer "secured" network routers, as well.
This is what worries me about having a protected network. If someone breaks in to your password protected network and uses it to do something illegal, I worry that the fact that your network is "secure" could be used as "proof" that you were the one who committed the crime.




RE: "Secure" networks
By kraeper on 4/25/2011 12:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
You have a point, but only if someone is specifically trying to target *you* for one reason or another. Otherwise, if you're worried about the common perv downloading porn, or even the average movie downloader, there's no point to hacking a secured wifi when there's so many unsecured ones to get on freely. Since this is a nerdy site to begin with, I think it's safe to assume we're not talking about WEP when we say 'secure'.


RE: "Secure" networks
By nafhan on 4/25/2011 2:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Someone targeting a specific person, would be one possibility (imagine that happening to a teacher or something, career: ruined). Another possibility would be an "uncommon" perv making sure that the "evidence" points to someone else, and the secure wifi in question is just conveniently located. Mostly, I guess I'm just thinking that it's not great evidence.


RE: "Secure" networks
By delphinus100 on 4/26/2011 9:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
Which is another reason to keep your system clean of malware that allows it (unknown to you) to be a storage site of files of any kind...


RE: "Secure" networks
By Lerianis on 4/29/2011 3:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
Impossible to be totally sure of that in real life.

Also, all it takes is someone coming in and marking a file 'hidden' on a Windows partition and a person won't know that they have child porn on their computer until they are reported and the police search and find that file.

Let's get real here: the child porn laws are being used to harangue other people based on little to no evidence.

Really, the pedophile/pedosexual laws in GENERAL are being used to make a perfectly natural sexuality appear to be 'wrong' based on manipulated evidence.


RE: "Secure" networks
By messyunkempt on 4/27/2011 9:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
They wouldn't even need to break into your secure network. I share a house with three people and the internet is in my name so obviously they all have access to the network and the internet. I pay 20 pounds a month for a lovefilm subscription to get films etc through the post and I told everyone i live with not to download movies etc as it could potentially lead to a fine and although they all claim not to, there's several times ive been in one of my housemates rooms and seen him downloading films. So i have a secure network and pay a monthly fee for my films and yet i would definately be held responsible if my ip was tracked for downloading films illegaly regardless of the fact that I never have. As im sure would be the case with any other illegal material.


Sharing
By Grudin on 4/25/2011 12:10:04 PM , Rating: 3
The feds began their investigation on February 11 when they received peer-to-peer file transfers from "Doldrum" and grabbed the IP address.

So does this mean that ICE could be the number one sharer of child porn. Since they are actively sharing to catch people.




RE: Sharing
By chrnochime on 4/25/2011 12:33:46 PM , Rating: 3
What I don't get is why ICE is in charge of dealing with these cases instead of FBI. I would think FBI would be more appropriate, as this seems far from either immigration or customs.


RE: Sharing
By Jalek on 4/26/2011 3:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like they have surplus staffing for their normal roles and maybe their budget should be reviewed for cuts.


That's no fun
By BladeVenom on 4/25/2011 10:33:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The irony is that if police had conducted a more thorough initial investigation...

But that isn't as fun as busting down doors, and giving someone a good beat down.




RE: That's no fun
By InvertMe on 4/25/2011 11:17:54 AM , Rating: 1
Sends a good message too.


Wrong response
By corduroygt on 4/25/2011 12:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'd definitely have sued if that happened to me, for negligence and excessive force and whatever else I can find.

City loses money, and those cops get yelled at by their superior and think twice before acting like they're on TV. Even if the pedo wiped their hard drive, they still have proof of it through the internet, so that's not a valid excuse to break people's doors down and wrestle them to the ground. Look at any other country's police force and they'd have just taken the man to the station quietly.




RE: Wrong response
By cjohnson2136 on 4/25/2011 2:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong for a case like this they need the pictures to prosecute. They can't just say this person downloaded these files. The evidence they had was enough for a search warrant not an arrest warrant.


RE: Wrong response
By Lerianis on 4/29/2011 3:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
True. You have to find the pictures ON THE HARD DRIVE because with people having wireless routers, any NUMBER of people could have used your connection.

Hell, someone could tap into your WIRED internet connection if they really wanted to and download CP.

Add to this that someone could put CP on your computer and then report you to the cops in order to get 'revenge' on you for some perceived slight? You start to realize that having the police make these things public is the absolute worst thin that they can do and that an IP address is NOT specific to a specific person or even family.


Unprotected Networks
By tng on 4/25/2011 11:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rebecca Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues argues that people shouldn't be afraid to leave their networks unsecure.
Goes to show that maybe you should be afraid....




RE: Unprotected Networks
By rcc on 4/25/2011 1:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
It would be really nice if we didn't have to be afraid of leaving our doors unlocked at night either, but I'd wag that 90%+ of us live in areas where that wouldn't be a good idea.


WTF
By toyotabedzrock on 4/28/2011 11:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Why would their behavior be appropriate even if he was a pedophile?




RE: WTF
By Lerianis on 4/29/2011 3:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't. Pedosexuality to be quite blunt is the new homosexuality: a boogie man and straw man created now that homosexuality and heterosexuality outside of marriage, as well as interracial sex, is not allowed to be bashed upon.

Pedosexuals have been around for THOUSANDS of years and it is only recently with the brainwashing of children that "WAH.... you should be HARMED by someone touching your genitals!" that pedosexuality has become the reviled thing that it is today.

Funny.... I had sex with adults as a child and besides a more permissive sexual morality (including feeling that sex between adults and children is not wrong), I have no harm at all.


waste of pork
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/25/2011 11:33:56 AM , Rating: 1
There is no value for the taxpayer in spending thousands of taxpayer dollars sending out a bunch of porkbellied pigs to bash down the wrong people's doors in search of a perp of a victimless crime. It is a waste of money. Soon it will be gangs breaking down people's doors for no reason because the country will be too bankrupt to afford police to break down doors for no reason.




RE: waste of pork
By MrTeal on 4/25/2011 12:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no value for the taxpayer in spending thousands of taxpayer dollars sending out a bunch of porkbellied pigs to bash down the wrong people's doors in search of a perp of a victimless crime.


Wow, I hope you never have children.


By letmepicyou on 4/25/2011 3:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me, but why haven't a single group of police in the history of the United States kicked down the door of a Catholic church? They've been actively ENGAGING in pedophile type activities for years, it even gets front page news, and yet you don't see a single church door kicked in...EVER.
Somebody's gettin paid.




By wa3fkg on 4/25/2011 8:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
As I see it there are two issues here. One is unsecured and open wireless access points. Among my friends the running gag has become a statement by one of us during dinner together one evening when someone asked who who was the largest ISP and someone immediately said "LinkSys". I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is but a good deal of the responsibility has to be assumed by the manufactures, Internet Service Providers and the end users. My vote goes for the bulk of it being placed on the ISP's and the end users. Knowing the current state of litigation in the country it would probably only take one high profile lawsuit with a megabuck payout against equipments providers to cause a tightening of standards and precautions.

The second is law enforcement breaking down doors and entering homes with semi-auto and fully automatic weapons like they were going after Bin Laden himself. This in my opinion has gotten completely out of hand. There are definitely situations where that type of entry is warranted in order to ensure the safety of officers or prevent the destruction of evidence. Even when warranted there is no reason for the harassment name calling and intimidation of suspects of the type described in this article, again assuming that what has been reported is accurate.

A friend of mine commented that he wondered how long it would take before something like this happened. I'm wondering how long before law enforcement makes one of these "pre-dawn" raids and is met with armed resistance because the person whose home was invaded is completely innocent of any wrong doing and may be deemed justified in using leather force against the attack.

In either case it is yet another example of technology out-pacing the legal system. The question is can we adjust without over compensating and swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. Somehow I seriously doubt it.




Idiots
By saganhill on 4/26/2011 8:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
Cops are stupid. I bet half those cops download porn themselves. If not more of them. Cops are a bunch of penises with ears.




By JLL55 on 4/26/2011 9:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
While I am glad that everything was restored amicably, often times lawsuits are one of the only ways to teach governmental agencies that they have crossed the line. It's sad, and I wish it weren't true, but that is one of the purposes of the justice system.




By RagingDragon on 4/28/2011 4:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?




By greylica on 4/25/2011 11:12:04 AM , Rating: 1
Cybercrimes only uses different media to do the same crime as the real persons, but the governments all over the world insist that the investigations only need to be extended at one single point (normally he point that has the minor economical effect for the government itself). For a proof of concept, you have to get real ilicit images, pics, videos, or then make an ambush to the real pedophiles.
Governments all over the world are simply refusing to investigate in the right way, and then, loosing the real suspects.
Now, imagine if those guys have their children at home listening to this kind of accusation, under arrest, with no choice of being listened. Who is the offender ? Who is the real culprit caught in an ambush ?
The real one probably saw this arrest laughing a lot...

Please authorities all over the world, stop your excuses to do your home work, and stop trying to always make things in the easy (err-lowest price) way...

I have been reading all kinds of stuppidity, first it was ISP chat rooms, then they set stupid accusations at IRC chats, and after a time their ''pool of information'' means nothing because a pedophile probably could turn back to a phone line using any public telephone with a sound fax modem atached to it, 56kbps is more than enough to distribute illegal things...
Machines can't find pedophiles, but real persons engaged can do it very well...




Nice Ripoff
By Phynaz on 4/25/2011 11:39:59 AM , Rating: 1
Copy - Paste an entire AP article without even lining to it.

You're a jerk Mick.




Every
By icanhascpu on 4/29/2011 10:42:21 AM , Rating: 1
stupid fuck involved needs to be put on trail. Every last one. Where is accountability? Where is justice? When law enforcement can get away with this being a 'honest mistake' then a force in the background grows against it. The common man. We are out in 3rd world countries fighting this type of foolish shit. Just try this on a military family. I fucking dare the police.




In the police's defense...
By cjohnson2136 on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: In the police's defense...
By rcc on 4/25/2011 1:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
I understand your point, and I don't disagree, in part. If they had been polite and controlled and confirmed their suspicions before banging people around in the middle of the night it would have been a completely different story. I understand the pressures of the job, etc. etc. but there are limits.

If any law enforcement came to my door in the middle of the night and rang the bell, I'd ask them what they wanted and how I could help them resolve the problem.

If the circumstances in the article are correct, I'd have sued. Not for money, but for a public apology on the local news and newspaper and for an impartial review of my records to ensure that there was no "suspected child pornographer" crap in it.

So, bottom line, if they come to my door and are reasonable, I will be too. And I'll assist them as appropriate. If they charge in causing damage and injury, all bets are off. If we don't slap the government and law enforcement when they deserve it, we deserve the end result; which is the inability to do so in the future.


RE: In the police's defense...
By cjohnson2136 on 4/25/2011 2:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would completely agree with you assessment that the gov't should be responsible I am not arguing that they should not be liable. The point I was trying to make was don't criticize them for making a mistake. Based on the information they had they believed they had the right person. They had a warrant to check the house based on good information. But for people to say the police/agents were lazy and didn't do their job on checking info I think is a gross misinterpretation. Just because other evidence comes up later that would prevented all of this doesn't mean that the police were not right to get a warrant for that house. Remember Hindsight is 20/20. Of course we can look back and say of that was wrong because now we have new evidence. But based on the evidence the agents had at that time they went after the right house. But I would agree that they executed the warrant incorrectly and didn't need a SWAT team to apprehend a pedophile.


RE: In the police's defense...
By delphinus100 on 4/26/2011 9:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
"But I would agree that they executed the warrant incorrectly and didn't need a SWAT team to apprehend a pedophile."

And that's the real point here. Even if they were right, it was inappropriate and unnecessary force, considering the crime and suspect. Quietly watch the guy's routine for a few days, then just grab cuff him as he comes out of the house to go to work (Like the NBC Dateline series where they decoy a guy in who thinks he's going to bang a young teen girl he met on-line...once he's had his on-camera talking-to, the cops are waiting outside.)

Save the stormtrooper stuff for terrorists and hard drug or illegal weapon distributors where it might in fact be necessary...


RE: In the police's defense...
By mindless1 on 5/5/2011 12:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
I feel you are missing the point, which is a show of force to discourage people from feeling they can fight off peaceful and low numbers of officers.

If they just waltzed up to him and politely asked him to put his hands over his head, criminals would get the idea it's not a big deal to play games about submitting to officer demands.

Remember that these men and women officers RISK THEIR LIVES over and over, it is not reasonable to put those who attempt to protect our way of live via law enforcement, at any greater risk of harm than necessary.

On the other hand, I can see an argument for shooting the suspect from 100 yards away with a tranq dart rather than trying a direct confrontation type arrest. Point is, safety in numbers and force OR safety from a distance, but always safety for the officers - remember when in doubt, they are the "good guys" the majority of the time.


RE: In the police's defense...
By rcc on 4/27/2011 12:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember Hindsight is 20/20


This is only occassionally true these days. Unfortunately, people don't seem to learn from their mistakes anymore, primarily because they refuse to accept responsbility for them.

I'd say hindsight is about 20/100 now and getting worse.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki