Fuck this country..

June 21, 2012. Just for future reference.

There are actually two issues here.

The obvious one is that the city isn't paying for the damages, then there's the less obvious issue of her parenting.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

I would assume that if your roommate were accused of a crime and they raided your shared house and trashed everything that the roommate would be on the hook for the damages to your stuff. However if the roommate was never found guilty of what they raided the house for, I think that the people ordering these overly destructive raids and searches should be on the hook for repairs and replacement.

If judges were held personally responsible for issuing warrants that result in a place being destroyed via raid or a tear-apart search...they'd spend more effort covering their asses..same with PDs, etc.


It'd be like if you destroyed someone's car trying to get inside of it because you thought some pile of wigs/stuffed animal or a face down doll was a pet and/or baby locked in a hot car. It'd be a hard case to make that you went apeshit on someone's property because of what you suspected might be true and you don't owe damages for what you did.


And as for relatives/children, etc..... you should not be responsible for relatives and children for their entire lives. It's unreasonable to assume that relation = probable cause. Even past residence shouldn't be probable cause to go busting into places...it's too wide of a criteria. There are a lot of people who move damn near every year...you could never reasonably rent or buy a house without doing criminal background checks on both the owner of the property and the past tenants to make sure your residence isn't going to be "probable cause" for a destructive raid on a former resident.


So, if he's not convicted of the crime they raided the house for, I don't think the city has a leg to stand on. And if he is, they have to prove how they came up with probable cause to do what they did on that place...especially when there was no one killed or known threat/issue in the house to be immediately dealt with.

Four hours of destruction seems like someone has a bit of a hard-on for any reason to use their toys outside of practice.

>> ^Porksandwich:

So, if he's not convicted of the crime they raided the house for, I don't think the city has a leg to stand on. And if he is, they have to prove how they came up with probable cause to do what they did on that place...especially when there was no one killed or known threat/issue in the house to be immediately dealt with.
Four hours of destruction seems like someone has a bit of a hard-on for any reason to use their toys outside of practice.


That's what I don't understand. What did this kid do? Why did they think they needed to barge in guns ablating like that? I mean, maybe knock first? Surround it for a while, whatever, but you don't need to open up with the tear gas.

They send the SWAT team for _suspected thieves_ now? What the hell?

Time to lawyer up.

I was actually referring to the woman's parenting job as her son was being raised, not her responsibility as a parent currently when he is all grown up.

The argument I'm making is that she's done a shitty job raising her son, hence why he's being chased by DEA agents. This is different from what you guys have pointed out which is that her responsibility as a parent stops once the child becomes an adult and makes his own decisions.

She has no control over her son's individual will as an adult, hence she is free from the blame of her son's criminal activity. But the original argument of her being a shitty parent still stands. The role of parent has an enormous impact on the child's cognitive development and their career choice. And at the end of the day she must live with the fact that she has raised a criminal.

>> ^legacy0100:

I was actually referring to the woman's parenting job as her son was being raised, not her responsibility as a parent currently when he is all grown up.
The argument I'm making is that she's done a shitty job raising her son, hence why he's being chased by DEA agents. This is different from what you guys have pointed out which is that her responsibility as a parent stops once the child becomes an adult and makes his own decisions.
She has no control over her son's individual will as an adult, hence she is free from the blame of her son's criminal activity. But the original argument of her being a shitty parent still stands. The role of parent has an enormous impact on the child's cognitive development and their career choice. And at the end of the day she must live with the fact that she has raised a criminal.


That's a very absolute view on the world which is rarely made up of absolutes when it comes to people. Her son might just be a shithead, or her son might not have been the guy they were looking for thus no conviction/arrest.

Any reason for cops to play soldier and break out the new post-9/11 toys...

Sounds like it is time to move from claim to court.

Why should she pay a lawyer? Why should she even file a claim?

The first thing the sergeant should have done back at the station is start or delegate a process to record what happened and re-compensate her for the damages. She shouldn't have to lift a finger. A day or two later she should receive a letter stating that there is an internal review in process; that she may be eligible for damages; and advice on what she can do next.

Does such a process even exist? I'd actually be surprised if it did, rather than if it didn't; which is sad.

This reminds me of a story I read where 4 chan like people call the police and use various techniques to describe what is happening with the end goal of getting a swat team to show up at a target's house and do what they do. I think they referred to it as "swatting" someone. It's scary that small municipalities (and large ones) have swat teams that would fall for this and even scarier that they have them to begin with. We need more Andy Griffith style bobbies or Mounties or something. Get rid of these assholes in swat who are using those techniques to create their own law. Just go knock on the fucking door! Or send a robot to knock on the door! Christ.

>> ^legacy0100:

There are actually two issues here.
The obvious one is that the city isn't paying for the damages, then there's the less obvious issue of her parenting.


Kind of harsh. It's completely possible to be a good parent, and have a child who is accused of stealing.

But yes this really doesn't make the city of Renton look good. I've got to remember never to move there.