SWAT invasion of innocent people's house here in Evansville, Indiana

[TaunTaun]

Unfortunately I just got the too much rep scold!

Got em for ya.

 

[atvdave]

Tonight on Ch 7 they are having the video from the invasion on the news @9..

 

[Bunnykid68]

Tonight on Ch 7 they are having the video from the invasion on the news @9..

We have already watched the video

 

[atvdave]

I'm always a day late & a dollar short...

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'm always a day late & a dollar short...

it happens

 

[deadeye]

Why do all you people keep saying lock your wifi? I pay for internet access and as long as my isp is ok with my open network i can keep on sharing it. Ip doesnt = person. Your government just wants more control it would love to assign you a personnal pin/name.


What this court did was just plain criminal.

 

[Roadie]

Why do all you people keep saying lock your wifi? I pay for internet access and as long as my isp is ok with my open network i can keep on sharing it. Ip doesnt = person. Your government just wants more control it would love to assign you a personnal pin/name.


What this court did was just plain criminal.

Why? Uhm, because of what happened?

As I said before, there have been men arrested for child porn that had their names all over the news, and it turned out someone had hacked their WiFi.

Doesn't matter they are innocent, their lives are RUINED.

I lock my WiFi because *I* want to feel secure..

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Deadeye, there are plenty of free WiFi places around Evansville. My house isn't going to be one of them.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Here is the latest from C&P, I never received a response from the editor though.

Federal judge rules Murray can be charged with using Internet to transmit threats » Evansville Courier & Press

It seems like they have been holding him without formal charges so a federal judge could decide if they could even charge him with a crime!

I know his lawyer and let's just say he isn't the brightest bulb on the tree but I have to agree with him here, 2 of the 3 don't meet the legal definition of a threat.

So, 5 years for a Federal crime, plus his bonds revoked in his other cases and soured public opinion of him= no fair trial locally. Some justice system huh?

The whole thing is a sham IMO.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

What puzzles me is that the attack on the wrong house is not even an issue. The paper just mentioned that they "served a warrant" at that house. Where is the blowback for bashing in the window, tossing in 2 flash grenades and terrorizing the completely innocent residents?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

What puzzles me is that the attack on the wrong house is not even an issue. The paper just mentioned that they "served a warrant" at that house. Where is the blowback for bashing in the window, tossing in 2 flash grenades and terrorizing the residents?

"We followed protocol." -Bolin

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

"We followed protocol." -Bolin

Oh yeah. I forgot. That makes it OK, then.

Thanks for remindeing me, Frosty!

 

[KG1]

ETA: Yeah, What ^he^ said.

"We followed protocol." -Bolin

Yeah, that makes it okay then.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Actually I think it might have been the 'spokesman' for the EPD that said that. Either way that is how they justify it.

Remember that EVSC employee that was attacked by a police dog a few months ago in a school here in Evansville? They used that whole 'policy and procedure' then too and they still got sued.

Two guesses who took the case and one of them doesn't count...

 

[thebishopp]

Actually I think it might have been the 'spokesman' for the EPD that said that. Either way that is how they justify it.

Remember that EVSC employee that was attacked by a police dog a few months ago in a school here in Evansville? They used that whole 'policy and procedure' then too and they still got sued.

Two guesses who took the case and one of them doesn't count...

Yes bad "protocol" or "procedure" is not blanket protection for government agencies. What's funny is that so many seem to try to use it as a shield. Probably because it works so well until someone actually sues them.

What I think most are banking on is that a lot of people won't sue or retaliate and they have insurance or taxpayer money to pay for it when someone does. It's not like a payout comes out of their budget or something (which if it did it might encourage some agencies to reevaluate their "protocols").

As far as the Evansville incident goes.

I think the two main problems were:

1. First and foremost - the judge. It is just my opinion but I thought what they had to get a warrant was pretty weak. He is supposed to be one of the "checks and balances" and he failed. The whole incident would probably not have happened (or at least not in the manner it did) had he not rubber stamped the warrant.

The police can request a warrant for anything and with little to no evidence however it is the judge that says "OK" you have "probable cause".


2. As far as the police actions go The main issue I see is what seems to be a lack of investigation. Not sure why no surveillance was done if any (13 hours from start to finish just doesn't seem like there was a lot of time for any "investigating").

--------------

Side note:

The feds - It is interesting to note that, IMO, they could have used anti-terrorism laws to get this guy but chose not too. Might be afraid of the possible political fallout for such a small potatoes bust.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Bishopp, unless you have seen something I haven't I don't believe they have formally charged him, only that a federal judge has said that they COULD charge him for threats across state lines.

At what point would they have to declare what they were charging him with?

 

[thebishopp]

Bishopp, unless you have seen something I haven't I don't believe they have formally charged him, only that a federal judge has said that they COULD charge him for threats across state lines.

At what point would they have to declare what they were charging him with?

Wellllll, I haven't been an Leo for quite some time... but I was taught they had up to 72 hours to get him before a judge where the charges would be read to him.

We were not required to inform them at the time of arrest but I don't recall an incident where I did not do so. I just don't know why I would not tell them, I mean it seems like "what am I being arrested for" was a reasonable question to get an answer to.

The reason I wondered if they originally charged him under some kind of domestic terrorism / terrorism law is that I do not think they are required to tell them at all and could hold them indefinitely without informing them. Perhaps that is what they are trying to do and are using the interstate communications schtick as the initial justification.

In any case it's been over 72 hours and unless it is some kind of terrorism charge I would think the arrested individual has been brought before the magistrate and told what he was charged with.

Long story short, if it wasn't some kind of anti-terrorism thing, then while he may not have been informed at the time of arrest, he should have been brought before the magistrate and told within 72 hours.

Though keep in mind that even if he was not told at the time of arrest there had to have been something they had "PC" to arrest him for and not just "let's arrest him and figure out something to charge him with later" (to my knowledge we weren't allowed to do that - buy hey it's the feds).

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Thanks Bishopp! That was pretty close to my understanding as well with out the specifics.

My fear is also that they are going to hold him as a terrorist. But there hasn't been any mention of Homeland Security yet. Does the FBI handle that start to finish now?

I'm going to check my sources for updates.

 

[IndyDave1776]

"We followed protocol." -Bolin

Comforting to know that protocol includes breaking into the wrong house, isn't it?

 

[thebishopp]

Thanks Bishopp! That was pretty close to my understanding as well with out the specifics.

My fear is also that they are going to hold him as a terrorist. But there hasn't been any mention of Homeland Security yet. Does the FBI handle that start to finish now?

I'm going to check my sources for updates.

It would be interesting to know. I would not be surprised to find out that the feds have hooked someone for something like this before but that we were never told about it lol. This incident just happened to become public due to the rather unfortunate SWAT raid on the wrong house.

NOTE: before people chime in about how the IP Address came back to that house, the fact is that while it may have been the right IP ADDRESS, it was still the WRONG HOUSE - as in the IP address came back to the router in that house but the "suspect" they were looking for did not live there - in fact I am curious as to what relation the "suspect" had with the residents of that house.

In the articles ome type of connection was alluded to as justification for the raid but nothing specific. I personally think the public should know as it would aid in dismissing any false claims that the residents in that house didn't know the fellow (of course I don't think just "knowing" a "suspect" is grounds for having your home raided but it would help flesh out the details a bit).