Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (111980)	5/25/2010 1:16:43 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

Without knowing the basis, or credibility, of the search warrant, it's difficult to know exactly what they were searching for. But it certainly appears to be, ON THE SURFACE, excessive force. The charge of child endangerment is merely a means of legally covering their @ss because they didn't find what they likely were hoping to find. If this raid was merely because of consensual use of Marijuana, I will be in total agreement with you that it was BS, put the entire family in danger, and created a horrible example of militarization of our police. However, I HIGHLY DOUBT that they would don full SWAT garb just to bust a couple of pot smokers. It's likely one of their sources alleged some kind of more serious drug operation (distribution/manufacturing). But you have to ask yourself why the police CHOSE to videotape this raid unless they wanted to document what they perceived to be a major bust. What they got instead was major embarrassment (and probably a lawsuit). Hawk