Going Too Far

At what point do the people stand up and say, "Woah!!! You are going way to far," to the feds?

Knowing that this is the current administration's policy (here and here) and when the Department of Education is breaking down doors...

Wow, that's crazy...

I saw this yesterday and Uncle Sam must be so hard up for cash that he is getting straight up gangster on the populace. Guilty until proven innocent, as usual. This is NOT America and we are not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

But you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself!!

But you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself!! Originally Posted by John Bull

Ah, but what else is the 2nd Amend for???

Some forget that, Charles.

There was a valid search warrant that was issued by a judge based on probable cause. I have no idea why the officers allegedly broke the door down, although they are allowed to do so. Perhaps the guy wasn't opening the door and the cops thought he was destroying evidence. Who knows.

I'm not one to defend overbroad searches and seizures. I think as a general rule cops are way too eager to use force, whether executing a search warrant or just roughing somebody up for the hell of it, and that all levels of government get search warrants way too easily (especially in areas related to drugs or alleged "national security" cases). But once the warrant is issued, they have a right to search the premises. Part of that right is to knock and if a prompt answer is not forthcoming, to enter before evidence is destroyed. It happens literally hundreds of times every day all across America.

Here is a partial copy of the warrant: http://www.news10.net/news/pdf/Ed-de...ant-060711.pdf

TTH, The warrant is fine, you missed the point. It was the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION busting down a door. Defrauding the gvmt, is typically something that falls on a law enforcement agency like the FBI. And since when does a SEARCH warrant require a full SWAT response. I could understand if the warrant was issued for a capital crime, but how many people are actually late or defaulted on a credit account like a student loan? Seriously, TTH, a tactical SWAT response is way over the top. A simple "knock-knock, we have a warrant for <insert name here> SUSPECTED of defrauding a student loan agency," would have been sufficient.

What next? Is the EPA going to raid homes when someone buys a gas range or lights up a fireplace?

TTH, The warrant is fine, you missed the point. It was the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION busting down a door. Defrauding the gvmt, is typically something that falls on a law enforcement agency like the FBI. And since when does a SEARCH warrant require a full SWAT response. I could understand if the warrant was issued for a capital crime, but how many people are actually late or defaulted on a credit account like a student loan? Seriously, TTH, a tactical SWAT response is way over the top. A simple "knock-knock, we have a warrant for <insert name here> SUSPECTED of defrauding a student loan agency," would have been sufficient.

What next? Is the EPA going to raid homes when someone buys a gas range or lights up a fireplace? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Or maybe masks and swat gear when they make an undercover prostitution bust at a strip club!

What next? Is the EPA going to raid homes when someone buys a gas range or lights up a fireplace? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Or turns on a 100 watt incandescent light bulb.

Or turns on a 100 watt incandescent light bulb. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Don't tell anyone, but I stockpiled a few incandescents

Or maybe masks and swat gear when they make an undercover prostitution bust at a strip club! Originally Posted by WTF

That would be close to what is being discussed, WTF. A local SWAT team, maybe, but a, once, regulatory agency of the Federal Gvmt, no I don't think so.

I have no idea whether the SWAT team was there or not. However, I do know that generally when any search warrant is issued and executed, the law enforcement agency executing it has several personel on site that are visibly well armed. This is as much to discourage any thoughts of resistance as it is out of perceived need or individualized calculations of danger. Just SOP, for good or for ill.

Don't tell anyone, but I stockpiled a few incandescents Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Yeah I got a pallet or two in storage next to my Gillette Sensor XL cartridges....

Seriously I'm only a convert to the new bulbs in the last few years and I have no idea how much I'm really saving on my electric bill...

....but changing a bulb about 1/10th as often seems like a no brainer to me

Yeah I got a pallet or two in storage next to my Gillette Sensor XL cartridges....

Seriously I'm only a convert to the new bulbs in the last few years and I have no idea how much I'm really saving on my electric bill...

....but changing a bulb about 1/10th as often seems like a no brainer to me Originally Posted by atlcomedy

At the cost per bulb ratio, I'd go with the incandescent. I've had to use the crappy curly-cue bulbs and they didn't last nearly as long as advertised. Since the incandescent factories are shutting down also, there goes more jobs since the curly-cue bulbs are being manufactered in China.

They fact checkers have actually said that the only way to get the "advertised" age from the bulbs, would be they remain on constantly, defeating the energy savings purpose. Also, I don't want to have to fork out more cash when I have to call a hazmat team if one breaks in my immediate vicinity. BTW, since the bulbs themselves actually state, "Use in Dry Areas Only" what are people supposed to use in humid areas since the incandescents are being depricated from the retail shelves?