As Many as Nine Cops Raid Home Over Alleged Credit Card Fraud, Destroy Security Camera, Apparently Find Nothing They Were Looking For, Make Unrelated Arrests

Ankeny police in Des Moines, Iowa


they got in the home safe

Justin Ross of Des Moines, Iowa told local TV station WHO 13 that police from nearby Ankeny might've shot him after using a battering ram to enter his mother's home executing a warrant over alleged credit card fraud. Ross said he drew his weapon after hearing what sounded like a home invasion, but re-holstered it when someone in the next room said "police," and before cops entered the bathroom where he was. WHO 13 reports:

The whole search was caught on surveillance video.

Ankeny police tell us they knocked first, but the video shows one officer pounding on the side of the house and seconds later, officers use a battering ram to force their way in.

The video also shows an officer destroying a security camera outside the home.

Another officer is seen on the surveillance video (seen as part of WHO 13's segment here) covering another camera inside the home. At one point, the video appears to show nine SWAT-like cops marching near the home.

Ross' mother, Sally Prince, said she would've opened the door if police had knocked. Ankeny cops found nothing listed on their warrant for the Des Moines home, but made two unrelated arrests of non-family members, one for a probation violation, the other for possession with "intent to deliver."

Prince told WHO 13 she was traumatized by the incident and couldn't sleep at night. Ankany police say they don't have a written policy (!) on executing search warrants and wouldn't comment because there's an "ongoing investigation". No word on whether Des Moines police, in whose jurisdiction the incident took place, is investigating.

No one was hurt, including a dog seen in the video, so this almost-home invasion could qualify as a "good" story with nothing to see here.

More Reason on militarization of police.

h/t Mark Johnson

NEXT: Vladimir Putin Arrives at Sochi

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Love the alt-text

    1. Little help for those of us how cant see the alttext ie android users.

      1. “they got in the home safe”

        1. now that’s service

        2. Thanks! Yeah thats pretty spot on.

        3. Thanks! I, too, suffer from FOMOAT due to mobile browsing.

    2. I assume he is saying they were able to crack the code on the safe in the home. I’m sure Ed knows the difference between an adjective and adverb.

  2. It really is us against them.

    1. Heed the G-Man. Think head shots.

      1. No. Two to the chest, one to the crotch.

        1. Those areas are protected by most body-armor.

  3. so this almost-home invasion could qualify as a “good” story with nothing to see here.

    How is this an “almost” home invasion? Didn’t they knock down her door and force their way in?

    1. Agreed, “Almost” implies they never got in the house.

    2. They knocked! Its right there on the video. I don’t know of any ruling by the courts that say they have to wait a reasonable amount of time after knocking and announcing.

      Totality of the circs, dude.

    3. Maybe he’s just saying it was an invasion that had an “almost-home” quality to it. Like, shooting a resident would have been a home run, so this particular invasion just wasn’t getting all the way there.

      1. Or it wasn’t really ‘home’, just ‘almost home’

      2. So he means they only got to third base on this raid? I guess I can see that. No dead dogs. No dead residents. No paid vacation for anybody.

        1. I’m just saying, dance with the dash that brung you. Or didn’t, because we only got a hyphen.

        2. “Hugh’s sexual ratings system for police home invasions”

          List the bases for us, Hugh.

          1. First base: door broken down, inhabitants terrorized.

            Second base: property destroyed, dogs and other animals killed neutralized.

            Third base: inhabitants injured, property seized.

            Home run: all inhabitants killed, injured, and/or arrested, including kids. Evidence of minor crime found or “found”. Building damaged beyond repair or on fire. Cash or valuable property seized. Paid vacations for all officers on scene.

            1. Because … Say it with me now …


          2. Of course it’s been a while. According to 20/20 Kids These Days consider anal to be second base. So what do I know?

            1. Kids These Days consider anal to be second base.

              That was always true for Catholic girls, wasn’t it?

            2. So what constitutes fifth base now?

              1. Wow, all I had to do was scroll down one whole comment.

        3. Epi always goes for fifth base on the first date.

          1. Only you and Warty have fifth bases, so take from that what you will.

            1. You don’t have a poophole? No wonder you always talkin’ shit.

              1. It’s a medical condition, OK?!? You think I like this colostomy bag?

                1. That bag sure does have a purty mouth on it.

                    1. I’ll be in my bunk.

                    2. Colostomy bags are highly underrated. Farting on command, always a party favorite.

                2. Reminds me of a story I heard in the ER once, of a pt from one of the local jails, who lets other inmates have intercourse with his colostomy hole for money.

                  I guess that kind of is fifth base…

    4. Because it’s the Kings’ Men, Hugh. The Kings men are only and always enforcing the law. It’s only criminals who invade homes, or who get their homes forcibly entered by the King’s Men.

  4. It’s a feel-good story.

  5. At what point do we say stop?

    1. Try again next atrocity.

  6. so this almost-home invasion could qualify as a “good” story with nothing to see here

    What?!? They destroy and cover cameras, smash the door down, and make bullshit arrests to cover the fact that they didn’t get squat?

    No, that doesn’t qualify as good, it qualifies as “totally fucked, but at least no one was killed”. There is plenty to see here, and would be more if they hadn’t destroyed and covered cameras.

    1. IMHO, it was a good bust. procedures were followed, and you don’t always get the evidence on the first try. there are more doors to break down, more weapons to discharge, more vicious attack miniature dachshunds to neutralize to protect officer safety.



      1. more weapons to allow to discharge


        1. Objects were impacted by bullet or bullet-like objects.

    2. And WHY.IN THE.FUCK is it considered OK security cameras during a “lawful” raid? That is like, Step One in the Bad Guy’s Guide to Committing Any Crime Anywhere.

      That the reasons my security.cameras.

      1. And punctuation marks.

        1. You try posting from a phone while driving a Cigarette boat.across.Lake Erie in

        2. Hw has a surplus, so it doesn’t cost him as much to replace expensive (and racist) whitespace with full stops.

  7. Scalia will be pleased.

  8. Police were probably mad they didn’t have any dogs to shoot.

    1. There was a dog – but for some reason they didn’t shoot it.

      1. Then the whole lot of them should be fired for not following protocol!

        1. No, they’ve clearly been traumatized by their constant exposure to danger as they go about the daily grind of protecting citizen safety.

          That’s why they didn’t follow SOP and shoot the dog, nor the owners – clearly a case of PTSD.

          What these Thin Blue Liners need, what we OWE them, is paid admin leave, light-duty work for at least a year after that. Then – maybe, god willing – they can return to work. If they’re not already permanently shattered from years of trying to protect…*sniff*…an ungr….*snif*…an ungratef….*sniffff* AN UNGRATEFUL PUBLIC!

          *runs away sobbing*

      2. Yeah, when I saw the dog I thought, “No!” but they left the him/her alone.

      3. There was a dog – but for some reason they didn’t shoot it.

        Then procedures were NOT followed.

        I expect them all to be fired and lose their pensions.

  9. That story contains one of the most bizarre pro cop comments I have ever read.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:14 am

    I am a convicted felon and all for the POLICE, they have a tough job to do and go up against all types of the unknown. If you dont want to face the police stay out of trouble and stay away from those that are in trouble.. boo hoo to the lady who is scared and why did she allow illegal activioty in here home. why did Justin have a gun strapped on in the bathroom and hooo it had it pulled, what was he doing flushing drugs. and as for removing a camera that is to protect officers from allowing suspects to know there positions and be shot at. GOOD JOB ANKENY POLICE, TWO CRIMINALS OFF THE STREET AND NOBODY WAS SHOT?..

    1. By convicted felon, I think he meant “cop” or “ex-cop”

      1. Could be both, a cop who murdered someone and got off on involuntary manslaughter, which is still a felony.

      2. You’re assuming the poster was telling the truth.

      3. “As a lifelong gun owner, I have had enough.of the NRA/GOA/2nd Amendment Foundation.”

        …yeah, sure, buddy.

        1. mega-dittos Rush…I think you’re to hard on Barry.

    2. “I got my mind right, boss. Just don’t hit me no more!”

      1. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

    3. I’ve known people who, after going to jail or prison, became total authority fellators. Maybe it was their way to survive being locked up: sucking-off the guards. And the attitude stuck.

      1. The only difference between the guards and the criminals is the uniform.

      2. I wouldn’t be surprised if most people who come out of prison are either like that or even more criminal than when they went in.

        1. Both. Snitch protection benes make it possible to be both.

        2. These people are just plain submissive.

          I never asked, but I imagine the beatings combined with going out of their mind in solitary had something to do with it.

          1. Stockholm Syndrome.

    4. Crazybot’s been posting again.

    5. Those comments are disgusting. It seems most in that area have a “never speak against authority or else!” attitude.

      1. Unfortunately people seem all to willing to trade freedom for ‘safety’.

  10. Ankany police … wouldn’t comment because there’s an “ongoing investigation”.

    Always with the “ongoing investigation” gag-order.

    “There oughta be a law” that whenever “ongoing investigation” is cited every fucking thing about it is made public in real time.

  11. No jurisdiction? Is that not a big deal?

  12. Since when is suspected credit card fraud justifies dynamic entry?

    I know, I know, FYTW, but still.

    1. When someone needs to justify spending money on Army toys for a small-town police force.

    2. Since about the same time that a paperwork error by a foreign diplomat justifies a cavity search. Since the USSA was militarized.

    3. It is increasingly common to use SWAT teams to serve all criminal warrants. Keeps ’em from sitting around all day; gives the little people the impression that something is being done about crime.

      1. And it’s fun!

  13. One woman gives the police side of the story

    Lynn Farrington
    February 4, 2014 at 9:21 am

    I can tell you the police’s side of the situation? Two living in the home had arrest records that supported the likelihood the charges were valid, while a third was licienced to carry. The warrant was likely granted because Scigliano and Adair had records. The helmets, vests, and abrupt entry was likely because those with a carry permit, like Justin Ross, generally have more than one gun and know how to use them. Justin wisely defused the situation by putting down his weapon and keeping his hands in sight. I am very unhappy about the removal of one camera, and the cover up of a second camera. It suggests the officers thought the film would be a danger to them. It’s the most questionable part of the footage.

    Doesn’t that make all of you dope smoking cop haters feel bad for being angry about this?

    1. My days of not wanting to apply for a carry permit with the Sheriff are definitely coming to a middle. I could be saving my life or the life of anyone who enters my house.

      1. This is one of the ways they will deal with losing the gun rights fight.

        You can have your gun, you racist tea bagger, but understand that having it means the cops are going to kick down your door and terrorize you at the slightest excuse, as if that isn’t true already.

      2. Yeah. If you want to carry, just carry. Fuck the permit.

        1. Move to AK, AZ, WY, or VT – other states to be added.

    2. It suggests the officers thought the film would be a danger to them.

      Yeah. The truth is always dangerous to people who routinely file false reports and commit perjury.

    3. So, the licensure of a carry permit is grounds for a military-style raid?

    4. Hey lady, according to the Constitution, we’re all “licensed” to carry.

    5. Ankeny had one murder and 5 kidnappings in 2009 per state records. Sounds to me like a crime wave. In a population of 45,000.

    6. Well, if that ain’t full blown Stasi . . oh, yeah, ex-Stasi envy what American LE gets away with.

  14. You have to laugh to keep form crying reading some of the comments.

    February 4, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Terrible story! WHO needs to do some fact finding. Why would you have cameras inisde and outside your house? The only reason he was in the bathroom was to flush his dope. If was so concerned about his mother he would have came to aid not hid in the bathroom. Terrible reporting, there are real victims in this community and WHO is so out of touch, they don’t even know who they are anymore.

    1. I have a camera in my house. Would get one outside too. Comes in handy if someone breaks in and you want to a video of the bastard.

      1. Absolutely.

        Standard break-in protocol. Knock on door, if no one answers, go around back, begin break-in.

        When I get my security system (and I am getting one) there will be a camera covering all who approach and stand at my front door.

        And that camera will be out of arm’s reach, and video will be uploaded to an off-site location at all times.

        1. I have cameras covering cameras. If with, you.need to.have the other.ones that can see it recorduling based.on.loss of.signal

        2. Precisely this happend to my friend’s father recently. And they got video of it. And it was put on the news.

          So, um… that seems like a pretty good reason to have cameras.

          As far as “why was he in the bathroom”… well, y’know… maybe he was using the toilet. And why didn’t he come out, maybe he didn’t want to surprise the cops and get shot.

    2. The only reason he was in the bathroom was to flush his dope.

      Yeah. No one uses the bathroom to, you know, use the bathroom.

      1. That’s still destroying evidence of SOMETHING!

    3. You really don’t need that many cameras do you?

      1. Nice handle.

      2. You don’t really need to post here do you?

  15. A hundred years of public education shows that its effect.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:21 am

    This is a ridiculous story by TV 13. Raids like this take place everyday in the Metro area in an attempt to thwart criminal behavior. Police wear gear like that to one protect themselves and two so they are properly marked to identify themselves as Police officers. The term “knocking and announcing” doesn’t mean they have to knock on the front door. By them pounding on the side of the house that was more than enough announcement. I agree with the other comments..dude is in the bathroom with a GUN ON HIM..who wears a gun in their own house?? Who hangs out in the bathroom?right somebody who is destroying evidence as they see the police approach through the cameras. As for the explanation for the cameras??? Here son was an audio/video guy?really? And what is never mentioned is that police had a valid search warrant signed by a JUDGE!! Look WHOTV 13 is not this ignorant or naive to believe these accusations?so why air it? Cause of ratings!! I think this clearly backfired on them?I will no longer watch this station and I hope the producer who approved this piece takes a hard look at what is really “news”?this was second rate reporting?AT BEST!! What a joke?

    1. I’m convinced they’re all on what’s called “the force.”

      1. I suspect you are right. I think the cops have figured out the need to troll comment boards.

        These comments are so stupid that cops are about the only group dumb enough to post them.

    2. Honestly, I think it’s pop culture that’s more to blame than the education system (not that that is completely blameless). Think of any American cop movie/show you’ve seen and ask yourself what messages are being given – the cops are always right, the bad guy is always violent, forensics are infallible and the cops never face consequences for their actions. It’s the same whether it’s an Old West lawman in some ’40’s serial or last night’s CSI.

      1. Again, cop shows way behind the times. Cops show remarkable restraint in most cop shows. Couple of detectives come by at a reasonable hour and knock on the door is how cop shows do it.

        1. Yes, and if some low-info person sees that and hears of a ram-raid the next day they think “well the cops are usually so nice so those people must have really deserved it”.

        2. When they do have to break the law on cop show it’s ok because the suspects are always guilty, they usually save someone’s life and it’s just the stupid lawyers who get in the way of cops ridding the streets of crime.

        3. Exactly. I was just watching Grimm last night and noted how perfectly behaved the cops were, and realized they almost assuredly have a police consultant on set to tell them how it’s supposed to be done. But we all know how most cops treat those “supposed to be done” rules.

          1. Admit it Episiarch, you were watching Once Upon a Time

            1. They’re on to me!

            2. But have you seen his Once Upon A Time In Wonderland slash fic, John?

              1. No I have not.

            3. My wife loves vampires, magic, werewolves,and demons/angels, etc. I get to watch Grimm, Once Upon a Time, Supernatural, Warehouse 13, Being Human etc. Every goddamn one of those shows. Yay! Me, I’ll stick to Columbo and Rockford Files.

              1. My wife is into all of those too lately. I like the BBC Being Human (and I personally know the actor who plays the werewolf in the US version) and Warehouse 13 is fun, but the rest I could do without.

        4. I saw an advertisement for Justified and it showed two cops on top of cars with a big guard dog on the ground barking at them. Real cops would have killed the dog as soon as they saw it.

          1. I thought that exact thing when i watched that episode

          2. I have to admit, as much as I hate cops, that’s a fun show.

          3. And to think I stopped watching because I was sick of Raylin’s heavy-handed violent approach to everything.

            1. Hmm, maybe cop shows are finally catching up to reality.

      2. And most people have never dealt with cops and have no idea what out of control psychopathic assholes they are.

        Cops, are however working to change that as they continue their efforts to terrorize everyone in North America.

      3. Did you just call TV shows the American education system? Because that’s brilliant.

        1. I didn’t mean to, but considering how many dimwits self-diagnose after watching House there’s likely more truth to that than I’d care to admit.

          1. That’s why lupus is always misdiagnosed.

          2. Hey, it’s never Lupus!

      4. I want to see a cop show that takes the opposite tack, while still ostensibly being on the cops’ side.

        The ratings would tank to shit, but maybe you’d change some minds.

    3. Jesus. There are no words…

    4. And that guy who was watching TV? The only possible reason he was watching TV was to find a cop show where he could learn the tactics of our brave heroes in blue so he could shoot them. I also heard they had cars in their driveway. Cars are used to transport drugs! Near schools! TO CHILDREN! You just wait. Next we’ll learn they were using cash to buy things at the grocery store! When will you people wake up and realize cooking your own food is the gateway to cooking meth!?!!

      1. I was thinking of copying and pasting this into the comments on that site…but I would become more depressed when it was wholeheartedly given support…

  16. Whenever I think about getting a permit, I remind myself that it’s unwise to tell the cops I have a gun.

    1. I would never do that. I helped my dad move and we took his various firearms with us in the trunk of his car. Fortunately, this is out west where the laws are somewhat civilized. But I made it clear to him that if we got pulled over for any reason, you don’t tell the cops you have any weapons and you never consent to them looking in the car.

      Sad and pathetic state of affairs that everyone no matter who they are has to worry about dealing with cops.

      1. In my state it’s perfectly legal to have all the firearms you want in the car, as long as they’re unloaded and the ammunition is not within reach.

        1. That’s pretty common.

          But the notification requirement for legal conceal carry is bullshit.

          I would only notify if my encounter with the police escalated to where they were going to search my person. Then and only then would I tell them I’m carrying. Luckily I don’t live in a duty-to-notify state.

          1. Wouldn’t their running your license bring back the fact that you’ve got a permit, and immediately result in a search?

            1. Excellent question… I’ve only been pulled over once since I’ve had my carry permit– if I recall, no search.

              But legally, no, the act of being permitted to conceal carry a gun does not amount to probable cause for a search.

              If the cop asks me if I’m carrying, I will not lie to him. There’s probably some law about misdirection or some bullshit.

              1. I mean, if I recall the timing of the carry permit with the encounter. I would definitely recall a search.

              2. There’s probably some law about misdirection or some bullshit.

                There’s laws about lying to law enforcement already, right?

                1. There’s laws about lying to law enforcement already, right?

                  I’m pretty sure.

              3. If the cop asks me if I’m carrying, I will not lie to him.

                Invoking your 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself is not “lying”. However, it will send a ‘roid-ed up, slope-browed uniformed baboon into a murderous rage.

                1. “‘roid-ed up, slope-browed uniformed baboon”

                  Wait, you met the Aurora (IL) PD Special Ops Group in the late 1990s?!

                  1. Their reputation precedes them?

                2. Invoking your 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself is not “lying”. However, it will send a ‘roid-ed up, slope-browed uniformed baboon into a murderous rage.

                  Absolutely. I’m not going to be the victim of a procedurally justified shooting by being obstinate about telling the cop about my concealed weapon.

                3. I believe he was talking about carrying with the appropriate permits, etc.

                  I think that in NH only your local police department knows that you have a permit. Does that sound right to you?

        2. Same where we were and that is how we transported them. But I still would have never volunteered to any cop that they were there or consented to any search.

          1. Ditto.

  17. How’d the dog survive?

    What’s even more remarkable is that a town called Ankeny has a SWAT team.

    1. You need special weapons and tactics to root out suspected credit card fraud.

    2. DHS funds don’t justify themselves…

      1. They probably have an amphibious assault vehicle as well…

        1. My application for one is still pending 🙁

          Bureaucrats, eh?

    3. I love me some internets…

      The average salary for Swat Team in Ankeny, Iowa is $112,211. If you were to work as a Swat Team in Ankeny, Iowa you could expect a starting salary of $92,409. You could expect to make a salary of around $132,013 after some time.

      1. Ye gods. I guess Ankeny must have a seriously high cost of living, huh? Million dollar houses, the works? Right? Has to be.

      2. Holy shit. And $112,211 goes a LOOOOONG way in Iowa.

        1. That will buy a lot of dope

      3. Our underpaid public servants! Whatever we pay them is too little.

  18. I assume the department reimbursed the people for the property they destroyed?

    Haaaaaaa ha ha ha ha! I’ll be here all week.

  19. I’m super stoked that they’ve finally made credit-card fraud worthy of break-down-the-door SWATism.

    Looooove me some SWATzi’s! HEIL!

  20. OK, have the police ever suffered any penalties for destruction or tampering with cameras? Even in the egregious cases where they seized cameras from passersby who were not involved in the incident?

    1. Of course they don’t suffer any penalties. Destroying property is part of the job. It’s how they show their authority.

      *SMASH* “Want me to break anything else?”

      1. I know this behavior is quite common, but the courts are pretty consistently ruling that people have the right to record cops, even without their (the cops’) consent.

        It would seem that the next step would be seeking criminal penalties for that behavior.

        1. Intentionally destroying property already is criminal. And a civil wrong. You should be able to both prosecute and sue cops for busting up your stuff as it is. But how much does that happen, and how often does the non-cop win?

        2. Cops routinely get away with murder. Why would you think they could face criminal penalties for property damage?

    2. In the Land of the Little People, intentionally destroying video cameras would almost certainly be admissible and used in court against you as far as impeaching your version of the evidence goes. Not to mention that it’s a crime and is surely a tortious act for which you could recover damages.

    3. How were they supposed to know they were cameras and not automated weapons systems? Better safe than sorry.

        1. Props for an Owner series reference. And I’m pissed that Jupiter War has been delayed until late April.


    hey John S.

    Does the Ankeny PD require CAPs lock for data entry? Your blind defense of cops acting out of line throws mud on cops who do their jobs well. CAPs lock statements are typed by the inept or unstable, or those who think like 12 year olds.

    The second commenter nails the first one perfectly. ALTHOUGH I DISAGREE WITH HIS CHARACTERIZATON OF ALL CAPS.

    1. i, for one, am appalled by the overuse of capital letters.

      1. ME TOO!!!!!!!!


      2. I’m outraged! OUTRAGED I TELL YOU!

  22. This shit will continue until every American suburb is as inhospitable to police as the Muslim “no-go” areas of Paris and London. Seriously. You fucking piece of shit cops want to play Call of Duty? Fine. Do your neighborhood patrol and always have in the back of your mind that that parked car could be an IED. When you step out of your cop car, always have in the back of your mind that a rooftop sniper could end your life right there and then. Know that the residents of the neighborhood are hostile to your presence and will only give minimal cooperation, if at all. Know that if you wander into an alley alone that you will be abducted and then stabbed to death, after which your corpse will be dragged through the streets like it was Fallujah.

    1. You are correct. You can only police a populace that is willing to be policed. And there are not enough boot lickers out there to do that. And worse still, they have gotten so out of control that they are now terrorizing the very people that would normally support them. They could pretty much get away with terrorizing poor people forever since most people don’t give a shit about the poor. But when you move to terrorizing everyone regardless of how much money they have, you are in for a world of hurt.

    2. Unfortunately, in the mind of the cop, Maple Leaf Lane and Devondale Street are Fallujah. They talk about patrolling their ‘sector’.

      That’s why they acquire IED-proof assault vehicles. Because there’s an RPG around every corner. If it moves, shoot it. Sweep and clear, pacification, the works. The problem is, no one is actually shooting back.

      1. You are correct. They are so stupid that they have no idea just horrible such a place is.

        1. I think they know. A good chunk of them have probably served their time over in those shit holes, come back and joined the force.

          Maybe they should get treatment for the fucked up shit they saw over there instead of more authoritah.

          1. Some do.

            I do remember with some affection the embedded reporter from whom the series Generation Kill came from. The regular marines had zero love for the cops who were National Guard in Iraq.

            I believe it was reported that the real marines found the cop-soldiers to be overly aggressive and trigger happy.

            1. I didn’t think about that. Them being National Guard and not actual Marines/Army would make a hell of a lot sense.

            2. Very true. Iraq ROE were far, far stricter than what passes for constitutional law enforcement here in the corporate US.

            3. Very true. Iraq ROE were far, far stricter than what passes for constitutional law enforcement here in the corporate US.

            4. Very true. Iraq ROE were far, far stricter than what passes for constitutional law enforcement here in the corporate US.

      2. When someone does shoot back they will shut down an entire city or county until they shoot the person who dared to defy their authority.

      3. They’re playing solider. They have all the of the toys with none of the stress, fear, and constant reminders of one’s mortality. Even with the equipment, without the training and morale of a professionalized solider, it’s still not much of a “force multiplier”, so to speak.

    1. Ah, the coveted welfare-whore-going-to-a-private-law-school demographic.

    2. Our sons must grow up seeing women walking the halls of Congress. Because then they will know that if you want to call a woman a name, you have three options: congresswoman, senator, or Ms. President.

      Shades of Feinstein.

      1. Congresswoman, senator, or President are three of the most vile things I could think of calling someone.

        1. Very low on the list of professions I want my kids to go into would be politics. She’s scum of a very low order.

        2. Right up there with Officer and Your Honor.

      2. So does that mean we can stop paying for her contraception?

        1. If she becomes a representative?

        2. I hate to break it to you, but we will be paying her salary if she’s in office, including her benefits. We’ll also be paying less directly if her socialist/fascist/sexist self gets to vote on bills.

          1. I’m just saying, if she’s planning on having sons, we may pay for her sex-selective abortions, but not contraception, right?

            1. Under the Fluke Plan, we pay for everything a woman needs, wants, or randomly opts for just to confuse you.

        3. If she gets elected, you’ll be paying for her every desire and whim.

            1. The Hunger Flukes. It’s a rip-off of a really good Japanese cereal.

              1. ewwwwwwww……


      3. No, thanks. This is not Europe. There are no royalty here, cunt.

    3. Great, she can straight from law school to working in government, thus building a career despite never having worked in the private sector where you actually have to demonstrate and produce value.

      A true Obama protege.

      1. Seriously, have we learned nothing from the disastrous Obama years? I get that the left won’t admit how awful he is, but even many of them know it. Oh, yes, they know it.

        Experience usually does matter, because it gives us something to judge a candidate by. I know I despise John McCain as a politician, because I’ve seen him in action for many years. While there might be a cause to occasionally vote for someone without that level of experience (like Paul, for instance, because he’s the only candidate remotely close to a certain kind of political position), it’s generally a very bad idea.

        Of course, many representatives are running for their first office, so it’s a little harder to expect much experience, but some experience beyond “I went to law school” is in order. Besides, she’s a moron.

        1. First office yes, but usually they had an actual career beforehand like owning a business or practicing law.

          That or they have longstanding ties to the community as a native son/daughter. Fluke hasn’t done anything except have the good fortune of being mocked by Rush Limbaugh, which always promotes a knee-jerk response from the left.

          1. Look, fine, they have crazy political ideas that have no basis in reality. Okay. But why have those ideas delivered, implemented, and even crafted in the first place by empty suits like her, Warren, Obama, et al.?

          2. I was saying when that ridiculous controversy first surfaced what Limbaugh was doing Fluke a bigger favor than anyone had ever done her in her entire life.

        2. Seriously, have we learned nothing from the disastrous Obama years?

          No, hence term #2.

          If Obama can get, what 70 some percent of the latino vote in 2008, proceed to deport the shit out of mexican immigrants, and then get 80 some percent of the latino vote in 2012, you begin to understand the real meaning of Si se puede!

    4. She apparently hasn’t gotten the memo her 15 minutes are up.

      1. Someone should really take her aside and remind her what happened to Cindy Sheehan when Ms. Sheehan stopped being useful.

        Then again Ms. Fluke may be just the sort of immoral scum the Dems are looking for.

        1. Sheehan became “unuseful’ because her hobby horse was the war. When the Dems were running the war, well, you get the picture.

          Sandra Fluke’s hobby horse is “free stuff [for women]”. The free-stuff constituency is rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed. She’s very, very useful.

      2. Jezebel never forgets a comrade in arms.

      3. I’d imagine that’s why she’s running for office.

        1. She won’t win. She only moved out to LA in 2012 and it takes a lot of networking and palm-greasing to get the support of the California Democratic Party.

          She’s got a lot of tough competition with established Democrats that are popular with the district.

          1. I would imagine a lot of California Democrats have been waiting and preparing for Moleman to retire. That is a total safe Dem district. Little Miss Birth Control is not just going to stroll in and get the Dem nomination.

          2. She won’t win. She only moved out to LA in 2012 and it takes a lot of networking and palm-greasing to get the support of the California Democratic Party.

            You know who else moved to a state five minutes before an election and won?

            1. Yeah, Hitler can’t win–he’s an Austrian not a German. Close call there, guys.

              1. Good call. I was actually thinking Hillary Clinton. I was also also thinking Rahm Emanuel but at least it could be argued that he’s really from there anyway. I do know that the entrenched Chicago machine was a little miffed and considered him a bit of a carpet bagger.

                1. I know you meant Clinton, but I had to go there.

    5. Oh for fuck’s sake. A friend of mine was excited that she might run to replace Waxman to represent my district. His jubilant post (on Facebook) on the topic was exactly one post after he’d said he was worried that opportunist carpet-baggers would be running for the spot.


      She’d be an east coast academic running to represent a CA beach community. Fuck that shit.

      1. Please God tell me even California Dems won’t go for this.

        1. They won’t. Although it would be hilarious if she runs an insurgent campaign that turns what should be a safe election into a left-wing dick-measuring contest.

          1. I’m curious to see how this goes, she’s a terrible option, but I can see a few negative comments from the right causing dems to dig in and do something retarded.

            1. How exactly does she differentiate herself from the other Democrats running?

              Does she try to out-gay them with the gay vote? Or does she go Occutard and attack of any of them that have ever engaged in exploitative capitalist commerce?

              1. Does she have to? She has name recognition which matters on a lot of these smaller elections. She probably just has to be solidly progressive and not say anything overly stupid and the fact that she’s a known entity will carry her.

                Her supporters can gin up some war on women bs to help.

                1. Wonder if she can get a lot of cash? Cash helps.

      2. Knowing very little about her, my very surface impressions of her is that she seems more east coast than west coast.

        1. From her Wikipedia page:

          Sandra Fluke is a native of Saxton, Pennsylvania, and graduated from Pennsylvania’s Tussey Mountain Junior/Senior High School in 1999.[9] In 2003, Fluke graduated from Cornell University with a major in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies.[10]

          I don’t see that playing well when she’s competing with established Democrats that have been waiting their turn.

          1. Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies? How rich.

            1. Isn’t there a rule that if a degree has the word ‘Studies’ at the end of it, there’s usually no paycheck at the end of it either?

              1. No paycheck that isn’t forcibly extracted from the taxpayers at least.

      3. Goddamit. Now I want to write her a check.

  23. What is “permitting drug abuse”?…..cothe-home

    1. Not snitching

      1. Yeah. Thats crap.

    2. Is that the obligatory charge for the white girl in the house?


    And here ends the 4th Amendment. If the government can use intelligence assets to collect information on Americans with no regard to probable cause or reasonableness and then pass that information onto law enforcement for prosecution, we no longer have a 4th Amendment. Worse still, if the government can collude with the judge to ensure that you don’t know where the information that started the investigation came from, we no longer have due process rights.

    This really is that serious. Yet, no one outside of a few tech websites and a couple of British papers seems to care.

    1. Yet, no one outside of a few tech websites and a couple of British papers seems to care.

      Don’t forget us paranoid libertarians.

      1. Sadly, I haven’t seen Reason give this much coverage. It is a hell of a lot more important than Phillip Seymour Hoffman offing himself or some culture war fight over a Super Bowl commercial.

        1. Forward it on to Toochili or Shackleford. I bet they’ll do a write up on it. Or at least put it in the PM links.

        2. IIRC, this was covered in Reason, heavily, a long while ago. I know I remember reading about it here.

          1. These particular documents are new.

        3. Found it. Last August.


    2. I had no doubt this was occurring. The tradition is old. Obtain illegal evidence, use it for leads to discover legal evidence, and then bury the illegal stuff.

      The really scary question is whether, how, and why the agencies are asking for the information. In a criminal system where anyone and everyone is violating something, the potential for abuse is staggering. This is also the realized danger of having the damn data archives at all. The temptation is huge and it will not be resisted.

      1. And remember transnational crime is now defined as a national security threat. So all the police have to do is tell the IC that their person of interest is somehow connected to transnational crime. The IC then uses that as an excuse to collect everything on the guy and turn over anything they find back to the police.

      2. It’s important to remember that the violation of rights is illegal right out of the gate. It’s one of the reasons that focusing the punishment on not admitting the ill-gotten evidence is problematic, because the action should be punished regardless of whether the evidence is ever even presented in court.

        1. It is, yet how will anyone ever get standing to challenge this?

          1. Standing is such bullshit when a constitutional right is violated. How about some of that strict liability crap for the government? Sorry, it happened–you must pay.

        2. Why are you weak on crime? Why do you coddle the criminals?

    3. The NSA is in a never-ending war with terrorism. What was that Scalia said?

    4. The tone in the slides is horrifying. It verifies the suspicion that at all levels of law enforcement, the public employees view themselves as separate from the citizenry and to some extent, our benevolent masters.

      From the last slide:

      “The last answer, Americans do not like it, is a reminder that we in law enforcement work in a fish bowl. That is, even though we seek to protect our citizens, generally, we can only use techniques to achieve that objective (sic), that are acceptable to our citizens.”

      1. They view it as a parent/child relationship.

        I recall hearing the state police captain saying something about their job being “behavior modification.” Their job is not public safety. No, it’s to make sure their kids behave properly.

        1. They are also educated that they are superior to the general population. My bro-in-law was invited to an academy graduation by one of his cop buddies and he said he almost puked when one of the speakers who was a decorated police captain went on the superiority tirade by implicitly stating that police are special and are ‘better’ than the average citizen.

          Special callings tend to precede macabre tendencies: the middle ages is packed with proof of this.

    5. Parallel Construction = Covering up illegally obtained evidence

      It’s just like due process!

  25. they don’t have a written policy (!) on executing search warrants

    Big mistake. Now that they can’t say they were just following procedure.

    1. It’s an oral tradition

    2. Now that they can’t say they weren’t violating just following procedure.


  26. For those more familiar with law enforcement protocols… please to explain to me what legal rationale – if any – there could possibly be to ‘destroying security cameras’ at a location where they are conducting the execution of a warrant.

    For the purposes of ensuring any kind of subsequent charges, I’d assume ANY AND ALL recording equipment/devices would be considered valuable tools in enforcement.

    Wouldn’t destruction of them by default be considered ‘destruction of evidence’?

    1. what legal rationale

      Well, aside from the baseline “FYTW”, there’s always “Dominate and Control”.

      What’s interesting to me is that they are apparently trained to look for and destroy security cameras. That would be an interesting line of questioning at trial.

    2. It’s so the criminals can’t see the tactics and techniques that law enforcement uses in their investigations.

  27. Next in line: concealed security cameras. After that? State laws requiring camera-owners to register all security camera locations with the local authorities along with a background check, mental evaluation, and a call to the IRS to see if said camera-owners have been hanging with any liberty-based non-profits.


  28. Nobody shot the dog?
    Heads will roll for that slip-up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.