1. NJ Gangbangers: The SWAT did overstep a smidge. The resident heard something and was documenting it for his safety and the safety of the residents in that community. The officers should have explained better. I also feel that if a authority will be performing those kind of exercises, they should be REQUIRED to notify people in the area. I mean when they held anti-terrorism drills on the METRO in dc a few weeks ago, it was all over the news.

2. Craiglist murder: Craigslist is a wonderful tool. I work for a contracting company and that is how we advertise. I trust that the 4 individuals involved in the heinous crime not only be charged with felony-murder, but also add an additional 4 counts of assault. There should be a special place in the inferno for people like that.

The article does say specifically that it was a search warrant that the “C. B. Emergency Services Team” was serving.

Why would anyone think it was a drug warrant?
Because it was done at 6 AM, and involved the use of a SWAT team. http://www.cbpolice.org/emergency2.asp

The best reason I can think of for using them, is because they felt it was a “high-risk search or arrest warrant ” situation.

In other words, some one said that there were drugs at that location, and they had seen a gun there once.

My hometown, isn’t it nice?

I have a close friend that worked for The Seattle Times as a classified ads sales rep. A large part of his job was trying to convince clients not to use craigslist.

Welcome to Boxer Ownership 101.

Of course not. The incident wouldn’t have happened if it had been a newspaper classified because criminals–like everyone else–don’t read the newspapers.

So what if she does? She’s correct. The Constitution is composed of words that must be interpreted. The Supreme Court reserves the power of final arbiter of law in the U.S. It’s interpretations are sovereign.

One who looks to the Constitution for defense of liberty is as a chicken looking to the fox for protection.

Anything to deny the dark halves of our selves that lurk in each of us.

“A Philadelphia cop had been shot; a manhunt was on. The block was cordoned off with yellow tape. Cops and SWAT teams fanned the streets. K-9 units scoured through brush. Some businesses were forced to close for five hours.

“The cops were questioning everybody,” Potts, 57, recalled.

Sgt. Robert Ralston, a 21-year veteran and father of five, said he’d been shot on patrol by a black man with “cornrows” and a “mark or tattoo under his left eye.”

Yesterday, the Overbrook neighbors were outraged to learn that it was all a lie.

Ralston, 46, had intentionally shot himself in the left shoulder.”

Fixed, thanks.

Actually, the shot was an accident, he was shooting at noone. Revolvers can be tricky unless you use them in double action mode.

Anyway, the article is too vague to be of use. There is no indication why a search warrant was being served, nor is there any indication that the arrest “for two counts of aggravated assault” were against the invading officers.

Usually… if someone is being arrested for ‘assault’ against police officers, that special rider is specifically included.

Radley, what basis do you have that this is a drug warrant? Did you do some investigation? This would be the kind of case that demonstrates the danger of irresponsible Police action, ASSUMING that the actions of the police were irresponsible.

As is, this story could go two ways (No, I’m not going to call the reporter, “Chad Nation”, because I’m not a journalist, just an arm chair internet hack). It could be a guy targeted by a bogus drug ‘investigation’, or it could be a guy who was suspected of aggravated assault. The gap between these is huge.

He was correct.