On Aug 30, 2008, at 8:49 PM, John wrote:
> Tell me you don't really think they raided this house sans warrant!
They had a warrant. Nobody stated otherwise; if you read the article
you'd know that that was expressly stated. The problem is that the
grounds for the warrant, as far as they've allowed people to see, were
extremely vague. The show of force, with an attack that included swat
team-like armor and weaponry, were completely out of proportion to the
situation. There were no weapons of any sort on any of the premises,
nor was there any indication that weapons were present.
This was a show of force designed to intimidate anyone thinking of
protesting the upcoming convention. Period.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
