over react much? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 03-27-2006, 12:14 PM

Theres alot of talk in the gun owner community about the 'militarisation' of the police with all kinds of swat teams serving warrants and such.

Unfortunate incidents like the dentist in fairfax county virgina being accidentally shot by a swat team member serving a warrant on illegal gambling, but this next story has to make you wonder if they crossed WAY over the line.

Quote:

Walter "Mike" Thurber, the man whose home Sioux City police surrounded during a 22-hour standoff on Feb. 21-22, says the whole incident was "overkill" and much more expensive than it needed to be.

Thurber, who admitted to being "awfully depressed" at the time, said he was just exercising his right to privacy and his right not to answer his door.

He spoke to the Journal Friday at the Mental Health Institute in Cherokee, Iowa, where he is receiving therapy after being sent there by the court following the incident. Dressed in a plaid shirt and bluejeans, the articulate 39-year-old declined to be photographed.
He craves anonymity, but said he wants the public to know his side of the "standoff" story. He said he was rankled by Police Chief Joe Frisbie's "giving everybody attaboys" for the way the standoff was handled.

"I prefer to call it a siege rather than a standoff," he said. "I was in my home minding my business. How is that a standoff?

"They destroyed my house. I don't know a window in the house that they didn't shoot out with (tear gas) grenades, even little tiny decorative windows." He said a police negotiator told him they would take care of the damage, but he doesn't know if the house, at 3806 W. Fourth St., has been boarded up yet.

He said that after awhile during the "siege," he was so overstimulated by everything that he's not sure if he was asleep when a loud flash-bang device designed to wake him up was detonated. He said he put a wet towel over his head to cope with the tear gas, which left a powdery coating throughout the house; even the water tasted of it.

Knowing that Thurber owned firearms, the police department, its Strategic Emergency Response Team, hostage negotiations team, and a mobile command center -- and later a replacement team from the Woodbury County Sheriff's Office and a tactical robot from Des Moines -- turned out to persuade Thurber to come out of his house and talk to them, hoping to keep him from harming himself, or them.

Thurber said they also made all outgoing calls from his cell phone to ring to their negotiators. He said he might have felt better if he could have called his girlfriend, Teri, or his father in Washington. They offered to get them on the line, but he said he felt that violated his privacy.

"I'm a single person in the house," Thurber said Friday. "No hostages, no threats against anybody and they bring out everything short of the National Guard. They know me. There have been welfare checks at the home before. It's never taken a SWAT team, tactical robot and two command centers to get me out of the house.

"It's almost like a war game," he said. "These guys have full (tactical) uniforms, Kevlar helmets and machine guns. What kind of firepower is that for a guy who says, no, I'm scared. I'm not coming out of my house?

"It was just unbelievable to me," he said. "At no point did they just offer to have a guy not in full battle dress to come to the door and just talk to me." He said he would have understood the "siege" if he had a hostage or was being aggressive. "But I was just sitting in my room dodging grenades.

"If I was truly going to commit suicide, wouldn't that aggravate the situation to the point I'd be more likely to do something like that?"

As for the concern over his gun cache, which turned out to be "at least two rifles" according to police, Thurber said, "This is the Midwest. Everybody has guns." He said he likes to work on guns and target shoot. He said the only things he's ever shot are a squirrel and a pheasant. He said a gun that authorities removed from his house after a welfare check a year earlier was not a true AK-47, but a .22-caliber rifle made to look like an assault rifle.

"I wouldn't have done anything violent. I have never done anything violent," Thurber said.

"They could have handled it a lot less expensive," Thurber said, noting Frisbie was quoted saying the standoff cost the city up to $700 an hour. "If they needed to wait it out," he said, "a couple of patrol cars could've done that."

Thurber said the whole thing started when he called his younger sister, who lives near Los Angeles. "I had run out of money, unemployed. I was just to a bad point," he said. "I was feeling awfully depressed. I probably did upset my sister. She didn't even call me back to say, hey, Mike, calm down. It's not that bad."

Instead, concerned about his well-being, she called the Sioux City police.

Police said after the standoff that no crime occurred. However, he was committed for mental health care. He is allowed visits from his Sioux City girlfriend, Teri, whom he says he loves dearly, and is not restricted in his movements about the institute. He is hoping to be sent to a small residential facility soon where he can work on putting his life together rather than on his mental health issues.

Sioux City Journal (requires registration)

The_Jazz · 03-27-2006, 12:35 PM

dksuddeth, you've made your views on guns and the police abundantly clear in the past, but I think that you need to take a deep breath and think about what the police had to go on here. They get a call from the guy's sister saying that he's suicidal and he's got guns in the house. They've been there before, and there's apparently some history there. Given these facts, what would you have the police do?

Please explain how they "crossed over the line". There's an armed, suicidal guy barricading (despite his semantic argument, that's what he did) himself in the house. In countless similar circumstances, the suspect ends up taking shots at the police or bystanders. What would you have them do instead?

I noted a pretty big lack of quotes from the police in this article and a lack of acknowlegement of the police's version. Given the tone of the article, it sounds like this has been a running commentary since it happened. I don't have time to search their archives to see previous stories, but I'd love to hear more.

dksuddeth · 03-27-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

dksuddeth, you've made your views on guns and the police abundantly clear in the past, but I think that you need to take a deep breath and think about what the police had to go on here. They get a call from the guy's sister saying that he's suicidal and he's got guns in the house. They've been there before, and there's apparently some history there. Given these facts, what would you have the police do?

That they've been there before would imply that they SHOULD have a reasonable expectation of his reactions being the same as they have been before, since I would think that if they had implemented a 'siege' before, he would no longer be armed because his weapons would have been confiscated. Now, the article makes no mention of what his sister told police when she called, but again, they've been out there before without a major incident like this in the past.

Quote:

Please explain how they "crossed over the line". There's an armed, suicidal guy barricading (despite his semantic argument, that's what he did) himself in the house. In countless similar circumstances, the suspect ends up taking shots at the police or bystanders. What would you have them do instead?

Already knowing a history with this guy, they should have had a reasonable expectation of predictable response. Did they know he was armed before? Don't know because the article does not state this BUT if they'd been there before, they should have known this. What would I have them do? The same as they'd done before. It seems to me that one of two things happened. Either the sister SERIOUSLY exxagerated the circumstances when she called the police, or the police got tired of dealing with him. Either way, the police department, its Strategic Emergency Response Team, hostage negotiations team, and a mobile command center -- and later a replacement team from the Woodbury County Sheriff's Office and a tactical robot from Des Moines seems like an awful lot of firepower for a guy thats depressed and possibly suicidal.

The_Jazz · 03-27-2006, 01:28 PM

Clearly, neither of us knows enough of the facts here to make any sort of condemnation. By your own admission, the sister could have seriously exagerated the situation and caused a much larger response than she anticipated (maybe SHE got tired of it?). Mr. Thurber could have exagerated the sitauation in his conversation with the sister. Maybe he's was suicidal and ready to take his entire block out and told that to his sister and is embarrassed about it now.

Until we get more facts, it's all idle speculation. If you have information on why the police felt this was the appropriate response, I'd love to hear it, otherwise you and I are just going to make up our own facts and statistics and probably end up arguing about whether or not the Brazilian death squads were an appropriate response to the pickpocket problem in Rio in the late 80's.

The_Dunedan · 03-27-2006, 01:42 PM

And since -when- is it the job of your Friendly Neigborhood Jackboot Squad to prevent you from killing yourself?

--"I'm gonna commit suicide!"
>>>"You can't do that, sir; if you try to kill yourself, we'll shoot you!"

dksuddeth · 03-27-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

And since -when- is it the job of your Friendly Neigborhood Jackboot Squad to prevent you from killing yourself?

--"I'm gonna commit suicide!"
>>>"You can't do that, sir; if you try to kill yourself, we'll shoot you!"

They've had that policy in Dallas for years now.

Poppinjay · 03-27-2006, 01:58 PM

I actually find the Fairfax case more disturbing (well, partly because I work in Farifax County). The guy was un-armed, apparently was doing some gambling action, but no weapons. So they send an amped up SWAT team to collect him. While there, a .45 that just happened to be poippnting at this optomertrist's chest "accidently" went off.

The guy was compliant and followed all police directives during the raid.

The ruling? Accidental, and the DA has said repeatedly he will not pursue a case he feels he can't win.

dksuddeth · 03-27-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

The ruling? Accidental, and the DA has said repeatedly he will not pursue a case he feels he can't win.

Here's the thing though, The tactical unit doesn't use the wimpy 9mm that regular beat cops have. They use the H & K .45's that have a manual safety and a heavy trigger pull. So the cop had to have the safety off and more than 'lightly' and accidentally fired.

I could post a theory but then it would probably put the thread in to the paranoia forum

The_Jazz · 03-27-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Here's the thing though, The tactical unit doesn't use the wimpy 9mm that regular beat cops have. They use the H & K .45's that have a manual safety and a heavy trigger pull. So the cop had to have the safety off and more than 'lightly' and accidentally fired.

How did you find time to examine the gun in that shooting with all the posting on TFP that you do?

/smartass remarks

dksuddeth · 03-27-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

How did you find time to examine the gun in that shooting with all the posting on TFP that you do?

/smartass remarks

I also post on two different pro-gun boards.

Poppinjay · 03-28-2006, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I could post a theory but then it would probably put the thread in to the paranoia forum

Plenty of people around here, both right and left of the middle are positing theories that are similar, I'm sure.

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 06:26 AM

I'm sure they were worried about.....something.

http://www.thebulletin.com/archives/...dsnotosama.htm

Quote:

George Norris may never answer the door again.
Last time he did that was on October 28, when six (count 'emsix) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agents showed up on his doorstep, all covered in bulletproof Kevlar. Evidently, the U.S. Government decided to dress up as Big Brother this Halloween.
If only they had been looking for candy.

Instead, the agents entered the Spring-area home of the 65-year-old Norris and his wife, Kathy--tearing through virtually every room in the house. "They showed me a search warrant and sat me in a chair and told me not to get up. That amounts to house arrest."

During the four-hour "plant raid", some of the FWS agents went into the street in front of Norris' house and stopped neighbors, demanding to see identification and asking about suspicious activity around the Norris house. "People came by the house later asking 'What the heck was that all about?!'"

When the FWS agents left, they had packed up and taken all of Norris' records for the past 25 years, along with his computer.

So what did George Norris do? Did he plan a terroristic act that he intended to perpetrate on American soil? Did he smuggle in dangerous drugs that he planned to sell to school kids?

No.

Although he has been neither arrested nor charged in any crime, George Norris stands accused by the federal government of illegally smuggling orchids into the United States. Yes, orchids. Are these orchids that could be used to make a bomb? Can these orchids be sold as a controlled substance?

No.

On October 28, the FWS agents involved in this oh-so deadly dangerous raid did just that, led by FWS agent Jeff Odom, who did not return calls from The Bulletin on this matter. "I think (the Lacey Act) is a decent law, but it can be interpreted too broadly, and it can be abused." Norris says that he had documents proving that the orchids were imported legally, "but they wouldn't listen. They didn't want to listen. They had a plan and went through with it. They don't even understand their own regulations."

And quite a plan it was.

Of the six agents involved in this one-of-a-kind raid, four stormed up the driveway and through the front door while the other two covered the back of the house. "They were ready to shoot us if we slipped out the back," says Norris of the armed agents. Evidently, the agents were ready to use deadly force in the pursuit of this very dangerous criminal. "They had the route mapped out to Woodlands Memorial Hospital--just in case they had to take my body there."

I feel a whole lot safer from terrorists now that this potential homicidal maniac is no longer importing rare flowers.

kutulu · 04-11-2006, 08:10 AM

That's a bullshit article. What should LE wear/carry when serving a warrant? Should we bring in Spielberg and replace their guns with walkie-talkies? Oh the poor misunderstood smuggler. Smuggle drugs = bad, smuggle flowers = good?

You might consider using less biased sources if you want to be taken seriously.

braisler · 04-11-2006, 08:38 AM

It sounds a bit like the Sioux City police are trying to justify having the level of equipment and facilities that they do. They roll out the whole party once in a while just to show that they can. It has got to be pretty hard to justify maintaining a full Strategic Emergency Response Team, hostage negotiations team, and a mobile command center if you don't use them at least once in a while.

A little community I used to live in had similar issues. They wanted a SWAT team and a tactical helicopter, so they got one on loan from the county. Then they spent most of there time dreaming up training mission to justify having one full time. I'm not saying that this was a training maneuver, but that it might have been used to justify the existence of the tactical teams etc.

In any case, I agree that it was a massively overblown response. I hate that our personal freedoms are taken away in this manner. It is not a matter of having too big of a government, it is a matter of having the government inserted too far into our lives in the wrong way. Instead of working to assist, educate, and take care of health care, the government wants to control, regulate, and destroy.

The_Jazz · 04-11-2006, 08:40 AM

I agree. How does LE know that Mr. Morris isn't smuggling drugs. Or bombs. Or illegal weapons. Until they serve the warrant, they have no way of being sure. It sounds like they planned and executed this correctly. Whether or not their information for the warrant was sound is irrelevant to this arguement, if your problem is that LE showed up armed and ready for the worst case. Clearly they thought the guy was breaking the law and involved in illegal trade.

By the way, the "house arrest" that Mr. Norris complained about is completely legal and absolutely appropriate in these circumstances. I'm sure he would have been even more irritated if they kicked him out of the house and then searched it.

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

That's a bullshit article. What should LE wear/carry when serving a warrant? Should we bring in Spielberg and replace their guns with walkie-talkies? Oh the poor misunderstood smuggler. Smuggle drugs = bad, smuggle flowers = good?

Maybe you'd just prefer that they have the virginia approach and shoot the guy on the front porch and then blame it on a tired cop while sweeping it under the rug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

You might consider using less biased sources if you want to be taken seriously.

Did you even READ the article?

What sense does it take to realize that we are now living in a police state?
When a law enforcement agency can get a warrant based on an unsolicited two year old email that contained a key word (smuggle) from an eavesdropping program, hold them for 4 hours under house arrest, steal all of his property, hold it for 6 months+, not bother investigating it YET, and all because customs let this guy bring in an orchid that nobody knew was illegal at the time.

wake up people, or does this need to actually happen to you before you get up of your ass and do something about it?

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I agree. How does LE know that Mr. Morris isn't smuggling drugs. Or bombs. Or illegal weapons. Until they serve the warrant, they have no way of being sure.

So what is 'probable cause' to get a warrant? we didn't need that 4th amendment anymore anyway. Give LE a warrant to search ALL houses anytime, day or night, because we just don't know if someone is smuggling something.

kutulu · 04-11-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Maybe you'd just prefer that they have the virginia approach and shoot the guy on the front porch and then blame it on a tired cop while sweeping it under the rug.

Did they shoot him? No.

Quote:

Did you even READ the article?

I read what you posted, if you are copying and pasting sections you should indicate that in your post. It's part of presenting information in a credible manner.

Quote:

What sense does it take to realize that we are now living in a police state?
When a law enforcement agency can get a warrant based on an unsolicited two year old email that contained a key word (smuggle) from an eavesdropping program, hold them for 4 hours under house arrest, steal all of his property, hold it for 6 months+, not bother investigating it YET, and all because customs let this guy bring in an orchid that nobody knew was illegal at the time.

I don't agree with how the warrant was issued but it was executed in a proper manner. Should LE let a suspect leave the scene during a warrant? Also, I'm sure you are smart enough the LE has the authority to confiscate evidence (it's not theft).

I'm all for laws that would force LE to fully reimburse people for damages done to their property during the execution of search warrants if the search does not lead to a conviction within a reasonable time period.

The_Jazz · 04-11-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

So what is 'probable cause' to get a warrant? we didn't need that 4th amendment anymore anyway. Give LE a warrant to search ALL houses anytime, day or night, because we just don't know if someone is smuggling something.

Please point out the section of the article that discusses the probable cause since I can't find it. I see a reference in your earlier post about a "2 year-old email", but there's no mention of it in the article. At this point, I think that you may need a chin-strap for your tinfoil hat.

Assuming for a moment that there's some sort of email that led to this whole thing, I find it impossible to believe that LE would sit on an email for 2 years, do no investigation and then be able to get a warrant based solely on that email. Any competent judge would have made them produce more evidence to grant a warrant. I suspect that you either don't have all the facts or are ignoring the ones inconvenient to your arguement to make it more effective. If you have material outside this article that you're working with, can you share?

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 10:37 AM

well, since there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not copying and pasting the whole article is necessary, or pasting some parts while providing a link to the rest is evident, I will paste the entire article AND the link.

http://www.thebulletin.com/archives/...dsnotosama.htm

Quote:

Orchids... not Osama

The U.S. Government protects us from our greatest national security threat:
a guy selling flowers

Mark Williams

George Norris may never answer the door again.
Last time he did that was on October 28, when six (count 'emsix) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agents showed up on his doorstep, all covered in bulletproof Kevlar. Evidently, the U.S. Government decided to dress up as Big Brother this Halloween.
If only they had been looking for candy.

Instead, the agents entered the Spring-area home of the 65-year-old Norris and his wife, Kathy--tearing through virtually every room in the house. "They showed me a search warrant and sat me in a chair and told me not to get up. That amounts to house arrest."

During the four-hour "plant raid", some of the FWS agents went into the street in front of Norris' house and stopped neighbors, demanding to see identification and asking about suspicious activity around the Norris house. "People came by the house later asking 'What the heck was that all about?!'"

When the FWS agents left, they had packed up and taken all of Norris' records for the past 25 years, along with his computer.

So what did George Norris do? Did he plan a terroristic act that he intended to perpetrate on American soil? Did he smuggle in dangerous drugs that he planned to sell to school kids?

No.

Although he has been neither arrested nor charged in any crime, George Norris stands accused by the federal government of illegally smuggling orchids into the United States. Yes, orchids. Are these orchids that could be used to make a bomb? Can these orchids be sold as a controlled substance?

No.

The fact of the matter is that George Norris didn't do anything illegal. "I've been importing these particular plants for years," says Norris, a resident of Timber Creek, just south of The Woodlands. "The importation is sanctioned by the government of Peru, and it's all perfectly legal. These are plants that have been grown in the same greenhouse for years."

Norris is accused by the FWS of violation of the Lacey Act: the nation's first far-reaching federal wildlife protection law. Under the Lacey Act, it is illegal to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of U.S. or Indian law; or in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of state or foreign law.

"The Lacey Act was amended to cover plants in 1981," says Norris. "Up until this time, (the FWS) had very little to do with plants and still don't for the most part. The agents who were in the raid went through the greenhouse out back and tore everything up, but they couldn't identify a single plant out there. They didn't know what the plant they were looking for even looked like."

The Lacey Act sets fines for violations involving imports or exports, or commercial violations in which the value of the wildlife exceeds $350. Fines for misdemeanor violations are currently set at a maximum of $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for organizations; maximum fines for felonies are presently $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.

According to the FWS website, "(o)fficers enforcing the Lacey Act may carry firearms; make arrests; search and seize; issue subpoenas and warrants; and inspect vessels, vehicles, aircraft, packages, crates, and containers on arrival or departure from the United States. The law authorizes rewards for information leading to arrests, criminal convictions, civil penalties, or forfeiture of property, and for payment of costs of temporary care for fish, wildlife, or plants needed for court proceedings."

On October 28, the FWS agents involved in this oh-so deadly dangerous raid did just that, led by FWS agent Jeff Odom, who did not return calls from The Bulletin on this matter. "I think (the Lacey Act) is a decent law, but it can be interpreted too broadly, and it can be abused." Norris says that he had documents proving that the orchids were imported legally, "but they wouldn't listen. They didn't want to listen. They had a plan and went through with it. They don't even understand their own regulations."

And quite a plan it was.

Of the six agents involved in this one-of-a-kind raid, four stormed up the driveway and through the front door while the other two covered the back of the house. "They were ready to shoot us if we slipped out the back," says Norris of the armed agents. Evidently, the agents were ready to use deadly force in the pursuit of this very dangerous criminal. "They had the route mapped out to Woodlands Memorial Hospital--just in case they had to take my body there."

But the FWS might have had a long wait to serve the warrant had they waited on the Spring Police Department--a law enforcement agency that doesn't even exist. "They told me they were thinking of calling the Spring police to help them if I gave them any trouble. They didn't seem to know that Spring is a postal district. There's a lot they didn't seem to know..."

For the past quarter century, Norris has complemented his Social Security income by running a small business, Spring Orchid Specialties, from his home. Norris has a number of ailments--arthritis, diabetes, heart problems--and is unable to work. "I don't make a whole lot of money off this...maybe about $10,000 a year. I drive an 11-year-old Surburban and I've lived in the same house for 35 years."

Norris says that the FWS got the search warrant from a local magistrate on the flimsiest of evidence, using partial e-mails--private communiqués from Norris' computer--that were tracked with Carnivore, a "diagnostic tool" used by the federal government to tag questionable material sent through the internet, ostensibly to prevent the onslaught of terrorism inside the United States. "Any time words like 'bombs' or 'guns' or something like that is used in an e-mail, it gets kicked over to the system," says Norris.
Okay, sure: guns, bombs...but orchids?!

"The search warrant they showed me was illegal," Norris says, "and it was obtained by taking things out of context."

Norris says the search warrant was obtained because of an e-mail sent to him over two years ago. "A man wrote me from Ecuador offering to smuggle in some orchid using his mother. That's what (the FWS) used to get their warrant. What they didn't use was my response to the man, which was not just no, but hell no. I told him it was illegal and that his mother would probably end up in jail for the rest of her life."

"I think my warrant got mixed in with other warrants when they when to the judge," says Norris. "I think they put me in with drug dealers and counterfeiters to get the warrant."

As things now stand, Norris cannot defend himself against the charges, because the FWS, in raiding every closet and drawer in sight, took all of Norris' business records--including the documentation for the orchids in question. "I can't even hire a lawyer now, because I don't have any proof of my innocence, but (the FWS) can't prove anything with what they got."

Norris estimates that the FWS is spending about $100,000 on this investigation so far and are nowhere near through with Norris; his business records have been taken to Albuquerque, New Mexico--despite the fact that no FWS agents have even looked at them yet. "They're not even investigating this thing locally," Norris says, "and those records could just sit there for months. Norris says that his computer, which was confiscated by the FWS, is currently at a government forensics lab in Phoenix, Arizona. "They're seeing what they can pull off the hard drive, see what they can find," he says.

Unfortunately, Norris has gone through all this before with the FWS--although their methods were not quite the "gestapo tactics" that Norris says were used on him on October 28. It was only five years ago that the FWS raided Spring Orchid Specialties for the first time--without a search warrant, but with Norris' full cooperation. They found nothing to incriminate Norris in any kind of criminal act.

Given its absurd nature, it is easy to make light of this situation--but the cold hard truth is that the joke is on all of us.

The tragedy of 9-11 has clearly given government agencies the power to use and abuse the citizenry of the United States. To not cooperate with the ridiculous demands of these agencies is practically considered to be treason, in light of our current national climate.

George Norris is not in jail or even charged with a crime, but his business has been shut down by a governmental agency that has more power than anyone can even fathom. "The Fish and Wildlife Service is more powerful than the F.B.I. or the C.I.A.," says Norris.

The FWS can walk into anyone's home at any time and tear it apart without even having to say what it is they are looking for; they spend taxpayer money on wild goose chases like this one, ripping apart lives for the sake of a few orchids that are legally in this country in the first place.

Power is being abused in the name of homeland security in the land of the free and the home of the brave. "If it can happen to me," says Norris, "it can happen to anyone.”

The_Jazz · 04-11-2006, 10:58 AM

Thanks, dksuddeth. I see your referrence now.

Unfortunately, we're going off of only Mr. Norris's word for the items listed in the search warrant or the latest developments in the case. How does he know who has or hasn't looked at the files. I also love the author's blind-faith trust that Mr. Norris didn't commit any crime. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's a nice example of non-objective journalism for you.

By the way, I love the line about the Fish and Wildlife Service being more powerful than the FBI or CIA, especially with the followup line (almost a throwaway) that the FWS can basically act like a police force (oh the horror!) and serve warrants and conduct searches).

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Thanks, dksuddeth. I see your referrence now.

Unfortunately, we're going off of only Mr. Norris's word for the items listed in the search warrant or the latest developments in the case. How does he know who has or hasn't looked at the files. I also love the author's blind-faith trust that Mr. Norris didn't commit any crime. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's a nice example of non-objective journalism for you.

By the way, I love the line about the Fish and Wildlife Service being more powerful than the FBI or CIA, especially with the followup line (almost a throwaway) that the FWS can basically act like a police force (oh the horror!) and serve warrants and conduct searches).

and here is where we have gone seriously wrong as a country. We used to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. We used to be protected from government abuse by the constitution. We used to be able to petition and redress those abuses by that same constitution. I hate to sound like Michael Moore, but 'dude, wheres my country?'

The_Jazz · 04-11-2006, 11:38 AM

I'm not assuming that Mr. Norris is guilty, but I'm not presuming he's innocent either. The doctrine you're quoting is ONLY reserved for the courtroom, and the government is allowed to gather evidence to prove his guilt (and rightly so).

Please point to the portion of the full article that discusses Mr. Norris's innability to redress the "abuses" by the government. 6 months is not an unreasonable amount of time for the government to try to put together a case, especially considering that smuggling typically involves a much larger operation than a single individual. Why do I get the feeling that there are potentially more suspects in this case than just Mr. Norris?

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'm not assuming that Mr. Norris is guilty, but I'm not presuming he's innocent either. The doctrine you're quoting is ONLY reserved for the courtroom, and the government is allowed to gather evidence to prove his guilt (and rightly so).

then you are only using half of our justice systems documentum for your own purposes. we ALL are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Gathering evidence is allowed but the 4th amendment standards have to be applied

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Please point to the portion of the full article that discusses Mr. Norris's innability to redress the "abuses" by the government. 6 months is not an unreasonable amount of time for the government to try to put together a case, especially considering that smuggling typically involves a much larger operation than a single individual. Why do I get the feeling that there are potentially more suspects in this case than just Mr. Norris?

There is one other 'collaberator', a peruvian citizen who helped smuggle it in as a mislabled common orchid. The main issue with this is we are acting like flower smuggling is a national security issue and treating the flower smugglers as if they were terrorists. Nobody sees something wrong with that? At the most, they should be fined, not face 35 years in prison for illegal flowers.

kutulu · 04-11-2006, 12:24 PM

The standards of the 4th amendment WERE applied. They got a warrant and exectuted it.

Where does the article claim he's facing 35 years?

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

The standards of the 4th amendment WERE applied. They got a warrant and exectuted it.

based on the flimsiest probable cause and a serious lack of evidence that I'm aware of. Also, if they were executing a warrant for illegally possessing an endangered orchid, why take a computer, files, and lots of other things instead of the real evidence....the orchids? Thats a simple question, to garner more evidence of any other crimes that aren't in the initial complaint or oath of affirmation for the warrant so they can mount a case with dozens of charges (hopefully) and solicit a plea bargain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Where does the article claim he's facing 35 years?

my bad. I got two different stories mixed up. It's actually 6 years, not 35.

The_Jazz · 04-11-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

then you are only using half of our justice systems documentum for your own purposes. we ALL are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Gathering evidence is allowed but the 4th amendment standards have to be applied

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

OK, where have the standards NOT been applied? Everything in the article states that the feds followed all of the requirements. I certainly agree that a two-year old email may not be the greatest proof in the world, but it apparently satisfied the judge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

There is one other 'collaberator', a peruvian citizen who helped smuggle it in as a mislabled common orchid. The main issue with this is we are acting like flower smuggling is a national security issue and treating the flower smugglers as if they were terrorists. Nobody sees something wrong with that? At the most, they should be fined, not face 35 years in prison for illegal flowers.

Deep breath time - remember who you're getting your information from - the accused. I don't know him, so why should I believe what he has to say?

kutulu · 04-11-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Also, if they were executing a warrant for illegally possessing an endangered orchid, why take a computer, files, and lots of other things instead of the real evidence....the orchids? Thats a simple question, to garner more evidence of any other crimes that aren't in the initial complaint or oath of affirmation for the warrant so they can mount a case with dozens of charges (hopefully) and solicit a plea bargain.

Even simpler, he recieved emails about smuggling orchids, the evidence IS in the computers!

dksuddeth · 04-11-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Even simpler, he recieved emails about smuggling orchids, the evidence IS in the computers!

right, but they only used the soliciting email and omitted his response of declination. should that pass for fourth amendment protection?

The_Jazz · 04-11-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

right, but they only used the soliciting email and omitted his response of declination. should that pass for fourth amendment protection?

We've only got his word that this email was the only reason for the warrant. And that he responded as described. And that he never smuggled orchids.

I don't know this guy. He may be trustworthy. Then again, he may be someone that I wouldn't trust. You'll have to excuse me if I reserve judgement based on an article written entirely from the standpoint of someone suspected of smuggling.

host · 04-11-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

We've only got his word that this email was the only reason for the warrant. And that he responded as described. And that he never smuggled orchids.

I don't know this guy. He may be trustworthy. Then again, he may be someone that I wouldn't trust. You'll have to excuse me if I reserve judgement based on an article written entirely from the standpoint of someone suspected of smuggling.

dksuddeth...pick a different "victim" to make your argument. This one is a guilty pleading, lying, greedy, criminal, IMO. His "home invasion" was apparently in Oct., 2003, and seems to have been justified, if for no other reason, than, it was a smuggling case, large profits were involved, it involved five years of illegal activity, and it would have been easy for the suspects to destroy evidence, without a FWS agent "show of force", which enabled the agents to "lock down" the investigation scene and the suspects, George and Kathy Norris. I don't think that the agents handling of the Oct. 28, 2003 "visit" to the Norris home, could have been any more embarrasing to Norris, than the news below the first link, reporting his crimes, pleas, and prison sentence.

Quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...346EDT0928.DTL
Flower dealer sentenced to 17 months for smuggling rare orchids

Wednesday, October 6, 2004

(10-06) 20:46 PDT MIAMI (AP) --

An orchid dealer was sentenced Wednesday to a year and five months in federal prison for scheming to smuggle prized tropical lady slipper orchids into the United States.

George W. Norris of Spring, Texas, was also sentenced to two years probation. Co-defendant Manuel Arias Silva, a Peruvian orchid grower, pleaded guilty in June and was sentenced in July to a year and nine months in prison.

Norris instructed Arias to ship through south Florida because federal inspectors at Miami International Airport were more lax than their counterparts in Houston, according to papers and e-mails seized in the investigation.

The investigation was based on a tip about Norris offering endangered species for sale on the Internet.

The Peruvian lady slippers are considered seriously endangered in the wild and are protected by international treaty. Nursery-raised varieties can be exported with government permits.

Norris and Arias used invalid permits for the shipments and falsely labeled many of the plants to cover up the lack of a valid permit, prosecutors said.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=2
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 18, 2004

Carlos B. Castillo, Special Counsel for Public Affairs, (305) 961-9425
Yovanny Lopez, Public Affairs Specialist,
(305) 961-9316

TEXAS ORCHID GROWER PLEAS GUILTY IN MIAMI TO SMUGGLING PROTECTED PERUVIAN ORCHIDS

Marcos Daniel Jiménez, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, announced today that George Norris, 66, a resident of Spring, Texas, pled guilty in Miami federal District Court in connection with a conspiracy to smuggle into the United States protected orchid specimens, including specimens of the genus Phragmipedium, commonly known as Tropical lady's slipper orchids. All species of orchid are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a treaty to which the United States and Peru, along with over 160 other nations, are parties. The United States implements CITES through the Endangered Species Act. In addition to pleading guilty to the conspiracy charge, Norris pled guilty to six additional criminal charges related to the smuggling of orchid specimens into the United States for sale and admitted to a forfeiture provision in the Indictment which asserts that the orchids or their substitute value is properly forfeitable as part of the action..

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Norris may receive up to a five-year term of imprisonment and a possible fine of up to the greater of $250,000 or twice the gain or loss from his relevant conduct, for each of the seven Counts. United States District Judge Patricia Seitz accepted the guilty pleas and scheduled sentencing for September 2, 2004, at 8:30 a.m. Norris' co-defendant, Manuel Arias Silva of Lima, Peru, previously entered guilty pleas to two counts of the Indictment and is awaiting sentencing on the charges.

According to the indictment and statements in Court, Arias made several shipments of orchids to his co-conspirator, George Norris, of Spring, Texas, between January of 1999 and October of 2003. Arias would obtain a CITES permit for the shipment from Peruvian authorities, with whom he had a long-standing relationship, authorizing the export of certain numbers of artificially-propagated specimens of particular species of orchids. Arias would then include in the shipment specimens of species not included on the CITES permit. Norris and Arias admitted by their pleas that to conceal their illegal activity, they would falsely label the protected species as a species included on the permit. Arias would provide Norris a code or "key" that would provide a means for deciphering the false labels and identifying the true species of the orchids. One shipment in February of 2003 allegedly included some 1,145 specimens, of which approximately 490 were of species not authorized for export by the accompanying CITES permit. Norris and Arias admitted by pleading guilty that they used invalid permits for their shipments and falsely labeled many of the plants shipped to cover up the lack of a valid permit. Three of the shipments mentioned in Court were valued at more than $45,000, based on the actual sales recorded in records seized during the search of Norris' business in Texas.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2004/r04-021.html
Two Individuals Indicted in Miami for Smuggling Protected Peruvian Orchids

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 11, 2004

Contact:
Tom MacKenzie, FWS, 404-679-7291

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A federal grand jury in Miami, Florida, has returned an indictment charging Manuel G. Arias Silva, a Peruvian national, and George W. Norris, a resident of Spring, Texas, with conspiring to smuggle into the United States protected orchid specimens, including specimens of the genus Phragmipedium, commonly known as Tropical lady’s slipper orchids. All species of orchid are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

According to the indictment, Arias sold several shipments of orchids to Norris between January of 1999 and October of 2003. Arias would allegedly obtain a CITES permit for the shipment from Peruvian authorities that authorized the export of certain numbers of artificially-propagated specimens of particular species of orchids. Arias, at the instruction of Norris, would then allegedly include in the shipment specimens of species not included on the CITES permit. To conceal the allegedly illegal activity, he would falsely label the protected species as a species listed on the permit. Arias would allegedly provide to Norris a code or “key” that would provide Norris a means for deciphering the false labels and identifying the true species of the orchids. In some instances Arias allegedly shipped orchids that were wild collected rather than artificially propagated. One shipment in February of 2003 allegedly included some 1,145 specimens, of which approximately 490 were of species not authorized for export by the accompanying CITES permit.

In addition, Arias is charged with two counts and Norris with one count of making a false statement to federal authorities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Norris faces an additional two counts of smuggling related to alleged sales and domestic shipments of orchids that he knew had been imported contrary to law. If convicted, the maximum penalty for each of the counts of the indictment is up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is a treaty to which the United States and Peru, along with over 160 other nations, are parties. The United States implements CITES through the Endangered Species Act. Certain species of orchids are listed on Appendix I of CITES, including all species of the genus Phragmipedium.

The indictment alleges that the men used invalid permits for the shipments and falsely labeled many of the plants shipped to cover up the lack of a valid permit. The shipments all were allegedly for commercial purposes.

The investigation of this case was lead by Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection Service and the Department of Agriculture. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida as well as the Wildlife and Marine Resources Section of the Department of Justice.

An indictment is a formal accusation and is not proof of guilt. Defendants are presumed innocent until and unless they are found guilty.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=2
Orchid importer arrested in smuggling
Posted on Saturday March 06, 2004
By Larry Lebowitz

....Records show the investigation started in April 2002 when an unidentified private citizen contacted Fish & Wildlife investigators about the husband-and-wife team who were selling endangered species via the Internet.

The agents encouraged the citizen to maintain an e-mail correspondence and make several purchases from the Norrises. The cooperator purchased four orchids in May 2002.

NO PERMIT

At the agent's urging, the buyer repeatedly asked George Norris to include a copy of the endangered species import permit from Peru with the shipment. Each time Norris promised, but failed to deliver copies of the permits.

Agents later discovered that Peru issued Arias a permit to export some orchids in May 2002, but it was canceled by USDA officials. And the Peruvian permit did not include any of the species shipped to the cooperating buyer or advertised by Norris on the e-mail shopping list.

The buyer ordered 10 more species from Norris in August. Norris promised his e-mail shoppers that Arias had a special Peruvian permit ``so they are perfectly legal.''

<h3>The feds raided the Norris home in October and unearthed years of letters and e-mail correspondence with Arias that allegedly show the conspiracy dates back to at least 1995.

LAX INSPECTIONS

One letter, dated July 1998, from Norris to Arias, boldly laid out the lax inspections in Miami.</h3>

"This shipment was great. It went through inspection in 1 ½ hours. They did not open very many bags. They know that you can have really clean plants and just do not look. But this is only Miami . . . Houston would be much tougher. Please make a note to not ship except to Miami. I do not think there will be any problem with the phrags. As they have passed so many through as other genus.''

Norris encouraged Arias to keep the phrags coming.

"I don't see any problems with shipping phrags, as Miami is so overloaded with plant shipments that they rarely open boxes and do not look at many plants. Make sure they are wrapped with moss and paper and in plastic and marked Maxillarias as before.''

The_Jazz · 04-12-2006, 04:36 AM

Can we all pause for just a second and realize that sometimes the accused are actually guilty? Just becuase someone tells a reporter he's innocent, that doesn't make him so. Good find, host.

The_Dunedan · 04-12-2006, 07:22 AM

Can we all pause for a second and realize that the idea that the Feds can control what plants one can or cannot own or sell is insane!? Since when is it some paper-pushing bullies buisiness what someone grows on his own property or brings into the country on his own dime?

PERMITS!? I'm sorry, I thought this was America...you know, where Private Property is supposed to be respected.

The_Jazz · 04-12-2006, 08:31 AM

The_Dunedan - there are a whole bunch of reasons why, the first of which is that they are trying to keep this plant from being hunted to extinction in the wild. If for no other reason, that should be good enough for you. Second, the government needs to be able to control plants that people bring into the country to control diseases among crop plants, health of other citizens, drug crops, etc. People that smuggle live plants and animals into this country do so at great risk to the general population since there's no control over any diseases, just to pick one particular issue. Remember the hoof-and-mouth outbreak in Europe a few years ago? That cost millions of dollars in prevention in this country alone.

There was a mechanism in place to import these plants "on his own dime", and Mr. Norris chose to circumvent that process. If you read the article posted by host, you'll see where this is plainly spelled out.

If you seriously believe the tripe you're spewing, you clearly haven't thought out the logical conclusions of your argument.

kutulu · 04-12-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Can we all pause for a second and realize that the idea that the Feds can control what plants one can or cannot own or sell is insane!? Since when is it some paper-pushing bullies buisiness what someone grows on his own property or brings into the country on his own dime?

PERMITS!? I'm sorry, I thought this was America...you know, where Private Property is supposed to be respected.

RTFA, the plants were protected/endangered species. That definitely changes things.

host · 04-12-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Can we all pause for a second and realize that the idea that the Feds can control what plants one can or cannot own or sell is insane!? Since when is it some paper-pushing bullies buisiness what someone grows on his own property or brings into the country on his own dime?

PERMITS!? I'm sorry, I thought this was America...you know, where Private Property is supposed to be respected.

I'm not going to spend more time looking for more authoritive sources than the one in the quote box below. The point is that there are persuasive reasons for the laws that control imports of rare plants.Mr. Norris apparently instructed a foreign national as to how to circumvent effective U.S. customs inspection, broke the law for 5 to 8 years for profit, was "turned in" by a law abiding party who recognized the rather obscure, international law that Norris was breaking, and Norris misled investigators when they tried to determine if he was involved in criminal activity. Then Norris spread his apparently false story of being unfairly harrassed, intimidated, and persecuted by FWS agents.

Norris's argument, in dksuddeth's article, was that he had not even been arrested. A few months later, he was indicted, arrested, and then he pled guilty.

There are laws prohibiting the cultivation of varities of hemp, coca, and opium poppy plants, and I'm sure, other species, even in the privacy of one's own home.

How else can there be international control in protecting fragile, exoctic eco-systems, given the following description:

Quote:

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug09/os1.asp
Deccan Herald, Saturday, August 9, 2003
Northeast Mississippi Community College in Booneville, Mississippi, is one of the first public buildings to use plants to make itself a healthy indoor environment!

.......The Orchid Hunters: As early as the seventeenth century the orchid hunters had begun their often lethal hunt to find and grab as many kinds of orchids as they could from the tropics, even from India, to sell them in Europe. During the 1850’s collectors began to rush to the tropics of Asia and the Americas, seeking orchids. Some of them were brutal and shameless and took every sample of precious plants, and even destroyed all others, to preserve their rarity! A single specimen of an orchid could fetch a collector thousands of dollars! Thankfully, the golden age of orchid hunting ended with the beginning of World War I.
Making up one in seven of all the world’s flowering plant species, orchids are truly fascinating. Some orchid blooms have a lovely scent while some stink! An orchid can resemble a shoe shaped pouch or a slipper or even an apron!

<b>The tragedy is that even today orchids are threatened by over-collection and by deforestation. Forests are cut down and orchids vanish. Whole forests were torn to get to the orchids perched in trees! Why? Because it was easier to cut down a tree to get the orchid instead of climbing the tree trunk to tear the plant off!</b> A small, dark purple lady’s slipper orchid which grew in Hong Kong was smuggled into the United States! One lovely orchid was so plentiful at one time that it was used as an aquarium plant because tropical fish fanciers had found that it continued to live inside fish tanks! Now it has died out!

<b>All trade in wild collected orchids is now prohibited except under licence. But ships filled with orchids are still coming into the United States and the UK. Orchids are still being collected in the wild and forests are still being cut down!</b>
The Royal Botanic Garden at Kew in England has taken the lead in conservation of endangered plants all over the world and the orchids in this picture are from Kew’s orchid bank. Hopefully more gardens will follow Kew’s example!

kutulu · 04-12-2006, 09:03 AM

Forgot to say this but it was very interesting that things went from a guy being arrested for 'unsolicited emails' to confessing to running a smuggling operation specializing in endangered species for 5 years. I guess that's why we ask for credible, unbiased articles.

Now why did they need the computer?

dksuddeth · 04-12-2006, 09:08 AM

I admit, this was my fault for failing to follow up and see if there was any further action taken from the articles I first read. My apologies to all, however, I still think that raiding the home of a flower smuggler with a body armored/gun toting team of forest service personnel was a bit much.

kutulu · 04-12-2006, 09:56 AM

Then fine, what is the acceptable standard for serving search warrants to anyone? I just don't get why cops having guns and body armor during a search warrant sounds like an issue.

dksuddeth · 04-12-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Then fine, what is the acceptable standard for serving search warrants to anyone? I just don't get why cops having guns and body armor during a search warrant sounds like an issue.

well, for one thing, when you approach EVERY warrant serve with armed swat teams, you get accidents like the one that befell Dr. Salvatore Culosi in virginia. Dr. Culosi was an eye doctor in FairFax county who was being served a warrant for illegal bookmaking. He'd been the focus of a sting operation and at no time during that operation did any of the undercovers spot him with a weapon and he wasn't known to own any weapons, yet when the police showed up to serve the warrant, he walked out on to his porch to meet the police officers, unarmed, and in the course of being served the warrant, was shot once in the chest by a county officer. Dr. Culosi died as a result and the officer that shot him blamed the 'accident' on him being tired. He will face no charges in the drs death. I could completely understand serving a warrant with an armed team if the 'probable cause' is related to any violent crime, but in situations where there is no sign of the suspect to be violent or armed and the probable cause issue is non-violent in nature, there is no reason to use paramilitary outfits to serve the warrants.

03-27-2006, 12:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	dksuddeth, you've made your views on guns and the police abundantly clear in the past, but I think that you need to take a deep breath and think about what the police had to go on here. They get a call from the guy's sister saying that he's suicidal and he's got guns in the house. They've been there before, and there's apparently some history there. Given these facts, what would you have the police do? Please explain how they "crossed over the line". There's an armed, suicidal guy barricading (despite his semantic argument, that's what he did) himself in the house. In countless similar circumstances, the suspect ends up taking shots at the police or bystanders. What would you have them do instead? I noted a pretty big lack of quotes from the police in this article and a lack of acknowlegement of the police's version. Given the tone of the article, it sounds like this has been a running commentary since it happened. I don't have time to search their archives to see previous stories, but I'd love to hear more. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-27-2006, 01:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Clearly, neither of us knows enough of the facts here to make any sort of condemnation. By your own admission, the sister could have seriously exagerated the situation and caused a much larger response than she anticipated (maybe SHE got tired of it?). Mr. Thurber could have exagerated the sitauation in his conversation with the sister. Maybe he's was suicidal and ready to take his entire block out and told that to his sister and is embarrassed about it now. Until we get more facts, it's all idle speculation. If you have information on why the police felt this was the appropriate response, I'd love to hear it, otherwise you and I are just going to make up our own facts and statistics and probably end up arguing about whether or not the Brazilian death squads were an appropriate response to the pickpocket problem in Rio in the late 80's. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-27-2006, 01:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I actually find the Fairfax case more disturbing (well, partly because I work in Farifax County). The guy was un-armed, apparently was doing some gambling action, but no weapons. So they send an amped up SWAT team to collect him. While there, a .45 that just happened to be poippnting at this optomertrist's chest "accidently" went off. The guy was compliant and followed all police directives during the raid. The ruling? Accidental, and the DA has said repeatedly he will not pursue a case he feels he can't win. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

04-11-2006, 08:38 AM	#14 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	It sounds a bit like the Sioux City police are trying to justify having the level of equipment and facilities that they do. They roll out the whole party once in a while just to show that they can. It has got to be pretty hard to justify maintaining a full Strategic Emergency Response Team, hostage negotiations team, and a mobile command center if you don't use them at least once in a while. A little community I used to live in had similar issues. They wanted a SWAT team and a tactical helicopter, so they got one on loan from the county. Then they spent most of there time dreaming up training mission to justify having one full time. I'm not saying that this was a training maneuver, but that it might have been used to justify the existence of the tactical teams etc. In any case, I agree that it was a massively overblown response. I hate that our personal freedoms are taken away in this manner. It is not a matter of having too big of a government, it is a matter of having the government inserted too far into our lives in the wrong way. Instead of working to assist, educate, and take care of health care, the government wants to control, regulate, and destroy. __________________ --- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein ---

04-11-2006, 08:40 AM	#15 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I agree. How does LE know that Mr. Morris isn't smuggling drugs. Or bombs. Or illegal weapons. Until they serve the warrant, they have no way of being sure. It sounds like they planned and executed this correctly. Whether or not their information for the warrant was sound is irrelevant to this arguement, if your problem is that LE showed up armed and ready for the worst case. Clearly they thought the guy was breaking the law and involved in illegal trade. By the way, the "house arrest" that Mr. Norris complained about is completely legal and absolutely appropriate in these circumstances. I'm sure he would have been even more irritated if they kicked him out of the house and then searched it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-27-2006, 01:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	And since -when- is it the job of your Friendly Neigborhood Jackboot Squad to prevent you from killing yourself? --"I'm gonna commit suicide!" >>>"You can't do that, sir; if you try to kill yourself, we'll shoot you!"

04-11-2006, 08:10 AM	#13 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	That's a bullshit article. What should LE wear/carry when serving a warrant? Should we bring in Spielberg and replace their guns with walkie-talkies? Oh the poor misunderstood smuggler. Smuggle drugs = bad, smuggle flowers = good? You might consider using less biased sources if you want to be taken seriously.

04-11-2006, 10:58 AM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Thanks, dksuddeth. I see your referrence now. Unfortunately, we're going off of only Mr. Norris's word for the items listed in the search warrant or the latest developments in the case. How does he know who has or hasn't looked at the files. I also love the author's blind-faith trust that Mr. Norris didn't commit any crime. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's a nice example of non-objective journalism for you. By the way, I love the line about the Fish and Wildlife Service being more powerful than the FBI or CIA, especially with the followup line (almost a throwaway) that the FWS can basically act like a police force (oh the horror!) and serve warrants and conduct searches). __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-11-2006, 11:38 AM	#23 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'm not assuming that Mr. Norris is guilty, but I'm not presuming he's innocent either. The doctrine you're quoting is ONLY reserved for the courtroom, and the government is allowed to gather evidence to prove his guilt (and rightly so). Please point to the portion of the full article that discusses Mr. Norris's innability to redress the "abuses" by the government. 6 months is not an unreasonable amount of time for the government to try to put together a case, especially considering that smuggling typically involves a much larger operation than a single individual. Why do I get the feeling that there are potentially more suspects in this case than just Mr. Norris? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-11-2006, 12:24 PM	#25 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The standards of the 4th amendment WERE applied. They got a warrant and exectuted it. Where does the article claim he's facing 35 years?

04-12-2006, 04:36 AM	#32 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Can we all pause for just a second and realize that sometimes the accused are actually guilty? Just becuase someone tells a reporter he's innocent, that doesn't make him so. Good find, host. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-12-2006, 07:22 AM	#33 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Can we all pause for a second and realize that the idea that the Feds can control what plants one can or cannot own or sell is insane!? Since when is it some paper-pushing bullies buisiness what someone grows on his own property or brings into the country on his own dime? PERMITS!? I'm sorry, I thought this was America...you know, where Private Property is supposed to be respected.

04-12-2006, 08:31 AM	#34 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	The_Dunedan - there are a whole bunch of reasons why, the first of which is that they are trying to keep this plant from being hunted to extinction in the wild. If for no other reason, that should be good enough for you. Second, the government needs to be able to control plants that people bring into the country to control diseases among crop plants, health of other citizens, drug crops, etc. People that smuggle live plants and animals into this country do so at great risk to the general population since there's no control over any diseases, just to pick one particular issue. Remember the hoof-and-mouth outbreak in Europe a few years ago? That cost millions of dollars in prevention in this country alone. There was a mechanism in place to import these plants "on his own dime", and Mr. Norris chose to circumvent that process. If you read the article posted by host, you'll see where this is plainly spelled out. If you seriously believe the tripe you're spewing, you clearly haven't thought out the logical conclusions of your argument. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-12-2006, 09:03 AM	#37 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Forgot to say this but it was very interesting that things went from a guy being arrested for 'unsolicited emails' to confessing to running a smuggling operation specializing in endangered species for 5 years. I guess that's why we ask for credible, unbiased articles. Now why did they need the computer?

04-12-2006, 09:08 AM	#38 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I admit, this was my fault for failing to follow up and see if there was any further action taken from the articles I first read. My apologies to all, however, I still think that raiding the home of a flower smuggler with a body armored/gun toting team of forest service personnel was a bit much. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-12-2006, 09:56 AM	#39 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Then fine, what is the acceptable standard for serving search warrants to anyone? I just don't get why cops having guns and body armor during a search warrant sounds like an issue.