Then what's the story? Police questions husband at home? Did they shoot their dog at least? Was there a SWAT team? HRT? Any sort of long-rifle? Or was it just a couple dudes in plain clothes?
They also seemed especially interested in pressure cookers (and rice cookers) and whether or not they could be used in bomb making.
The contents of the discussion or any of the events that took place during "the raid" are also entirely anecdotal. The only thing that is actually confirmed is that they visited their home. There is no hard evidence to support any other portion of the story.
And don't tell me "why would they lie." This is Internet. We have seen this same shit go down about a million times before.
Rym was also visited by the Secret Service for a comment on Slashdot. The police are allowed to visit people's houses. Especially if they knock on the door, are welcomed inside, show badges, are actually police, etc. Even if the anecdote is 100% true, it does not describe any amount of wrongdoing on the part of the feds.
Then what's the story? Police questions husband at home? Did they shoot their dog at least? Was there a SWAT team? HRT? Any sort of long-rifle? Or was it just a couple dudes in plain clothes?
A couple of dudes from the anti-terrorism task force, showing up in an unmarked black SUV, asking questions about bomb making (specifically involving pressure cookers and similar cooking implements), granted, in plain clothes but with their guns holstered at their hips and in plain sight, and performing a search of the home, albeit a cursory one.
This is not a case of Officer Bob, the local beat cop, stopping by and saying, "we had a complaint from your neighbors that you may be playing your music too loud." This is something else entirely. If it was merely a case of Officer Bob, then yeah, I'd agree with you.
Okay, and Scott has a point that there is only anecdotal evidence on what questions were asked, though the FBI did confirm that these cops were linked with the local anti-terrorism task force. I doubt the anti-terrorism task force would visit to ask about how loud the stereo was, although I suppose it's technically possible. Admittedly, it's also possible that one of their neighbors for some reason, either as a cruel joke or because they were pissed at them, purposely called in a false bomb making complaint.
Also, if it was me, I'd basically tell the cops to come back with a warrant before I let them into my house.
Finally, the Feds (at least the ones who visited the house anyway) did not break the law in this case. Everything was 100% by the book as far as I can determine. I will give you that. However, the question is why they decided to visit this house. You're right in that we have no hard evidence to determine what their rationale was. Unfortunately, it's possible that said evidence is classified on trumped-up national security rationale.
SHE said anti-terrorism task force, the Guardian says "A spokesman for the FBI told to the Guardian on Thursday that its investigators were not involved in the visit, but that "she was visited by Nassau County police department… They were working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department." Who to believe? Also, the specific questions mentioned are all second hand anecdotes.
Furthermore, why does unmarked black SUV even matter? Is that supposed to scare me? Ooooh, must be that secret agency MIB type shit... Again, did they force their way into the home? Did they try to pull any "we don't need a warrant" shit? Doesn't sound like a raid to me.
Then what's the story? Police questions husband at home? Did they shoot their dog at least? Was there a SWAT team? HRT? Any sort of long-rifle? Or was it just a couple dudes in plain clothes?
A couple of dudes from the anti-terrorism task force, showing up in an unmarked black SUV, asking questions about bomb making (specifically involving pressure cookers and similar cooking implements), granted, in plain clothes but with their guns holstered at their hips and in plain sight, and performing a search of the home, albeit a cursory one.
100% of what you just described is part of the anecdote and not factually supported by evidence.
Then what's the story? Police questions husband at home? Did they shoot their dog at least? Was there a SWAT team? HRT? Any sort of long-rifle? Or was it just a couple dudes in plain clothes?
A couple of dudes from the anti-terrorism task force, showing up in an unmarked black SUV, asking questions about bomb making (specifically involving pressure cookers and similar cooking implements), granted, in plain clothes but with their guns holstered at their hips and in plain sight, and performing a search of the home, albeit a cursory one.
100% of what you just described is part of the anecdote and not factually supported by evidence.
My bad for writing the post in multiple stages. I did say that most of the stuff was anecdotal, and there is a lack of hard evidence in a later stage of the post, but I guess I should've gone up and edited the earlier stage more.
Commenter: You should watch out for things posted on the internet. Somebody fooled you with a Photoshopped document!
Writer: Um, my friend who works for the police department emailed it to me. It hasn't been put on their website yet. So yeah, pretty sure it's not something a random person online "Photoshopped."
Commenter: You should watch out for things posted on the internet. Somebody fooled you with a Photoshopped document!
Writer: Um, my friend who works for the police department emailed it to me. It hasn't been put on their website yet. So yeah, pretty sure it's not something a random person online "Photoshopped."
I pretty much only read the comments if it's a forum thread or something like a Netrunner post on Reddit.
I stand corrected on the original posting I made. While it's still creepy as fuck that the police would overreact like this, it's not as creepy as it could've been if it was in fact a result of Google searching, etc.
I stand corrected on the original posting I made. While it's still creepy as fuck that the police would overreact like this, it's not as creepy as it could've been if it was in fact a result of Google searching, etc.
If someone calls in to tip the police off on something, they should check it out. It seems they did so in a legal fashion. The problem here is that us citizens, including this person's employer, are jumping at shadows. If you see something, make sure it's something before you say something.
I stand corrected on the original posting I made. While it's still creepy as fuck that the police would overreact like this, it's not as creepy as it could've been if it was in fact a result of Google searching, etc.
If someone calls in to tip the police off on something, they should check it out. It seems they did so in a legal fashion. The problem here is that us citizens, including this person's employer, are jumping at shadows. If you see something, make sure it's something before you say something.
Very true on all counts. I just think the way the police decided to check it out was a bit over-the-top, unless they had some additional evidence somehow other than just "guy was searching for creepy stuff on his computer." If it was just the hypothetical Beat Officer Bob stopping by to say, "I heard that you may be up to no good. I don't think there's truth to it, but I need to check it out as part of my job," I'd be a bit more okay with it. It was 100% legal though and as far as I can tell, the cops that did show up were about as amicable and professional about it as could be expected given the circumstances.
If they were just going off multiple google searches I would have gotten such a visit by now. Her update made it clear that two google searches were not the ONLY factors in that visit.
The fact that they make 100 visits like this per week and 99% of them turn out to be nothing is pretty bad. Their metric for "yeah, we should check this out" is grossly out of whack. A 1% success rate is shit.
The fact that they make 100 visits like this per week and 99% of them turn out to be nothing is pretty bad. Their metric for "yeah, we should check this out" is grossly out of whack. A 1% success rate is shit.
What fact? There is nothing to back up this claim.
The fact that they make 100 visits like this per week and 99% of them turn out to be nothing is pretty bad. Their metric for "yeah, we should check this out" is grossly out of whack. A 1% success rate is shit.
Exactly... Again, this is the sort of thing where if they get a random tip like this, they should first send out Beat Officer Bob, who's already patrolling the neighborhood anyway as part of his regular duties, to check it it out. If Officer Bob sees anything suspicious after he does an initial check out, then call in the anti-terrorist task force.
I honestly don't think there is any significant different between having a uniformed beat cop question someone and sending plain clothes detectives to question someone. Other than the fact that the latter might have a scary sounding name on their business card. Oh, and level of competence.
The fact that they make 100 visits like this per week and 99% of them turn out to be nothing is pretty bad. Their metric for "yeah, we should check this out" is grossly out of whack. A 1% success rate is shit.
Exactly... Again, this is the sort of thing where if they get a random tip like this, they should first send out Beat Officer Bob, who's already patrolling the neighborhood anyway as part of his regular duties, to check it it out. If Officer Bob sees anything suspicious after he does an initial check out, then call in the anti-terrorist task force.
But then how would they justify the anti terrorist task force on the budget?
Sending them out keeps them in practice, reminds the populace that they are out there "being vigilant" and gives them something to point to when a bean counter asks; "What exactly all these very expensive task force people are doing with all that sweet tax money?"
But then how would they justify the anti terrorist task force on the budget?
Sending them out keeps them in practice, reminds the populace that they are out there "being vigilant" and gives them something to point to when a bean counter asks; "What exactly all these very expensive task force people are doing with all that sweet tax money?"
Who says that the existence of the anti-terrorist task force should be justified? :P
I kid (kinda). The idea of having some sort of task force to deal with terrorist activities isn't necessarily a bad idea. Terrorism does involve techniques that would probably not be found in most run-of-the-mill crimes like burglary, muggings, vandalism, and so forth. However, we kind of already have a couple of task forces, at least in most larger police departments, that are capable of handling these unique circumstances: bomb squads and SWAT teams. Maybe they can be augmented with one or two specialists to deal with terrorism specifically, but otherwise they should be able to cover all the situations. For smaller police departments, I believe most state police forces also have bomb squads and SWAT teams they can call in if necessary.
Have Officer Bob show up to do the initial assessment of the situation. If he sees activity that resembles bomb making, he can call in the bomb squad. If he sees hoarding of massive amounts of guns and ammo (remember, he was called out because of additional suspicious activity -- not specifically because the suspect is hoarding massive amounts of guns and ammo), then perhaps its justified to call in the SWAT team. If he sees both, call in both.
The idea that you need to send out multiple, presumably specially trained, law enforcement officers to investigate every little report of potentially terrorist activity is ludicrous.
Comments
And don't tell me "why would they lie." This is Internet. We have seen this same shit go down about a million times before.
Rym was also visited by the Secret Service for a comment on Slashdot. The police are allowed to visit people's houses. Especially if they knock on the door, are welcomed inside, show badges, are actually police, etc. Even if the anecdote is 100% true, it does not describe any amount of wrongdoing on the part of the feds.
This is not a case of Officer Bob, the local beat cop, stopping by and saying, "we had a complaint from your neighbors that you may be playing your music too loud." This is something else entirely. If it was merely a case of Officer Bob, then yeah, I'd agree with you.
Okay, and Scott has a point that there is only anecdotal evidence on what questions were asked, though the FBI did confirm that these cops were linked with the local anti-terrorism task force. I doubt the anti-terrorism task force would visit to ask about how loud the stereo was, although I suppose it's technically possible. Admittedly, it's also possible that one of their neighbors for some reason, either as a cruel joke or because they were pissed at them, purposely called in a false bomb making complaint.
Also, if it was me, I'd basically tell the cops to come back with a warrant before I let them into my house.
Finally, the Feds (at least the ones who visited the house anyway) did not break the law in this case. Everything was 100% by the book as far as I can determine. I will give you that. However, the question is why they decided to visit this house. You're right in that we have no hard evidence to determine what their rationale was. Unfortunately, it's possible that said evidence is classified on trumped-up national security rationale.
Furthermore, why does unmarked black SUV even matter? Is that supposed to scare me? Ooooh, must be that secret agency MIB type shit... Again, did they force their way into the home? Did they try to pull any "we don't need a warrant" shit? Doesn't sound like a raid to me.
Hell, my blog readership literally quintupled when I started posting links to r/SCA. It's a significant source of 'net traffic.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/
Commenter: You should watch out for things posted on the internet. Somebody fooled you with a Photoshopped document!
Writer: Um, my friend who works for the police department emailed it to me. It hasn't been put on their website yet. So yeah, pretty sure it's not something a random person online "Photoshopped."
EDIT: To be clear, I mean "durr durr" short bus special.
Although "Feels like a cover up..." made me laugh a bit.
Sending them out keeps them in practice, reminds the populace that they are out there "being vigilant" and gives them something to point to when a bean counter asks; "What exactly all these very expensive task force people are doing with all that sweet tax money?"
I kid (kinda). The idea of having some sort of task force to deal with terrorist activities isn't necessarily a bad idea. Terrorism does involve techniques that would probably not be found in most run-of-the-mill crimes like burglary, muggings, vandalism, and so forth. However, we kind of already have a couple of task forces, at least in most larger police departments, that are capable of handling these unique circumstances: bomb squads and SWAT teams. Maybe they can be augmented with one or two specialists to deal with terrorism specifically, but otherwise they should be able to cover all the situations. For smaller police departments, I believe most state police forces also have bomb squads and SWAT teams they can call in if necessary.
Have Officer Bob show up to do the initial assessment of the situation. If he sees activity that resembles bomb making, he can call in the bomb squad. If he sees hoarding of massive amounts of guns and ammo (remember, he was called out because of additional suspicious activity -- not specifically because the suspect is hoarding massive amounts of guns and ammo), then perhaps its justified to call in the SWAT team. If he sees both, call in both.
The idea that you need to send out multiple, presumably specially trained, law enforcement officers to investigate every little report of potentially terrorist activity is ludicrous.