Lawsuit: Police Destroyed Farm House To Capture Homeless Man Armed With An Ice Cream Bar

from the USE-ALL-THE-TOYS!!! dept

Is it possible to arrest an unarmed homeless person without destroying the residence he's hiding in? To the Fresno County Sheriff's Department and Clovis PD (and far too many other law enforcement agencies), the question remains rhetorical.

David Jessen's farmhouse felt the full, combined force of two law enforcement agencies and all their toys last June. According to his lawsuit [PDF], a homeless man was rousted from a nearby vacant house after he was discovered sleeping in the closet. He left peacefully but was soon spotted by the construction crew breaking into Jessen's house. The construction worker, god bless him, called the police because he thought they could help.

Jessen was notified shortly thereafter. He returned home to find four sheriff's office cars parked at his residence (one of them "on the lawn," because of course it was) and a deputy yelling at his house through a bullhorn. According to the deputies, the homeless man refused to come out and threatened to shoot anyone who came in. Jessen was asked if he had any guns in the house. He replied he did, but two were unloaded and had no ammo and the third was hidden so well "only he could find it."

Jessen was asked to move his pickup truck and leave the area for his own safety. The deputies also asked for a house key and for the garage to be opened before he left. Jessen and his family went to a friend's house about a quarter-mile away. Several hours later, he was told he could return home. This is what Jessen returned to:

As David was driving toward the home from Jensen David counted approximately fifty-five (55) or more law enforcement vehicles. David was then ordered to park along Rolinda Avenue north of his home and instructed to walk to his home. On his way to his home David was stopped by a SWAT person who told him the “operation” was concluded, A second Fresno County Deputy Sheriff, that Jessen’s are informed and believe and upon information and belief allege was a Lieutenant, handed David a card and said “we have insurance for this.”

We'll pause there for a moment and consider the effect this must have on recipients. This is basically a message telling them their stuff has been damaged/destroyed. Not that the law enforcement agency cares. It might end up with higher premiums, but each officer involved still has an undamaged residence to go home to, unlike "civilians" like Jessen, whose houses happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Insurance in the hands of officers like these is a permission slip, rather than a liability buffer.

Continuing on…

A third Fresno County Deputy Sheriff showed David the damage and David was overwhelmed by the severity and extent of the damage to the residence. The damage to the Jessens’ residence was massive and extensive. The magnitude of the damage to the Jessen’s’ home was unreasonable and unjustified, needlessly implemented to capture a singular, surrounded, unarmed, hungry, homeless person who posed no danger to anyone, and cooperated in leaving the neighbors residence earlier.

Here's the full list of what local law enforcement deployed to handle a single, resistant homeless person:

a. Utilized over 50 vehicles;
b. A K-9 unit,
c. Two helicopters;
d. Two Ambulances;
e. One Fire Truck;
f. A Crisis Negotiation Team arriving in a large motor home, that Plaintiffs are informed and believe included communications equipment and other support equipment;
g. A Robot;
h. SWAT Team; and
I. Back Up SWAT Team — Clovis City Police.

Now, the officers might have been concerned the homeless person had armed himself with one of Jessen's weapons, despite his assurances they were well-hidden/unloaded. Even so, they had plenty of options available that didn't include doing all the things they did instead.

a. Ripped out the wrought iron door and interior door to the Jessen’s home office;
b. Pulled the wall of the office off the foundation;
c. Broke the window to the office;
d. Teargassed the bathroom near the office;
e. Shattered the sliding glass door to the home for “robot” entry;
f. Ripped the wrought iron door off the laundry room;
g. Teargassed the laundry room;
h. Flash bombed the laundry room and the business office that resulted in breaking six (6) windows;
i. Teargassed the kitchen;
j. Teargassed the master bathroom;
k. Teargassed the sewing room;
l. Teargassed the bedroom in the northeast corner of the home; and
m. Destroyed over 90 feet of exterior fencing with a SWAT vehicle.

For reasons only known to the Sheriff's Department, a deputy continued to search for hidden handgun on Jessen's effed-up residence. He was only able to "recover" after receiving specific directions over the phone from Jessen to locate it. All guns were immediately returned to Jessen, making this last search -- which occurred nearly two hours after Jessen was given an insurance card and a broken home -- especially pointless.

In total, the interloping homeless person cost Jessen one window, an ice cream bar, some milk, and half a tomato. According to the lawsuit's allegations, the two law enforcement agencies rang up more than $150,000 in damaged property. Jessen alleges a long list of constitutional violations but also something a bit more whoa if true:

All of this military-like activity was implemented and completed without Jessen's request, approval, or consent. Jessens are informed and believe the training operation was undertaken because the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department and/or Clovis Police Department had found, by accident, the perfect location to conduct a training exercise on a rural home, on a dead-end street, in rural Fresno County, where “civilians” were not present, “civilians” were not going to congregate, “civilians” were not going to observe or interfere with the military training assault on the Jessen’s home and the situation posed no risk of injury to the officers. The Fresno County Sheriff‘s Department and Clovis Police Department seized upon this fortuitous opportunity to engage in a real-life training exercise.

Unless something amazing comes out of discovery during litigation, this claim is unlikely to survive. And chances are it won't survive an initial reading. Jessen is probably safer staying the Constitutional lane. But there is a hint of truth to the allegation, even if there was no provable intent to use Jessen's house as a SWAT team training ground. Law enforcement agencies spend a lot of money on tools and tactics which are rarely deployed. Recognizing a chance to take all the toys out for a spin isn't necessarily a conspiracy… it's just what happens when you have more power than restraint. That's what turns a "standoff' in which the suspect is armed with half an ice cream bar into a mostly-unusable house.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:08pm

    Bad or worse

    I think the really messed up thing is the idea that they trashed his house by using the excuse for a 'training exercise' is the less insane option.

    The alternative is that they are so incompetent, so incredibly trigger happy with their toys that they were completely incapable of showing even the slightest bit of self-restraint in apprehending the fiendish homeless person that they totaled his house by accident.

    When sociopathic corruption is the better option, you know things are all sorts of wrong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:40pm

      Re: Bad or worse

      The guy said he would shoot someone, somehow... so let's be happy they didn't drop a nuclear bomb on the house. Can you even imagine what kind of restraint these brave heroes used?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 24 Mar 2017 @ 3:15am

        Re: Re: Bad or worse

        The guy said he would shoot someone, somehow...

        Well, not if you read more carefully:

        [Jessen, the home owner] returned home to find four sheriff's office cars parked at his residence (one of them "on the lawn," because of course it was) and a deputy yelling at his house through a bullhorn. According to the deputies, the homeless man refused to come out and threatened to shoot anyone who came in.

        See? The only witnesses for the homeless person having stated to shoot someone are the deputies.

        Jessen was asked if he had any guns in the house. He replied he did,

        Jackpot.

        When sociopathic corruption is the better option, you know things are all sorts of wrong.

        Well, if the judge does not hand out severe penalities here, it may be his house that is razed to the ground next because people reported a raccoon in his attic.

        If it was a training session, there have to be penalties. And if it was best practice, the police departments have to be disarmed (and probably most officers fired) in order to avoid this kind of damage in the future because clearly the cure is worse than the ailment.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:58am

          Re: Re: Re: Bad or worse

          This abuse of power comes from the top. Unless leaders who impune policies and reign in the abuse, this country will be absolutely devastated by itself.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            David, 24 Mar 2017 @ 9:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad or worse

            Well, it's not like Trump invented it, but maybe under his reign the "scorched earth" strategy against terrorists will come to full bloom.

            Imagine how frustrating it must feel to terrorists to travel all the way to the U.S. and find out that they won't be able to make a difference.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 10:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad or worse

              Thanks to Trump, they don't even have to do that: they can make threatening noises from the other side of the world and create the same mindless, frightened overreaction.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 10:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad or worse

                To be fair, that's hardly something that started under the current administration, and has been true for many years now at this point. 'Terrorists' don't actually have to do anything anymore, just making threatening noises is more than enough to have governments tripping over themselves to sacrifice public rights 'for the protection of the public'.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 1:21am

      Re: Bad or worse

      To use a well-worn meme - why not both? It's both a training exercise and an excuse to exercise extreme incompetence.

      American police seem especially trigger-happy and desperate to use their toys without care for the innocents they affect, but they probably don't get that way immediately. Why not, then, take the opportunity to train them in doing such things without pesky "civilians" being involved (it should be noted that police are also civilians, but they love the military that much they use their terminology).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:51pm

        Re: Re: Bad or worse

        Could well be both. After all, deciding this is a good situation for a training exercise would indeed demonstrate extreme incompetence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ExNuke (profile), 29 Mar 2017 @ 11:35am

        Re: Re: Bad or worse

        Would these happen to be the same Police that Repressive Democrats keep telling us are the "ONLY ONES" who should be allowed to have guns?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 1:37am

      Re: Bad or worse

      What are the odds that the initials response by the police was so aggressive that the homeless person was scared for his life. From what I have seen and heard, the US police are so confrontational that they create these standoffs because of their attitudes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:45am

        Re: Re: Bad or worse

        Given he left the previous place after simply being asked to, I'd say pretty high. Shouting at him with a bullhorn, and given how trigger happy they were I really doubt that they didn't mention how many guns were pointed out the house, in his shoes I might not have been too keen to risk it either.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      O. J. Flanders, 24 Mar 2017 @ 6:25pm

      Re: Bad or worse

      When you use Lt. Frank Drebin as your role model....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:15pm

    "g. A Robot;"

    Given we are on a tech site... what did the robot do?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Eldakka (profile), 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:47pm

      Re:

      It was probably a sex robot and 'did' the SWAT team on the way back to base.

      Well, that would have certainly been more useful than anything else a robot could do in the situation described.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 24 Mar 2017 @ 4:57am

      Re:

      Whatever it was supposed to do, it was totally inadequate.

      Officers had to "shatter" a sliding door for the robot to enter the house. What good is a robot that can't open or break a door on it's own? They are going to deploy this thing to disarm a bomb or something and their entire plan is going to be foiled by a bedroom door being closed?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      In Dallas a robot was used to murder someone because the police were tired of negotiating.

      Yes, he was a bad man who had killed people but he was also trapped and unable to harm others.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:21pm

    Fun facts:

    Given that any object can be held before as a person these days that house should have declared war on the USA:
    "d. Teargassed the bathroom near the office;"
    that would be a war crime

    g. Teargassed the laundry room;
    -> war crime

    i. Teargassed the kitchen;
    j. Teargassed the master bathroom;
    k. Teargassed the sewing room;
    l. Teargassed the bedroom in the northeast corner of the home;

    ->>> mu-mu-mu-multi war crime!

    Tear gas affects breathing and under either late 19th or early 20th treaties that means stuff is a war crime.

    But a house filling war crimes against a pd would be so much 21rst century.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:25pm

      Re: Fun facts:

      civil forfeiture strikes back! House charges USA with war crimes!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      R.H. (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 7:15pm

      Re: Fun facts:

      Tear gas is specifically exempted for civilian law enforcement use under the Geneva Convention. It's illegal to use it in a military engagement but the treaty doesn't bar the use of tear gas against civilians by civilians (law enforcement or otherwise).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2017 @ 2:59pm

        Re: Re: Fun facts:

        Sure, you are correct but isn't that kind of weird? Some guy who killed dozens of your army buddies can not be tear gased but some protester holding a sign can?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The Wanderer (profile), 26 Mar 2017 @ 2:33am

          Re: Re: Re: Fun facts:

          I think the rationale is something like "under civilian circumstances, close oversight and supervision - and immediate review of the details of what happened, independent of the actors' subjective reports - is much more practical than is the case in a military context", and so it's much easier to make sure the tools involved aren't abused against innocents in a civilian context than in the case of a war zone.

          That falls apart in practice if that oversight isn't applied or if the supervision doesn't care / is "in on it", but the basic idea doesn't seem entirely bad.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2017 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Re: Fun facts:

        so its legal so its ok ,even though in war it isnt legal because its dangerous , you understand how stupid that sounds

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:26pm

    The Hollywood Syndrome Strikes Again

    If they didn’t do it like they see in movies or on TV, they don’t feel satisfied.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2017 @ 11:33pm

      Re: The Hollywood Syndrome Strikes Again

      Well, unless the homeless guy lost at least 2 fingers, felt a car battery and was beaten after that, then they didnt get what they saw on 24! Or otherwise known as "the guy got off easy"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 12:26am

    Remember this when copsuckers tell us how brave cops are

    Any truly brave cop would have walked in alone and brought the guy out. This pack of pants-pissing cowards needed millions of dollars of hardware to make up for the one thing they will never, ever have: guts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 9:58am

      Re: Remember this when copsuckers tell us how brave cops are

      Said by an AC who probably cries when he gets a papercut.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Haggie, 24 Mar 2017 @ 1:07am

    How much personal property would you destroy for a Klondike bar?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 1:08am

    now the million dollar question

    What would YOU do for a Klondike bar?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 24 Mar 2017 @ 2:49am

    Same old, same old

    "Blues Brothers" was an action movie, not an instruction manual. Or was it "Demolition Man"?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 3:25am

    it makes me wonder

    What the historical/political quirk has the US with the meanest police Individuals willing to wreak the communities they aught to protect. The rest of the world doesn't spend the money the US spends on its police. But the civilized countries, and most of the others do manage to train police better and to respect their fellow citizens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 4:06am

    Fear the might of the ice cream!

    Now imagine if there was an illegal toddler in a cradle? At the bare minimum a targeted nuclear missile would have been deployed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    wayout, 24 Mar 2017 @ 4:16am

    the whole "they turned this into a training operation" has more then a bit of truth to it. I work for a Community College in a downtown campus. We had a report a while back of a potential "armed person" on campus. Well, to make a long story short, the individual was found without incidence, unarmed (important point here) in short order. Now, we had units from State Police, City Police, Another colleges officers (who are for all intentions state police), Capital Police, Homeland Defense (yep), County Police, and probably even the FBI since the have an office close by. Understand, we also have our own armed officers that had to go though the same training that the state police do. To make a long story short, we were told to leave the building, i.e. shut down classes for the rest of the day (after the apprehension mind you) so they could conduct a full on search of the building, even though, there was no evidence that the individual that was caught had an accomplice. So yeah, after having witnessed that, and realizing later, that they (law enforcement) had the perfect training opportunity in front of them and took it. I find the assertion in the article to have a whole bunch of merit. Proving it though, may be a bit harder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 6:22am

      Re:

      I spent most of a decade working for a university with a campus in the middle of a city with serious crime problems. The campus police were completely incompetent: stupid, slow, dim-witted -- just bottom-of-the-barrel low wage morons who somehow managed to fake their way through training.

      They did the same thing repeatedly. Cost: millions of dollars in disruption. Arrests: one drunk (unarmed), one homeless person (unarmed), one student (unarmed and actually on his way to class), one staff member (unarmed and doing his job). Meanwhile, during the same time period, muggings, assaults, and robberies continued unabated and slowly increased in frequency. But you see, dealing with those requires quick thinking and fast reflexes, something as utterly beyond these lumbering baboons as nuclear physics is beyond my dog. Whereas shutting down the entire campus just means blindly executing a playbook and showing off -- gratifying their bloated egos by trying to prove how essential they are -- and getting to play with all their toys and pretend that they're a pseudo-military force.

      If an actual armed active shooter ever turns up on campus, and is at all competent, a lot of people will die before these clowns have the slightest idea what's happening. I think it's much more likely that a student, faculty or staff member will take them down than the clowns calling themselves police.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 5:15am

    Why does this sound like the plot of a silent movie?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    D.C. Pathogen (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 6:26am

    Every single LEO on the scene should be charged with terrorism!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 6:36am

    Actual Justice

    Actual Justice in this instance would be a judgement against the police department for an obscene amount of money.

    Then the police department refuses to pay up resulting in foreclose on the police station and it's assets.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 24 Mar 2017 @ 7:09am

      Re: Actual Justice

      The police department is government property. No, you'd need to hold the actual police officers accountable jointly and severally. "I was just following orders" is the Nuremberg defense, and there comes a point when it should no longer be considered admissable when officers engage in common unconscionable behavior.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 7:51am

    For reasons only known to the Sheriff's Department, a deputy continued to search for hidden handgun on Jessen's effed-up residence. He was only able to "recover" after receiving specific directions over the phone from Jessen to locate it.

    So it seems that Jessen was correct when he said that it was hidden such that "only he could find it."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 24 Mar 2017 @ 7:57am

    Benny Hill episode?

    I just imagine "Yakety Sax" playing in the background and all the action being sped up with a couple of busty blondes and a midget thrown in for laughs a la Benny Hill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:03am

    man, that must of been one nasty ice cream bar...
    we really need a "common sense" ice cream bar ban now!

    Think of the children!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:34am

      Re:

      So, California Democrats know what they're doing when they try to ban fun: it really is a health hazard in these parts.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:26am

    Cheaper to wait him out

    Factoring in the cost of the destruction, and ignoring the legal fees, it would easily have been cheaper to wage a medieval style siege. Establish a perimeter. No supplies in until the target surrenders. Wait for the target to exhaust the house's supplies, then his choices are surrender or starve. He might well surrender before then if he thought it could end peacefully.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:51am

      Re: Cheaper to wait him out

      Or a few officers could have just gone in and got him. Info they had seemed to imply at best he had a pistol. I'm sure they had plenty of body armor on that swat team. If not they could have borrowed some from the SECOND swat team. (I mean really, WTF? two swat teams vs one homeless guy? Unless this guy looks like Rambo that seems overkill)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:59am

      Re: Cheaper to wait him out

      I also might have tried using a $6 sandwich to lure a hungry homeless man out first, rather than thousands of dollars in military equipment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2017 @ 3:27pm

      Re: Cheaper to wait him out

      "it would easily have been cheaper to wage a medieval style siege. "

      Not sure if a trebuchet would have helped to reduce the dmg. But would have been awesome to see the picture.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 9:15am

    'police militarization' taken to the next step

    They should be thankful that the police showed a great deal of restraint -- at least compared to a similar incident in Denver two years ago, in which a house was virtually razed to the ground in order to capture an illegal squatter.

    http://www.denverpost.com/2015/06/05/owner-standoff-house-in-greenwood-village-is-destroyed /

    It's looking an awful lot like this could be the start of a new trend in policing, to the point that the public will be begging for the return of the 'old fashioned' SWAT tactics whose only damage they leave behind is generally just a busted door and a dozen bullets in the wall.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 10:04am

    What does it have to do with tech?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 12:06pm

    More Peace Officers and Fewer LEOS

    This is the sort of thing that should be expected when GI Joe wannabe Barney Fifes get power and DOD surplus order forms.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 12:11pm

    Two helicopters. Why even one helicopter? I can see trucks with people on the ground but unless the guy can fly or cops didn't establish a good perimeter there was no need for helicopters to watch the house.

    Or was it to capture footage for America's funniest home videos?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 2:24pm

    Ummm

    Lets just pay the swat team, FORGET the cops..
    Police seem to be TO SCARED to talk to a lone person..

    Also, 50 Vehicles??
    You could surround the HOUSE COMPLETELY and still have Extra vehicles..
    50 vehicles with 1 person IN EACH...THIS IS NOT A LUNCH BREAK, this is NOT A DONUT SHOP..

    Did the DOG not like how the Trespasser SMELT??

    2 swat teams and they JUST GASSED EVERYTHING??
    What about that NICE bullet proof shield they have?? Let the person SHOOT a few shots FIRST..then YOU KNOW he found the gun..

    How many police officers IN these 2 towns?? Working at that time??? and how many EXTRA called in?? OVER TIME..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Advocate (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 5:03pm

    Just another isolated incident.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 25 Mar 2017 @ 2:26am

    The times, they are a-changing

    Anyone remember the times when all the king's horses and all the king's men actually were trying to put stuff together again?

    Nowadays the constables and horsepowers are more invested in tearing them apart.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2017 @ 8:16pm

      Re: The times, they are a-changing

      All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty back together again because they didn't want to. I mean, it was they who pushed him off the wall to begin with.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2017 @ 3:03pm

    I think Isaw a video of this somewhere

    If this is what i saw online, the house looked like it was in a war zone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2017 @ 1:35pm

    Police are SCARED and LIE

    Get a lawyer immediately. 'nuff said.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    fairuse (profile), 1 Apr 2017 @ 1:46am

    Wow - World Of Warcraft with real eapons

    I noticed the Sheriff's Office was called Sheriff's Department. Big problem; department means part of the local government. That is how acting in a military way is allowed. Can't bring federal army in so make your own.

    Ref: https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/juristdocs/Anderson_on_Sheriffs_Vol_1.pdf

    The Sheriff, in this case, is where. Election year? Boozing it up with the County Executive?

    We are a police state for sure is there is no Elected Sheriff to stand with us.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Apr 2017 @ 6:16pm

    Was it a dove bar? cause those things are awesome and only come 4 to a box so yeah, I can see this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.