What an inexcusable nightmare! Fustercluck of catastrophic proportions. I hope the Francos sue the shit out of he Dakota County Drug Task Force, the St. Paul Police force, and the DEA. There is NO excuse for this kind of horseshit!

Denying access to medication does not cause low blood sugar. Unless the medication was glucagon. Denying access to sugar can cause a dangerous insulin reaction.

Deer Defendants,

You should settle the suit as quickly as possible. Do you honestly believe that a jury will find in your favor once they find out that you shot the family dog, and treated children in such a rude manner?

If it's just a couple million dollars, you should consider yourselves lucky. A jury will give them the $30 million they're asking for...and maybe more.

"Even after learning that they were in the wrong house, the complaint states, the drug busters stayed in the Francos' home and kept searching it."

Here's what I don't get. Without a warrant or probable cause, anything they find in the house is inadmissible as evidence. Why continue the search? It's a total waste of time.

>>Here's what I don't get.

If you read the article, the purpose was so that the DEA Agent could cover his ass and lie in order to get some sort of conviction to justify the fuckup. Roberto Franco is currently incarcerated on the weapons charge.

Without a warrant or probable cause, anything they find in the house is inadmissible as evidence.

... Eventually. If it comes to trial, and the defense attorney does their job.

Which is how many months or years later? With a felony arraignment over the head?

Or maybe they can cut a deal, time served, slap on the wrist, and just coincidentally, have some cover in case of the civil lawsuit.

That's the point. To give them *any* cover.

The police should be individually criminally liable for these no-knock raids. Maybe then they'd be more inclined to stop abusing them. Or at least check to make sure they were at the right place before kicking the door down.

I remember when the Constitution meant something.

The FBI sent a swat team to arrest video pirate Kim Dotcom, because it's a lot more dramatic than a lawsuit. The government is spending a trillion dollars a year more than it takes in, and they can afford to do this? We have more government than we need.

8.

What is illegal about the .22 revolver? I can't seem to tell from the news story.

Way too many law enforcement SWAT teams are not qualified to be conducting raids. Their team members and leaders just don't have the intelligence, maturity or skills. Too many cops in general are not ethically qualified for their jobs. SWAT teams that screw up like this one time are dangerously incompetent and should be shut down. SWAT team members, and all law enforcement officers, should be held individually responsible for their screw ups. Cops who cover up and lie shouldn't only lose their jobs, they should do time in jail.

I think 90% of SWAT raids are completely unnecessary and are conducted only because there is a SWAT team.

If a SWAT team knew there was a suspect inside a house who would shoot at them they would not raid the house. They would wait outside behind cars and trees and try to get the suspect to come out where they could shoot him. They only kick the door down and charge in if they're sure it's safe... for them... not for the people inside. In this day and age, the first and foremost duty of a law enforcement officer is to keep himself safe. Way back when I was a kid most cops were all about keeping innocent, law abiding citizens safe, and you read reports of cops putting themselves in serious danger to accomplish that - for example putting themselves between an armed criminal and a victim. It's different now.

1) It takes a special sort of sadist to treat women and children in this manner. Are we comfortable allowing these creeps to have not only the authority, but the weaponry and the pretty much free pass to treat *anyone* they choose in this same manner? Are we going to continue to sit still for this, or will we call our representatives and let them know that we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore?

2) They continued to detain the family and search the house After They Knew They Had Made A Mistake. So, did anyone read them their miranda rights? Were they under arrest for those hours spent handcuffed, even the children? Or was this a police-state gone crazy unlawful imprisonment like we used to only see in Communist countries? Faced with the fact that they had the wrong house, instead of apologizing profusely, these criminally negligent asshats doubled down on stupid in a desperate bid to CYA. Problem is, we are not as stupid as they are, and we can see the truth.

3) They shot the dog? How in the name of all that's Holy do they justify shooting the family pet, and then making the Children sit next to the corpse? Willful infliction of emotional distress, anyone? Those kids are going to be in therapy a LONG time, they should get a settlement in the hundreds of millions, starting with the entire worldly possessions of the asshat that shot their dog.

Appalling as this story was, Amy, your headline is premature. It will become a police state if those thugs get off with a slap on the wrist or, worse, get off completely.

I want to see a settlement in the millions. And those cops fired and charged.

Again, read the memo. Cops are heroes. 9/11.

What is illegal about the .22 revolver? I can't seem to tell from the news story. -- Cat at August 10, 2012 12:38 PM

Apparently ROBERTO FRANCO had a prior offense that made it illegal to purchase or possess a firearm.

Apparently Gilbert Castillo was a boarder or otherwise staying with the family. There was nothing wrong with his possession of a firearm.

There have been so many convolutions of the Second Amendment and restrictions, fair and unfair, that sometimes you even question your right to carry, own, and posses even if you are a saint.

A friend's husband husband got into a fight at age 18-19 with his brother, cops were called, he ended up with a domestic violence charge. He can not legally own, possess, or even train with a firearm 10+ years later without going to court and getting that expunged. That's a few thousand dollars in fees, lawyers, plus a crap load of paper work. And that is a life time ban without paying the money.

Franco is now 45 years old. He is probably not a threat to society at this point. He was abiding by the rules, until the drug task force kicked in his door.

I will invite him to join the next revolution.

I can't imagine this horror. It could happen to any of us at any time. We need drug law reform now. We are not just giving up our rights, we are giving up our safety, to fight a "war" that will never be won. I can't imagine how this changed these people, especially the children. I can't imagine them ever passing a police officer again without being afraid that they could brutalize or even kill them for no reason. This is not how citizens should be treated in America.

"It will become a police state if those thugs get off with a slap on the wrist or, worse, get off completely."

We've had two incidents here recently where the department fired cops who had committed well-documented acts of brutality. In both cases, the union intervened with the city council and got them reinstated. The department now will have to pay these guys for the rest of their careers to sit in rubber rooms, since they can't be sent back out on the street.

Question:

How will "drug law reform" stop police brutality and protect the public?

Be sure to look up fallacies before you start your answer.

How will "drug law reform" stop police brutality and protect the public? -- Radwaste at August 11, 2012 12:15 PM

The SWAT teams will still exist -- but at least they won't have the excuse of drugs to do no-knock raids.

Rad,
A bit off topic but thanks for the fallacies link. An interesting read (though missing or I missed any direct reference to the always fun 'post hoc ergo propter hoc').

Jim - not so. Drug law reform will ALWAYS apply to drugs which remain illegal.

I'm real sure nobody's calling for meth or crack to be legalized. Are you? Did you assume that every subxtance will be penalty-free, so far as jail time is concerned?

If so, please continue with a definition of "drug law reform" so I know what you're talking about.

Note to all: the idea that marijuana is a "gateway" drug has its roots in fact, but as a slightly different influence than you might think. No, by itself, pot doesn't make somebody want heroin. But the guy who sells it knows a guy who knows a guy, and they provide the gateway with assurances of a good ride and happy ending.

So please don't talk about "gateway" without recognizng that it's much more than burning plant leaves by yourself somewhere.

I do rad, I call for not only all drugs to be legalised but for the governemnt to purchase them and give them away for 'free' to any member of the public who wants it

OK, luj. Got a daughter? Have some meth.

She'll earn the money for more on her back. It's her fault for not being responsible, after all.

It's amazing that so many people have brains that don't or can't recognize that there is NO "do over" for some of these things.

You can see the merit of building cars with airbags, testing cans for botulism toxin, but not the preventive measure of restricting uncontrolled, unassayed drugs. You're right there with the people who claim an inspection sticker will make the Rapiscan 1000 safe but raw milk shouldn't be checked.

Complete Mental Disconnect. I think I've seen it referred to as Gell-Mann Amnesia.

Well if my planm were implemented she wouldnt have to fuck for money.

People are going to do drug whether or not they are legal. So legalise it give it away for free in massive quanitites and let people OD and die. Far chaeper than incarserating them