This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

[wmansir]

Five officers shot, one killed, in NH while serving a drug related search warrant. I don't know if this was a SWAT style raid or not.

[arminius]

Just let them take whatever they want. Then maybe they would have died without taking someone with them.







http://gma.yahoo.com/hampshire-suspe...opstories.html






.........New Hampshire Suspects Found Dead After Killing Police Chief in Shootout
By RICHARD ESPOSITO and PIERRE THOMAS | Good Morning America – 6 hours ago
....@GMA on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook ....



A man and a woman were found dead today in the New Hampshire house where a shootout left a police chief killed and four other officers injured.

The couple inside the house are believed to have been the result of either a suicide pact or a murder-suicide.

The police shooting occurred Thursday in Greenland, a coastal town of 3,500 outside Portsmouth, N.H., after a standoff with a suspect believed to be armed with a rifle.

The officer shot dead was Chief Michael Maloney. Two officers are listed as critical, according to emergency services, while two others have been released from the hospital.

Maloney, who had 26 years of experience in law enforcement, was reportedly scheduled to retire in eight days.

"In those final days, he sacrificed his life in public service as a law enforcement officer in New Hampshire," Attorney General Michael Delaney said today.

SWAT teams placed a robot into the residence to gain entry early today. The robot detected two deceased individuals, one of which has been identified as Cullen Mutrie, who is believed to be the man who killed police chief and shot the others, according to Detective Eric Kulberg. The female is still unidentified.

The shooter and the woman remained holed up in the home into Friday morning, according to Delaney.

Early reports from the crime scene indicated the gunman used a "sniper rifle," though questions at a later press conference suggested an "automatic weapon" was used.

The incident may have been the result of a drug bust gone bad, according to reports.

Kulberg, 31, and Detective Gregory Turner, 32, were both injured in the shootout and were released from a hospital after being treated for gunshot wounds. Detective Scott Kukesh, 33, was awaiting surgery in the intensive care unit with a bullet wound to the chest, while Detective Jeremiah Murphy, 34, was in the intensive care unit after surgery for a gunshot wound to chest.

The four injured officers were from other area departments and were working as part of a drug task force, according to The Associated Press.

"It's a blow to all of us. You're stunned. It's New Hampshire, it's a small town," John Penacho, chairman of the town's Board of Selectman said. "We're stunned. I mean all of us. It's an unbelievable situation."

The shootout is the latest in the rising toll of officers shot by suspects, a trend that counters a decline in many other crimes around the country.

[focker]

Originally Posted by arminius

Just let them take whatever they want. Then maybe they would have died without taking someone with them.







http://gma.yahoo.com/hampshire-suspe...opstories.html






.........New Hampshire Suspects Found Dead After Killing Police Chief in Shootout
By RICHARD ESPOSITO and PIERRE THOMAS | Good Morning America – 6 hours ago
....@GMA on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook ....



A man and a woman were found dead today in the New Hampshire house where a shootout left a police chief killed and four other officers injured.

The couple inside the house are believed to have been the result of either a suicide pact or a murder-suicide.

The police shooting occurred Thursday in Greenland, a coastal town of 3,500 outside Portsmouth, N.H., after a standoff with a suspect believed to be armed with a rifle.

The officer shot dead was Chief Michael Maloney. Two officers are listed as critical, according to emergency services, while two others have been released from the hospital.

Maloney, who had 26 years of experience in law enforcement, was reportedly scheduled to retire in eight days.

"In those final days, he sacrificed his life in public service as a law enforcement officer in New Hampshire," Attorney General Michael Delaney said today.

SWAT teams placed a robot into the residence to gain entry early today. The robot detected two deceased individuals, one of which has been identified as Cullen Mutrie, who is believed to be the man who killed police chief and shot the others, according to Detective Eric Kulberg. The female is still unidentified.

The shooter and the woman remained holed up in the home into Friday morning, according to Delaney.

Early reports from the crime scene indicated the gunman used a "sniper rifle," though questions at a later press conference suggested an "automatic weapon" was used.

The incident may have been the result of a drug bust gone bad, according to reports.

Kulberg, 31, and Detective Gregory Turner, 32, were both injured in the shootout and were released from a hospital after being treated for gunshot wounds. Detective Scott Kukesh, 33, was awaiting surgery in the intensive care unit with a bullet wound to the chest, while Detective Jeremiah Murphy, 34, was in the intensive care unit after surgery for a gunshot wound to chest.

The four injured officers were from other area departments and were working as part of a drug task force, according to The Associated Press.

"It's a blow to all of us. You're stunned. It's New Hampshire, it's a small town," John Penacho, chairman of the town's Board of Selectman said. "We're stunned. I mean all of us. It's an unbelievable situation."

The shootout is the latest in the rising toll of officers shot by suspects, a trend that counters a decline in many other crimes around the country.

What an incredibly poorly written article. Why were the cops there? What was the standoff about? They mention something about a suicide pact and/or a drug bust, but don't give any details whatsoever. Is this what passes for journalism now?

[wmansir]

Details are still sketchy but here's what I know.

In 2010 the male perp, Cullen Mutrie, was served with a restraining order related to domestic abuse. The filing said he had many guns in his home and when the police seized those guns as part of the order of protection they found illegal steroids. He was sentenced to 30 days, suspended, and order to attend anger management, although I'm not certain if that covered just the original assault charge or the possession as well.

One neighbor said she repeatedly complained to the police about suspicious activity and late night disturbances and was told it was being investigated. Around 6PM last night they tried to execute a search warrant. The team was comprised of local police and members of the state drug task force. Police are not saying what type of equipment or tactics were being used. They were attempting to force entry when Mutrie opened fire. The police chief was shot in the head and killed, two remain in critical condition, and two have been released from the hospital.

With Mutrie and an unkown woman still in the home police evacuated the surrounding area. When they sent in a robot around 2AM it found Mutrie and the woman both dead of gunshot wounds. So far police believe they were killed as a double suicide or murder suicide and not a result of police fire since police negotiators did make contact for a brief period after the shootings.

[Trout]

The police chief was supposed to retire in 8 days? That sounds like something that only happens in the movies.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by Trout

The police chief was supposed to retire in 8 days? That sounds like something that only happens in the movies.

Did one of the cops like to play by his own rules, while his partner was very "by the book?"

Was there time for backup?

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by Trout

The police chief was supposed to retire in 8 days? That sounds like something that only happens in the movies.

[Chief Wiggum] We like to call it "Retirony."[ /Chief Wiggum]

Simpsons did it!

[Nick Danger]

This is what the War on Anabolic Steroids looks like. I copied the paragraphs below from a news article and arranged them into chronological order.

On July 24, 2010, Mutrie committed the crime of simple assault by grabbing his then-girlfriend by her hair and right arm. The victim obtained an emergency restraining order and as a condition of the order, Mutrie was ordered to surrender all firearms, according to court records.

A report by Officer Wayne Young quoted the victim as saying Mutrie had “a few” guns in his bedroom, one in his vehicle, one in his living room and that he usually carried another one on his person. So local police went to Mutrie's home on July 24, 2010 to collect them.

While there, officers opened the lid to a coffee table and found substances believed to be steroids, as well as a scale, according to Young's affidavit.

The steroids weren't confirmed by the state's crime lab until January 2011 when they were identified as including testosterone cypionate, trenbolone acetate and nandrolone decanote.

Mutrie, who was 6-foot three-inches tall and weighed 275 pounds, was arrested for nine steroid-related felonies on Jan. 19, 2011 and subsequently released on $10,000 personal recognizance bail.

On Feb. 24, 2011, a judge found probable cause for six of the nine charges alleging Mutrie was in possession of illegal steroids. He was indicted in Rockingham County Superior Court and the cases were pending at the time of Mutrie's death Friday morning.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articl...NEWS-120419872

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by Nick Danger

This is what the War on Anabolic Steroids looks like.

This is what the Warrior on Anabolic Steroids looks like.

[RoyalTea]

A Wisconsin man was recently arrested by the Brown County Drug Task Force. The judge set bail at $7500. Wisconsin is one of four states that prohibit bail bondsmen, so bail must be paid either in cash, with a registered check, cashier's check or credit card.

The Wisconsin man's mother inquired how to bail her son out, and was told to bring cash. No checks, no credit cards, JUST CASH. So, after a couple of days and many trips to various ATMs and banks, she was able to come up with $7500 in cash. She brought the cash to the jail to bail her son out and jail officials brought in the Brown County Drug Task Force. A drug sniffing dog inspected the cash and concluded that there were a trace amount of narcotics on some of the bills.

The cash was confiscated under asset forfeiture law. She left the jail without her son and without her $7500.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1522328.html

[Trout]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

A Wisconsin man was recently arrested by the Brown County Drug Task Force. The judge set bail at $7500. Wisconsin is one of four states that prohibit bail bondsmen, so bail must be paid either in cash, with a registered check, cashier's check or credit card.

The Wisconsin man's mother inquired how to bail her son out, and was told to bring cash. No checks, no credit cards, JUST CASH. So, after a couple of days and many trips to various ATMs and banks, she was able to come up with $7500 in cash. She brought the cash to the jail to bail her son out and jail officials brought in the Brown County Drug Task Force. A drug sniffing dog inspected the cash and concluded that there were a trace amount of narcotics on some of the bills.

The cash was confiscated under asset forfeiture law. She left the jail without her son and without her $7500.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1522328.html

She did get her money back...four months later. A serious WTF moment if ever there was one.

[RoyalTea]

The United States is suing a hotel (United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts).

Russ Caswell, a 68 year old man, runs the motel at 434 Main Street. His father built the hotel in 1955. Over the past 18 years, Caswell has rented out 125,000 rooms. 30 customers since 1994 have been arrested for drugs.

The federal government is seizing his property. A 68 year old man is losing his sole source of income and his retirement security because 30 out of 125000 customers were arrested for drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...VZU_story.html

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

The United States is suing a hotel (United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts).

Russ Caswell, a 68 year old man, runs the motel at 434 Main Street. His father built the hotel in 1955. Over the past 18 years, Caswell has rented out 125,000 rooms. 30 customers since 1994 have been arrested for drugs.

The federal government is seizing his property. A 68 year old man is losing his sole source of income and his retirement security because 30 out of 125000 customers were arrested for drugs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...VZU_story.html

Ok, I'm reading through the court documents this morning and the actual story is a bit different. I'm listing a few quick notes as I skim it:

• We got over 100 investigations.
• We have people actually living in the motel rooms like they were apartments who are using their rooms to process and distribute drugs. The police are noting constant drug deals going on (rooms with large streams of quick traffic to the rooms, often going through the lobby).
• We have a the owner, by his own admission, moving a guest around from room to room to help them avoid police surveillance after a warrant was served there.
• We have the owner sitting in the lobby watching people do drug drops as they passed through constantly.
• We have an active Meth lab in 2006 running out of one room, complete with toxic smoke coming under the door.
• We have another large scale heroin distribution center running in 2006 out of anther room... another one in 2008...We have rooms with hiding places in the walls to hide drugs/money.

I only had time to go through the first 37 pages but this is clearly enough.

You'd have to be out of your mind to think that the guy wasn't letting this stuff go on for at least a decade and was very likely even helping several drug sellers as many of these were large operations with steady traffic and one even had dead drops where people just slipped money under a door all day.

That opinion article is full of shit trying to paint the old couple as victims of the greedy Federal Government.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by Navinabob

Ok, I'm reading through the court documents this morning and the actual story is a bit different. I'm listing a few quick notes as I skim it:

• We got over 100 investigations.
• We have people actually living in the motel rooms like they were apartments who are using their rooms to process and distribute drugs. The police are noting constant drug deals going on (rooms with large streams of quick traffic to the rooms, often going through the lobby).
• We have a the owner, by his own admission, moving a guest around from room to room to help them avoid police surveillance after a warrant was served there.
• We have the owner sitting in the lobby watching people do drug drops as they passed through constantly.
• We have an active Meth lab in 2006 running out of one room, complete with toxic smoke coming under the door.
• We have another large scale heroin distribution center running in 2006 out of anther room... another one in 2008...We have rooms with hiding places in the walls to hide drugs/money.

I only had time to go through the first 37 pages but this is clearly enough.

You'd have to be out of your mind to think that the guy wasn't letting this stuff go on for at least a decade and was very likely even helping several drug sellers as many of these were large operations with steady traffic and one even had dead drops where people just slipped money under a door all day.

That opinion article is full of shit trying to paint the old couple as victims of the greedy Federal Government.

If this is such a slam-dunk case, why is it up to the old man, who has not been charged with any crime to prove his innocence, instead of the government proving his guilt?

[arminius]

They don't want him , they just want his stuff.

[RoyalTea]

Saw this in another article:

"The feds were tipped off about the motel by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent whose primary job was to identify properties for forfeiture."

I could maybe, possibly understand if the DEA was out looking for drugs and the confiscation of property was the unfortunate side result. But this makes it sound like the DEA was out looking to confiscate property, and the drug arrests were the unfortunate side results.

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by arminius

They don't want him , they just want his stuff.

Basically. They got the drug dealers (which was their goal). It's not like the old guy is gonna start renting out rooms in his house to meth manufacturers so taking the motel stops the activity. I think all but one of the cases are already closed so there is no incentive to open up any of those cases again.

Basically, we have a decade long pattern on someone facilitating drug sale, production, & evasion. In all of those cases the property owner was the smallest fish to fry and the hardest case to prove. Had the guy not rented out rooms clearly being used in the drug trade, or stopped after the first few years, then this wouldn't happen. If you go the civil route what you have to show is the long-standing pattern.

A civil suit is easier to prove and shuts down the drug-trade he facilitates (which is their goal). This case is no different then cases where a motel gets busted for renting out rooms by the hour to known hookers who stand out the motel doors and get raided repeatedly in prostitution rings.

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

Saw this in another article:

"The feds were tipped off about the motel by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent whose primary job was to identify properties for forfeiture."

I could maybe, possibly understand if the DEA was out looking for drugs and the confiscation of property was the unfortunate side result. But this makes it sound like the DEA was out looking to confiscate property, and the drug arrests were the unfortunate side results.

In all of the cases I read, we had confidential informants be the starting point for each individual investigation. That is where is started.

The motel owner was targeted because Agencies are under pressure to go after the money (manufacturers, launderers, sellers, facilitators, smugglers) and not the drug users themselves. It isn't hard to spot a long standing pattern and then make a decision on if the guy is letting this happen. Typically that is what the war-on-drugs-is-bad crowd asks for, and it is what agencies strive for because it actually has an impact. This guy has made money off the drug-trade. This guy isn't a victim.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by Navinabob

Basically. They got the drug dealers (which was their goal). It's not like the old guy is gonna start renting out rooms in his house to meth manufacturers so taking the motel stops the activity. I think all but one of the cases are already closed so there is no incentive to open up any of those cases again.

Basically, we have a decade long pattern on someone facilitating drug sale, production, & evasion. In all of those cases the property owner was the smallest fish to fry and the hardest case to prove. Had the guy not rented out rooms clearly being used in the drug trade, or stopped after the first few years, then this wouldn't happen. If you go the civil route what you have to show is the long-standing pattern.

A civil suit is easier to prove and shuts down the drug-trade he facilitates (which is their goal). This case is no different then cases where a motel gets busted for renting out rooms by the hour to known hookers who stand out the motel doors and get raided repeatedly in prostitution rings.

I don't think it would be that difficult or time consuming to run a sting operation in which the motel owner would admit to a wire that he's aware of illicit activity taking place on his property.

Why do you think it's acceptable that an innocent man (I'm defining innocent man as someone who was never arrested, charged or convicted of any crimes) should ever be put into the position where it's not up to the state to prove his guilt, but up to the defendant to prove his innocence?

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

I don't think it would be that difficult or time consuming to run a sting operation in which the motel owner would admit to a wire that he's aware of illicit activity taking place on his property.

Why do you think it's acceptable that an innocent man (I'm defining innocent man as someone who was never arrested, charged or convicted of any crimes) should ever be put into the position where it's not up to the state to prove his guilt, but up to the defendant to prove his innocence?

This is a civil case going to jury... Civil cases are separate from criminal cases. Both sides are presenting their "side" of the story for this civil case, a criminal case can still happen even as, again, civil and criminal cases are not connected. You have two separate judges, juries, and lawyers.

Let's say there is a hit-and-run and your car is struck. You can sue the guy before, or after, the person has been convicted. You can sue the guy regardless if he is found guilty or not. Remember the OJ trial there he was found guilty in civil court and not criminal court? It isn't uncommon at all that the authorities pursue a civil case instead of a criminal case, just like an insurance company might sue someone civilly for fraud on an insurance claim rather then turning evidence over to the authorities so the guy gets busted for criminal fraud if all they want is the assets and not tie everything up in a criminal court forever.

The DEA doing it this way gets money, stops the crime, and puts less burden on the courts/prison. Plus, the guy may stay out of prison so it is even a win on his end. This is a great example of how things should work in my mind.

[RoyalTea]

Suppose my car is stolen. The car thief uses my car to transport drugs. Whether or not I had anything to do with it, since my property was used to commit a crime, it CAN be confiscated under civil asset forfeiture. Whether or not it is confiscated is completely up to the police or DEA's discretion.

Do you think that the police would be more or less likely to use that discretion if my car was a 15 year old dodge stratus with 200,000 miles on it, or a brand new high end sports car?

[Navinabob]

That is a very different situation then the one presented in this case and doesn't really apply here. Talking about your new point, I've seen cases where I agree with with the police discretion, and ones where I didn't based on just media articles. But I have not ever read any actually court paperwork where I disagreed with property confiscation or felt it was unreasonable, but admittedly that is usually guns & drugs and not something like in the car-theft you describe.

Personally speaking, I know someone who had his truck stolen and used by a homeless man to buy drugs and get a hooker and my friend didn't want the truck back after that and they made him pick it up. So I know for a fact they don't want 15 year old POS vehicles.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by Navinabob

That is a very different situation then the one presented in this case and doesn't really apply here. Talking about your new point, I've seen cases where I agree with with the police discretion, and ones where I didn't based on just media articles. But I have not ever read any actually court paperwork where I disagreed with property confiscation or felt it was unreasonable, but admittedly that is usually guns & drugs and not something like in the car-theft you describe.

But in a hypothetical alternate universe where the motel owner has 100% no idea that any illicit activity is going on in his property, it is still completely possible that he still loses his motel. It's still going to be completely up to the unchecked authority of the DEA or the police or the confiscating agency to use their discretion on whether or not they want to take an innocent man's property.

I like the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Why don't you?

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

But in a hypothetical alternate universe where the motel owner has 100% no idea that any illicit activity is going on in his property, it is still completely possible that he still loses his motel. It's still going to be completely up to the unchecked authority of the DEA or the police or the confiscating agency to use their discretion on whether or not they want to take an innocent man's property.

I like the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Why don't you?

I'm gonna ignore the straw-men and try and stay on task (you are smart, I'll let you find them). You still need a judge to sign off on it; this is especially true if you are confiscating property like a house or car. In order for your hypothetical situation to occur, you need a lot of mistakes being made, or a lot of corruption being conducted, for an innocent person getting his stuff confiscated. What destroys your hypothetical and puts it into a "remote possibility" category is the very case we are talking about here.

This motel owner had over 100 investigations on his property since 2006 including major drug operations, heavy stream of drug traffic, and even a Meth lab without his motel being taken from him. How long is this supposed to go on before they step in? If anything, this is an example of police restraint for letting this go on for 7 years. Was the owner waiting to get arrested? I'd rather they go after guys like this then arresting drug users.

[RoyalTea]

It's not a straw man. It's a fact. If your property is seized via civil asset forfeiture, the burden of proof is not on the state to prove that you are guilty. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the property in question was not used in or obtained via illegal activities.

how is that not "guilty until proven innocent?"