Feeds

back to article Video shows armed assault on Kim Dotcom family home

A New Zealand court has been shown footage of the 20 January dawn assault by police and the FBI on the home of Kim Dotcom, owner of the Megaupload file storage site. Dotcom and his co-accused – Mathias Ortmann, Fin Batato and Bram Van der Kolk – face charges of international copyright infringement related to content hosted on …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Pogo for president!

That is all.

0
0
Silver badge
Meh

There used to be a time

There used to be a time when policemen knocked on the door and asked, politely, if they could come in.

Bit of an over reaction here don't you think?

10
0
Silver badge
Pirate

Re: No one expects the copyright police!

"One of the most important signs of the existence of a democracy is that when there is a knock at the door at 5 in the morning, one is completely certain that it is the milkman." - Winston Churchill

24
0
Silver badge

Re: There used to be a time

"Bit of an over reaction here don't you think?"

Not really. They were told they were going after a pirate so watched all the Pirates of the Carribean so they knew what they might be up against.

The large number of police was just in case Kim has a murderous crew with him.

The assault weapons was in case he was armed with cutlasses and cannons

The dogs were there to sniff out buried treasure.

The helicopters were there in case he tried to escape on his ship.

There was also a submarine that you didn't see just in case he was one of those undead pirates who could walk under water.

All perfectly reasonable

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: There used to be a time

If I was police officer entering a residence in order to arrest someone who possessed a large number of firearms (which he did, I believe), I'd not want to politely knock, either. It's not really comparable to entering a house where there are no registered firearm owners, and no suspected risk of violent resistance.

Remember that he met the police with a shotgun to hand (according to them, anyway).

Additionally, Dotcom having lost his servers did not mean that he did not have evidence to destroy. And a large property makes that much more likely to happen, as there is time to do so. A rapid and dynamic entry drastically decreases those odds.

1
11
FAIL

Re: There used to be a time

A rapid and dynamic entry that took thirteen minutes to find the guy?

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: There used to be a time

To be fair, he was hiding in a panic room.

And yeah... 13 minutes to sweep a home of that size. Have you seen the photos? Seems fair to me. You don't just run through rooms in three seconds flat, like on the TV.

1
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: There used to be a time

@AC.

So, according to you, anyone who perfectly legally and above board owns a gun (or number thereof) needs to be tackled 'dynamically'? If you hadn't noticed, the people who give the police most grief are actually those who keep guns WITHOUT registration (and therefore without police knowledge). Legal gun owners are relatively speaking a very law abiding group of people. Additionally, if I was assaulting someones house who I knew owned firearms and thought might have a propensity to use then, I think body armour would be my first port of call, but they chose not to wear any!! The risk of being shot was so high, no protection was required!!

Yes, according to police he had a shotgun in hand, although as their testimony to date has been somewhat suspect (as have their warrants), this should be treated with scepticism. The police, in a lot of countries, make a lot of claims after the event, which have been shown to be lies of gross misrepresentations.

Given that it took them so long to locate dotcom, your last point seems somewhat moot. They needed the raid to be dynamic so as to prevent him destroying data and then still took forever to find him!! Obviously, their tactics failed at every level.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: There used to be a time

"Remember that he met the police with a shotgun to hand (according to them, anyway)."

Yep and, likewise, that Brazilian electrician looked like he might have a bomb under his jacket. No more truth in that one.

8
0
Silver badge

Re: There used to be a time

@AC.

Not sure how many times it has to be said........they had the plans, including the panic room.

Now, if I was entering a house of that size and wanted someone to start, where would I.......................maybe the panic room?

So, unless the walk was 15 minuts to the panic room, seems they were a little slow on the uptake. And to reiterate yet again, they were so concerned about the occupants that they chose not to wear body armour, so entering each room carefully and 'dynamically' doesn't seem to have been a worry to them. Anyway, a dynamic entry is about getting in quickly and clearing the building quickly. You absolutely don't take your time and give them an ooportunity to ambush you.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: There used to be a time

"So, according to you, anyone who perfectly legally and above board owns a gun (or number thereof) needs to be tackled 'dynamically'?"

If I were a police officer, entering the home of a known criminal who has a security TEAM, who has the means and motive to destroy evidence and who once drove a policeman off the road, I would put my own safety and those of my colleagues above the discomfort of getting the suspect out of bed rudely at 6am, yes.

I would not knock politely, and nor would the UK police, given the circumstances. Perhaps entering the homes of armed people is handled more casually in the States, but in the UK it tends to be taken a bit more seriously. NZ seems to have a similar outlook.

"If you hadn't noticed, the people who give the police most grief are actually those who keep guns WITHOUT registration (and therefore without police knowledge). Legal gun owners are relatively speaking a very law abiding group of people."

Generally, yes; I agree. But again, he's not your average gun owner. The typical law-abiding gun owner does not pose for photos with assault weapons, drive other people off the road because they're in the way, nor have an on-site security team which includes a suspected gang member.

"Additionally, if I was assaulting someones house who I knew owned firearms and thought might have a propensity to use then, I think body armour would be my first port of call, but they chose not to wear any!! The risk of being shot was so high, no protection was required!!"

It's a balance of protection and mobility, and they made a choice. Maybe it was hot and they had a lot of ground to cover. Personally, I do find it mildly alarming that they didn't bother with it, too.

"Given that it took them so long to locate dotcom, your last point seems somewhat moot. They needed the raid to be dynamic so as to prevent him destroying data and then still took forever to find him!! Obviously, their tactics failed at every level."

I don't think that we can so easily judge that. There was more than one person in the house, and Kim was hiding in a panic room (which aren't usually advertised with neon signs, and are normally hidden, correct?).

They may have prioritised securing evidence, or arresting the security staff. Who knows? We sure don't.

0
6
Silver badge

Re: There used to be a time

"If I were a police officer, entering the home of a known criminal who has a security TEAM, who has the means and motive to destroy evidence and who once drove a policeman off the road, I would put my own safety and those of my colleagues above the discomfort of getting the suspect out of bed rudely at 6am, yes.

I would not knock politely, and nor would the UK police, given the circumstances. Perhaps entering the homes of armed people is handled more casually in the States, but in the UK it tends to be taken a bit more seriously. NZ seems to have a similar outlook."

Errrr......known criminal? So, anyone who ever gets any criminal conviction is labelled one forever? Or, are you referring to the alleged copyright violation and therefore calling him a criminal before he's even been to trial let alone found guilty.

"Generally, yes; I agree. But again, he's not your average gun owner. The typical law-abiding gun owner does not pose for photos with assault weapons, drive other people off the road because they're in the way, nor have an on-site security team which includes a suspected gang member."

Not in the UK maybe, but its common in America and other parts of the world. Not everybody thinks of guns in the same way as we (the Brits) do and not everyone has a problem with them being in a photo. So, posing with guns is a pretty poor excuse of a reason to call him 'not the average gun owner'. Last time I heard, having an on-site security team wasn't a crime and plenty of American Hollywood stars have them and also pose with guns. Does that mean they're the same? A suspected gang member is just that...suspected. I could say I suspect you of being a gang member, but without evidence and a small detail of a trial, it's all unsubstantiated rumour.

"It's a balance of protection and mobility, and they made a choice. Maybe it was hot and they had a lot of ground to cover. Personally, I do find it mildly alarming that they didn't bother with it, too."

Fraid this simply doesn't wash. We're not talking about the 80s here. Armour today is pretty light and flexible (especially the type used by police rather than the army) and doesn't impede mobility to any great extent. If police choose to wear it all the time when patrolling perfectly normal streets, it pretty much means it isn't much of an issue, so the decision not to use it on this raid shows it was all show and absolutely nothing about risk at all. If the SAS assaulted the Iranian embassy in full 80s body armour given that they were abseiling, saying it was done because of reduced mobility is absolute rubbish.

"I don't think that we can so easily judge that. There was more than one person in the house, and Kim was hiding in a panic room (which aren't usually advertised with neon signs, and are normally hidden, correct?).

They may have prioritised securing evidence, or arresting the security staff. Who knows? We sure don't."

If securing him was a lower priority than securing the evidence, what does it matter how long it took to find him. However, it's the police themselves that are justifying the raid and its method by claiming this was important!! They can't have it both ways. Also, the panic room would have either been on the plans or been pretty obvious even though no labelled as such, due to the construction of such things.

All in all, the police are clutching at any straw to try and justify their Hollywood movie making antics. They are simply excuses and nothing to do with reality.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: There used to be a time

'tends to be taken a bit more seriously.'

get tha fuck outta here - this is keystone cops from start to finish.

The real reason for the shock and awe apporoach, is cos MI5 had told them he had WMD on the premises.

boken warrant, no body armour, dodgy removal of evidence, a rapid and dynamic entry that took almost 1/4 of an hour to find the bad guy.....

You Ess Ayyy... Fuck yeah!

the term clusterfuck springs irresistibly to mind

1
2
FAIL

Re: There used to be a time

That guy was probably crapping himself. Helicopters, people with guns, etc. A "subdued" security guard?

If I had one, I'd have my shotgun handy as well.

And WTF - loads of people in America have guns and do US cops storm a house first? Kim isn't going to pop a cap in the ass of someone who politely knocks on the front door, and ask if he would mind accompanying him to the station.

And why didn't they arrest him when he was out of the house?

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: There used to be a time

"Legal gun owners are relatively speaking a very law abiding group of people.".

Like Michael Ryan or Derrick Bird. Off the top of my head, 2 legal gunowners whom have killed more than any ( UK ) illegal gun owner in the last 3 decades.....

Nob........

0
2

Shotgun in hand

It is a pure wonder that he wasn't riddled if he met the police with a shotgun. Police tend to get jumpy and adrenalin-hyped after a while on the job. There was a time (about four years) in my life when I was frisked roughly once a month, sometimes two or three times. I never have found out why. It was extremely irritating and occasionally unnerving when one partner would play target while the other crouched behind a car door and you could tell from posture and arm position that he had his weapon out. I used to think Britain might be a safer place police-wise, but being part Portuguese in descent, I now wonder.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: There used to be a time

@cornz1

I never said ALL were, but as a part of society, on average, they are more law abiding than non-gun owners. That is proven by statistics. Not to say you might not get a few over a long period of time who go nuts. The cases you are talking of, were due to mental illness and in at least 1 of the cases, police probably should have removed his gun licence beforehand as they were aware of his mental issues.

Rather than insult me ('nob'), perhaps you would be better off doing some research and seeing how many people die each year in this country due to legally held guns (through deliberate act rather than misadventure) against those through illegally held guns. Try looking up places like London and Moss Side etc. and see how many shootings there are with illegally held guns. Once you have these figures, perhaps you'll be able to realise both where the issue actually lies and also who the 'nob' is.......

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: There used to be a time

"Errrr......known criminal? So, anyone who ever gets any criminal conviction is labelled one forever? Or, are you referring to the alleged copyright violation and therefore calling him a criminal before he's even been to trial let alone found guilty."

Dude: Read up on the guy. He 'nudged' another car off the road during an illegal road race, because it was in the way. That's a little more than copyright infringement.

I'm also personally leery about people who feel the need to post photos on the Net of them posing with assault weapons, but that's just me, I guess.

"Not in the UK maybe, but its common in America and other parts of the world."

I'm not an expert on NZ gun laws, but I believe them to be a middle ground between the UK and US. NZ police don't carry firearms routinely, so I think a cautious approach on their behalf was probably justified.

"Last time I heard, having an on-site security team wasn't a crime and plenty of American Hollywood stars have them and also pose with guns. Does that mean they're the same? A suspected gang member is just that...suspected. I could say I suspect you of being a gang member, but without evidence and a small detail of a trial, it's all unsubstantiated rumour."

But we're not talking about a trial. We're talking about risk assessment. Remember that armed police kicking in the doors to bomb-making shops are dealing with "suspected" criminals, but still use caution and shock and awe. You don't say "oh, well we only think that they're violent criminals, so let's leave the guns behind".

"All in all, the police are clutching at any straw to try and justify their Hollywood movie making antics. They are simply excuses and nothing to do with reality."

Perhaps. Maybe even 'probably'. But I can understand them wanting to take a cautious approach and not just knocking and politely asking to pop in. Even in the UK your door would likely be pried off the hinges at 5am with a Hoolie Bar, even if there were no firearms on site. And if you were a registered firearms owner, armed police would attend.

I'm not justifying a helicopter and assault rifles, but I can see why the police were armed and hit at dawn.

0
0
Unhappy

Re: There used to be a time

sadly very valuable comment

0
0
Pirate

Ahoy me hearty

Is this what the video on the piratebays home page is in reference to?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

How very odd

What, if anything were they, if anyone thinking of? Money and music I assume.

1
0
Flame

So they had already siezed the servers

In which case all thy had to be concerned about was him escaping, especially since the officers were told the didn't need body armour.

I have taken time to think about this and can now say that it was intended to terrorise him and anyone else there.

Those involed should be arrested as terrorists.

44
0
Silver badge

Puzzled

Leaving aside the apparent overkill by the NZ police in tooling up for the raid, I'm particularly puzzled by their need to beef up their numbers with agents of a foreign power.

27
0
Flame

Re: Puzzled

Hardly a puzzle. The USA says "frog" and countries like New Zealand just jump. And in the USA, when the RIAA/MPAA says "jump" the US government doesn't bother asking "how high", they just follow the orders of their corporate masters.

"Rule of law" my hairy buttocks. They trashed that in the 50's and haven't looked back since.

22
0
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Puzzled

I wondered that - pretty sure that the FBI would be rather far from their jurisdiction in New Zealand. Also thought their mandate was for "crimes against the US", not "infringements against copyright of US companies"

10
0
Silver badge

Re: Puzzled

"Leaving aside the apparent overkill by the NZ police in tooling up for the raid, I'm particularly puzzled by their need to beef up their numbers with agents of a foreign power."

The masters didn't trust their lapdogs to do it properly

2
0
WTF?

The judge that resigned had the right idea...

..the US and their bootlickers are a bigger threat than the average music pirate. When did Megaupload or PirateBay last pull agun on YOU?

12
0
Bronze badge

errm... on a point of order

The Colt Commander is a pistol, chambered in 9-mm Parabellum or in .45 ACP. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Commander>

The Colt Commando, which is what I suspect you meant, is a rifle, chambered in 5.56-mm NATO and is the submachine gun version of the M16. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Commando> It has a noticeably shorter barrel, and hence is less useful at longer ranges, than either the M16 or the M4. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Carbine> (Note that the M4 is a carbine, not a rifle, and is designed with close-quarter combat in mind. Note also that there is now a 'version' of the M4 which is classed as a SMG, not a carbine, and which also has the name 'Commando', in a triumph of marketing based on the success of the original, 1960s-vintage, Commando and of the success of the current M4 line. It is actually based on the 1960s Commandos, not the M4s.)

The traditional military uses for the Colt Commando are those of other current SMGs: something for use by vehicle crews, military police, and special forces operating in dense urban areas or other locales where sight ranges are likely to be short and the lack of effect at long range is not likely to be significant. Civilian uses typically involve special duty police forces; again, long range is not likely to be a useful factor, but high cyclic rate and large magazine capacity is. Therefore this would be _exactly_ the type of weapon used by paramilitary special assault police, such as those NZ constables.

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: errm... on a point of order

"The Colt Commando, which is what I suspect you meant, is a rifle, chambered in 5.56-mm NATO and is the submachine gun version of the M16."

No; it's a carbine.

It fires rifle ammunition and would be considered large by SMG standards.

You can cheerfully cap people from 300m with it and pass APWT with it, if you've got a good eye. You can't do that with an MP5.

"Therefore this would be _exactly_ the type of weapon used by paramilitary special assault police, such as those NZ constables."

No; it shouldn't be. Paramilitary weapons should be small enough to use in confined spaces, and the Commando is a carbine and less than ideal for that. More to the point, police weapons shouldn't have ammunition that can cruise through walls and people like 5.56mm does. An actual SMG like the MP5 is much more appropriate.

2
1
FAIL

Methinks someone wanted to play some real life Counter Strike and used the raid as an excuse... any other explanation is just too mind bogglingly stupid to contemplate.

14
0
Silver badge

re FPS

Didn't Dotcom have a stupidly high ranking on an Xbox game before his arrest? Maybe the authorities thought this translated into real life (see Vaz, Keith)

8
0
Anonymous Coward

The other explanation

> Methinks someone wanted to play some real life Counter Strike and used the raid as an excuse... any other explanation is just too mind bogglingly stupid to contemplate.

You mean the explanation as to where the FBI pressured the New Zealand Government into launching a real life Stazi assault on Dotcoms home. This in retalation for his alleged piracy of some US corporations.

1
0
Holmes

>Methinks someone wanted to play some real life Counter Strike and used the raid as an excuse...

It's not as simple and innocent as that, thought, is it?

This is a demonstartion of the overwhelming access to force, and willingness to delpoy it, in the interests of The United States' Copyright Cartels, their political wing (the US Government) and their leveraged territories around the world (every country whose governments can be 'leaned on' through the threat of withdrawal of economic 'stimulus', or outright prejudicial sanction).

This is a display of force. By Universal, by Disney, by Warner, by all those nice people who bring you your favourite entertainments.

Nice people aren't they?

1
0

creating content..

Maybe the movie industry was just creating content for a new movie? Better yet maybe they filmed the entire raid and the process leading up to the raid and its just being post-produced now!

0
0
PT

Re: creating content..

dmaidlow, I believe you may have got it! Why else would I find this line in a local NZ news item -

"The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed. "

(http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7429534/Kim-Dotcom-takes-the-stand-over-raids)

Surely this can't be the Crown's idea, since if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. It must be that they don't want any unauthorized footage from the movie being pirated on teh interwebs.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: creating content..

Maybe dotcom should launch a movie based on his experiences, put it in stores for a price nobody is willing to pay, and then host it on a megauplload type site. Then he can complain when nobody is buying it, get the USA to destroy another legitimate business, giving him an opening to relaunch megaupload.

Pirate bay had the right idea with their satelites.

0
0

F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

Helicopter, 4 vans of armed police officers, kicking the sole unarmed suspect to the floor? How typically bloody American. I do hope the kicker gets his arse sued by DotCom for use of excessive force.

It sounds like the yanks got themselves a bit over-excited when planning this raid. He's a suspected wilful copyright infringer, not an armed drugs-baron!

I look forward to seeing this case continue to collapse in both NZ and the USA. The worse the DoJ and Hollywood come out of this, the better.

27
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

What everyone needs to realise is the yanks do this only to people who aren't drug barons. They shit themselves when coming up against genuine heavy gangsters and so only do the big hero raids like this on white collar criminals.

11
0
Silver badge

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

Yeah our government sucks like most of them but remember without Yanks there would be No Team America, no Southpark, no Family Guy and no Bill Hicks to make fun of the government.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

>They shit themselves when coming up against genuine heavy gangsters

Google Pablo Escobar or Manuel Noriega. We can f__k the heavy hitters big too if they have dirt on our CIA or in general piss us off.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

And that would constitute a loss how exactley???

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

"unarmed suspect"

That's frankly balls. There were firearms on the property. To quote the police:

"In this case, there were firearms on the property - as exhibited by the photos of Dotcom with guns - and experienced security personnel."

"The sergeant said the second suspect was bodyguard Wayne Tempero. He had made several notes about Tempero, including his alleged association with the Head Hunters gang and his history as a well-trained security expert. The sergeant also noted Dotcom had a current and an ex-police officer on his security team. The current officer had possible experience with the Diplomatic Protection Squad."

So the guy has guns, a security TEAM which includes a probable gang member and a professionally trained cop. Imagine UK police getting briefed with that. You think you'd get a friendly knock on the door? You're living in a dream world if you do.

0
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

@AC.

How exactly did dotcom have a current police officer on his team? Was this a spot of moonlighting? Also, whilst others might resist arrest, are the police really suggesting one of their own (and potentially an ex one of their own) would put up resistance against them to the point of opening fire? If so, they really need to look at their recruiting methods!!

'You're living in a dream world if you do.'

And you're living in a Nazi stormtrooper world if you think they should. They had absolutely no reason to believe he would resist in any way, let alone open fire. This is clear as they chose not to wear body armour, which is pretty much standard when patrolling on the streets let alone go into a property. Yet, not required here.

Theres only one thing worse than bad police officers......and that's apologists for bad police officers.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

"How exactly did dotcom have a current police officer on his team? Was this a spot of moonlighting?"

I don't know. Perhaps. But that's what has been stated by the police. Do we know their regulations as regards moonlighting? No; so I don't think we can just say 'that's not true' to it.

"Also, whilst others might resist arrest, are the police really suggesting one of their own (and potentially an ex one of their own) would put up resistance against them to the point of opening fire?"

Perhaps they were more concerned with the suspected gang member?

"And you're living in a Nazi stormtrooper world if you think they should."

Let's say that you are a police officer. You have a wife and kids. You are to enter the house of a criminal who has a team of security and firearms in the house. Even if there is only a 5% chance of them trying to murder you and you or one of your co-workers getting shot, would you knock nicely? If you were in charge of the raid and knew that if an officer got shot at, you would be personally responsible for telling them to knock nicely and leave the guns at home, what call would you make? Risk management.

" They had absolutely no reason to believe he would resist in any way, let alone open fire."

How can you say that with any certainty? And how can you say that about his security team?

"Theres only one thing worse than bad police officers......and that's apologists for bad police officers."

Laughable. Utterly laughable.

That you insinuate that I am the only thing worse in the world than a corrupt or violent policeman based on an internet discussion about a situation which you were not present at and have only a limited amount of information speaks volumes of you and your judgement.

0
4

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

@AC

1) The police suspected one of the security group had connections to a gang, not that they were a member of said gang. Connections could mean anything from a family member being in the gang to him dating the sister of the girlfriend of a brother to a member of the gang: It's not specified as to what the suspected connection was.

2) The police did a risk assessment and decided body armour was not needed. That indicates they didn't expect to be shot at, which indicates limited, non-violent resistance was the worst they were expecting.

So the only reason for the raid was to prevent any potential evidence present from being destroyed. Guns were deployed as a threat, which simply put civilians at risk of accidental shooting - which does happen, and is what DotCom claimed he was scared would happen. If it wasn't for that, the police should have turned up with an arrest warrant: No raid, no guns, just the warrant. Nothing else would have been needed.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

@AC.

You don't get my point. If he could legally hire a serving police officer, that's fine. However, the police are trying to justify the operation partly on the basis they suspect there might be an attempt to stop them, including live fire. Are they seriously suggesting a serving officer would a) work for someone like that and b) not try to intervene if that happened. Bear in mind the officer would likely be INSIDE the house!! Also, I would have thought the ex police officer would be of the same thought. So, dotcom had used people for his security team that you would expect to side with the police during any attempt at entry.......Yeah. The work of a real bad boy there.

If the police really had any concern that they might come under fire, they would have worn armour. It isn't anywhere as bulky or cumbersome as that of the past and they wear it all the time whilst patrolling such hostile territory as residential neighbourhoods and just about anywhere. So, not wearing it on this raid shows beyond any reasonable doubt that they didn't expect anything. Anybody who believes otherwise is simply mad.

You are choosing to defend people who were clearly and obviously showboating, playing to the cameras and turning what should have been a perfectly normal raid into some sort of commando assault. Talk about lack of judgement. It's people like you defending them that simply encourages them to continue with this type of outrageous behaviour.

1
0

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

"alleged association with the Head Hunters gang" <> "a probable gang member"

"photos of Dotcom with guns" <> "the guy has guns"

Please don't exaggerate. All you have is someone who might be associated with a gang and that Dotcom had his picture taken with some guns. In separate reports there is a claim that some of his security had licensed firearms, and that there was a shotgun (belonging to one of the security guards as I recall) in the panic room (red room) but nothing about Dotcom owning or keeping firearms.

And yes, even with all that, I'd expect a friendly knock on the door by a policeman with a warrant. The only exception is if they had evidence I had evidence of criminal activity that I might destroy given time, and in this case, the accusation was for a civil offense, not a criminal one. Or do you think the police should go in mob handed to every private home and business where there is a claim of a civil offense taking place just to prevent possible evidence being deleted?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

"You are choosing to defend people who were clearly and obviously showboating, playing to the cameras and turning what should have been a perfectly normal raid into some sort of commando assault. Talk about lack of judgement."

No, I'm pointing out the other side of the argument, which a lot of readers clearly bypassed on their way to passing judgement; ignoring or not knowing that there was a security team and firearms in the building.

Yes: The chopper and armalites are straight out of Miami Vice. Probably totally overboard.

But I'd have sent in armed officers as well. So would UK police.

"It's people like you defending them that simply encourages them to continue with this type of outrageous behaviour."

It's people like you making swift judgements in situations where all the evidence is not available and who make further snap judgements about the motives and reasoning of anyone who dares offer an opposing opinion who are the problem in my mind.

That and standing at the sidelines whining about the government in the internet, instead of doing anything. I'll wager I'm a lot more involved in liberal politics and protest than you'll ever be. If it matters so much to you, please get off your arse and come and join the protests.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

"And yes, even with all that, I'd expect a friendly knock on the door by a policeman with a warrant. The only exception is if they had evidence I had evidence of criminal activity that I might destroy given time, and in this case, the accusation was for a civil offense, not a criminal one. Or do you think the police should go in mob handed to every private home and business where there is a claim of a civil offense taking place just to prevent possible evidence being deleted?"

Then you are clearly a law-abiding citizen who has reasonable expectations of the police and how they are treated. Good for you. If everyone was like that, the police could and would knock nicely.

Unfortunately, that's not how the police operate. And they don't operate like that because the actual scum in this world will be out the back window with a lap-top in a shot, in that situation. Plus they'd rather use shock and awe than even face the smallest risk of getting a kitchen knife or heroin needle stuck in them. Which is sadly what happens, too regularly.

0
0

Wot a cack of punts!

The raid may have had an 'American' flavour, but you'll see the same type of thing all over the West: Police who are completely entranced by all their gear & the excitement of it all, who treat us, The Public, with utter contempt. The Armed Cops in The UK are completely out of control, their MO being to kill first and don't answer any questions later. They're not subject to the law, but even if the IPCC & the DPP do allow a case to go forward, the Magistrates or Judges don't or won't hold them to account

7
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.