Thursday, November 1, 2012

This Is What A Police State Looks Like - SWAT Evicts Elderly Woman

No, that's not Granny ^, that's one of her buddies.

This happened yesterday here in Idaho Springs, Colorado. Never saw or heard a peep about it on the news Pravda.

In this case, U.S. Bank used a SWAT team to evict an elderly woman from her home.
Yesterday a highly militarized police force arrived at the home of 63 year old Sahara Donahue to evict her from her residence of 24 years. She was petitioning US Bank for an additional 60 days to remain in her home, so she could have some time to find a new place to live, secure her belongings and leave her home with dignity. She came to the Colorado Foreclosure Resistance Coalition and Occupy Denver General Assembly to ask for our help.
Don't get stuck on the 'Occupy' portion of the story. That's irrelevant to this post.

This is a Police State in action.
At 2:45pm ten or more truckloads of police in full combat gear armed with live-ammo AR-15’s, and grenade launchers arrived on the scene &  forced occupiers to the ground at gun point. Police then made their way to the house, broke down the front door, threw Sahara to the ground in her own kitchen and pointed their guns at the heads of a mother and son who were in the house with Sahara along with others. They continued to break items in the house as they searched it.

Read the rest of this shameful story here.

After watching the video, go back and watch it again. This time take note of the surrounding environment.

Now imagine a bunch of skilled 'deer hunters' with semi-auto rifles strategically placed on the hillside perpendicular to the convoy, in front of the convey, and behind the convoy.


Fish in a barrel.

They knew this was coming. Time and place had been established. If you read the story, you will have read that they had constructed barricades with fallen trees to prevent the movers from coming in days before.

If this was a guerrilla operation, there would have had plenty of time to setup a properly constructed ambush.

And win.

Properly trained, of course.


34 comments:

  1. Thanks, pal.
    Now you've got my blood pressure up again.

    I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Let's just make sure we win...or at least not lose.

      Delete
  2. Posted and linked. I emailed the Chief of the Idaho Springs PD, and US Bank. Not that it matters to them.
    Win? It would have been over in seconds and the hunters melting back into the woods. Probably would make future thugs think a little bit harder about how willing they are to create empty houses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And THIS, boys and gals, is why I left Denver. CO has degraded into nothing but a fascist police state. Such a pity, it's so beautify there in CO too. In the mountains at least. Been to Idaho Springs many times. Great hot springs there in Indian Springs area.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I update my blog- I exchanged a couple emails with the Idaho Springs Chief and he made it clear that his dept was NOT involved this was solely a Clear Creek Co. Sheriffs dept operation. =) I appreciate him sharing the direction for my nasty-grams. Unlike the Chief however, the Sheriffs dept has yet to respond....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Methinks this is more than apropos considering the topic of this thread...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfCvcFLdq4Y&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  6. Granny couldn't find enough friends to help her out with a mortgage, and we're fantasizing that a squad of armed strangers would skip that step and go straight to mass first-degree murders?!?

    Seriously? Or is this just Rambo porn for the spank bank?

    Tell me how, if instead of Granny absconding with a ranch worth $100K, she'd stuck up the bank, or yor friend who runs the sorting goods store, and gotten shot in the face, you wouldn't cheer the shooter.

    If the actions of the bank or sheriff's department were illegal in this eviction, lay that out here and now.
    Otherwise, you're going after it because "It LOOKS bad."
    Anyone here remember why they banned "assault weapons"? Beuller? Beuller...?

    Or how about a decade's worth of militias getting perp-walked? Anyone? Anyone at all?

    Suppose that house was *yours*, and some deadbeat hippie commune had installed a meth lab on it, and told you to pound sand for the mortgage.
    Jeebus crispies, THEY ERECTED VEHICULAR ROADBLOCKS TO BLOCK LAWFUL ENFORCEMENT, people.

    That's what non-tinfoil law enforcement officers call a "barricaded suspect".
    When you don't meet your contractual obligations, you're a deadbeat.
    When a group of you fells trees to prevent getting your deadbeat ass evicted, you're a criminal conspiracy.

    I hope they throw the book at her, and put her up in the Greybar Motel for 6 months for criminal conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and destruction of private property.

    Jack-booted thuggery is groping 5 year old girls in airport screening lines.
    It's shoving protesters into "free speech cages".
    It's going door-to-door to take guns away from grandmothers in disaster areas.

    It's *not* enforcing eviction orders against deadbeats who set up tank traps.
    If anyone can't see that, I don't who you are, and I don't think I want to.
    But you absolutely lack adult supervision.

    -Aesop

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you to a point and I'm not justifying Granny's actions nor those of her new buddies.

      I think the real question here is do the ends justify the means?

      People have been evicted from their homes for years. People have barricaded themselves in their homes before. But how did the banks handle it in the past to get them to vacate the premises.

      They didn't call their local SWAT team armed to the teeth to go handle the situation. They would send lawyers, letters, and 'Peace Officers' to try and settle the dispute. They would have a dialogue, build a rapport, work with that person, and eventually convince them to give it up when they've properly convinced them that there really is no other alternative.

      Whether Granny was right or wrong, the way it was handled reflects poorly on the Sheriff Department. The war of public opinion is won or lost with actions such as these that were taken.

      Add this with all the no-knock raids gone bad, dog shootings, false arrests, video taped beatings, deprivations of rights under color of law, etc...that have been flooding the news lately, and you end up with a populous that does not trust LEO's. They are not your friend and don't care if you live or die.

      This is just more fuel on the fire.

      Delete
    2. Yes, these ends justify these means.

      Granny & Co. escalated a financial disagreement into a series of criminal acts.
      They had ample time to go to court, and chop down trees. Apparently no one seriously considered playing the "Pay the mortgage" or "Move out peacefully" cards.

      And if you're willing to let the bank take this in the pants, who ya gonna call when a dozen "Occupy" @$$hats decide to live in your store, or camp on your front lawn?

      Screw the SWAT team. That happens to me, I'm going to pepper those SOBs in the face, drag 'em by the hair to the curb, bitch-slapping them continuously until they cease resisting, and then hog tie them, and sit my big butt on their heads while I await their removal by the local constabulary's paddy wagon. And so would anyone else with a lick of sense, unless they identify more with the "what's yours is mine" crowd in the Free Sh*t Army.

      To my way of thinking, Granny got handled like a kitten. But I'm a sentimental romantic.

      Best regardss,
      -Aesop

      Delete
    3. The Quadfather11/02/2012 11:53 AM

      As a landlord I cannot sympathize with those who can't or won't pay the rent, or in this case, mortgage, It doesn't require a military squad to get an eviction done. This is a matter for the courts, not the battlefield. On the other hand I have seen the other side of the story. The bank tried to strip me of my properties even though I was paying the mortgages and on time. Fortunately a big infusion of cash from my parents in law stopped their efforts cold. Later the A.H. at the bank that pulled this stunt got fired. Although it is sad when elderly ladies have to be evicted, it must be allowed, otherwise there will not be rental properties available because there will be no profit in it. Same is true for mortgages. However, as a landlord I take no pleasure in conducting one, especially in the case of a long standing tenant. And when I do, there are no stormtroopers.

      Delete
  7. 'Assault' weapons were banned because Fascist a-holes will do what Fascist a-holes do. And that's take away your rightful liberty one bite at a time.

    Legal enforcement. Not Lawful. May I suggest ye learn the difference. But I don't have the time to school ye right now. Do a net search for 'Black's Law, 1st Edition'. And download it, and read it until you love it.

    Aesop. What an interesting handle. How apropos. Considering ye are writing some pretty good fables.

    Ye've got half of the right idea. The problem, methinks, is the OTHER half.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes.....an ambush in this situation would have cost the state dearly if executed properly.
    And it would have been the first, last and only such ambush to succeed. Any subsequent
    incidents would not be so simple as those in power would up the ante to full military including
    armed air assets. Doesn't matter if it's football or war ....you can gain ground with a play once,
    the second time you try the play the defense has you for lunch.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Wild.

    Praytell, during which session of the Colorado Legislature, duly elected by the good people of Colorado, under the guidelines of the Constitution of Colorado, did they name Black's Law, 1st Ed., the sole and supreme authority of legal custom, practice, and precedent for civil and criminal matters in that fair state?
    Because I'm betting I could find Colorado statutes online at WestLaw in about 10 minutes covering service of eviction, criminal conspiracy, etc., but that they'd be surfing in Denver in January before you could point to what I asked about.
    If you can't handle the rule of law, come out and say so. If so, explain the difference between you and the "Anarchy" mob. Look up the Boston Massacre, and read the closing statements of defense counsel. You may have heard of him. Read it until you love it.

    Assault weapons were banned because they looked bad. Don't ascribe the motives of a few ringleaders to the majority of Congress, unless you're happy when they do the same to you based on the actions of a few bomb throwing retards in cammies on the fringe. Because I'm a big fan of the Golden Rule too.

    -Aesop

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said that the ends justify the means in this case.
      Van loads of swat teams to do what? hostage crisis (you know.... their actual purpose)?

      If you cannot see that sending the spec ops military(oops I mean the pigs)to play Rambo-fag then I can't fix that.

      Delete
    2. Thank heavens.
      For a minute there I was worried someone had left you in charge of something, like how many cops are allowed to show up to arrest a criminal.

      Last I read, they didn't shoot her dog, pepper spray her grandkid, and stomp on any kittens, they just took Granny to jail without firing a shot, accomplished their mission, and everyone left the premises alive. (You know...SWAT's actual purpose).

      Paraphrasing Sherrif Joe Arpaio, "If you don't like jail, don't break the law."
      -Aesop

      Delete
    3. 1. I said absolutely nothing about how many cops can/should be allowed to show up anywhere. What are you talking about?

      2. You say this "accomplished their mission, and everyone left the premises alive. (You know...SWAT's actual purpose)"
      No, that is isnt swat's actual purpose. They are for dynamic entry for situations such as an active shooter or a hostage situation (even in a hostage situation it is normally a last resort).

      Pigs are not supposed to needlessly escalate situations. This is why swat teams are not for 95% of the shit they are used for. Shut of the utilities and control exit and entry routes and wait them out peacefully, like a "peace officer".

      3. You say "Paraphrasing Sherrif Joe Arpaio, "If you don't like jail, don't break the law."
      -Aesop"
      a. that is a red herring.
      b. Let's assume that the comment is somehow pertinent, does this somehow justify a militarized pig force to enforce what ever they determine the law is that day, however the fuck they want? Was the murder of Jose Guerena acceptable? If not, why not, and how do you reconcile that shit?

      Delete
  10. I am not yet in default on my mortgage (had it for 27 years, 3 to go) but I own a PayPhone business which due to the millions of *FREE OBAMA PHONES* has gone down the toilet. I just went out and collected a total of $112.60 for the last three months,down from what used to be in the $3,000 range so you can see that the nit-wits in DC have skrewed me. I probably would not have much mercy on any bank (US Bank does have a local branch) but my mortgage is now held by an out-of-state bank. My only option is to scratch, scramble and scrap out that which used to bring in a good living and PRAY to not lose my home. Many more just like me out there. GOD help those wannabe Geatapo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...the nit-wits in DC have skrewed me..."
      Please, educate me as to how the nitwits in DC have impacted your phone business.
      Seriously, they are nitwits, but I'm confused as to how you get from 'technology' to what DC does. It seems to me you'd be more PO'd at MS and Apple and all the cell phone companies, then angry at all the people who find cell phones more convenient than cold phone booths. (Incidentally, I don't use cell phones and do miss the old Ma Bell pay phone kiosks.) But I sure can't blame the .gov for their disappearance.

      Delete
    2. The Quadfather11/02/2012 12:05 PM

      I owned a payphone business. It paid great until the phone companies started offering free long distance on cellphones. Then it started dying. When the payphone insurance people got out, I did too. I had always suspected that the government started giving away cell phones right about the same time. Of course, thanks to Obamaphone woman, we now know this. But I think they were doing it all along.

      Delete
    3. When the .gov gives out free Android cellular phones loaded with voice and data plans (unlimited, or whatever), the need to plug a quarter into a pay phone on the corner is near-zero. IMHO, cellular phones are a luxury item, not required for living, and as such should be specifically prohibited from being funded to provide for "the needy who want free comm" by any federally-funded agency or State/Local/NGO that accepts a Federal Dollar or consideration. If folks actually want/need portable communicators, they will get them and pay with their own money.

      Count on hearing about reckless/stupid people skipping buying food or gas to fund their cellular habits, but it's their choice. Free wireless comm enables the FSA to behave very badly in masses known as "flash mobs", so stop it.

      Cheers.

      Delete
    4. Using that logic, buggy whip makers have a cause at action against the goverment because they paved the roads for autos, and steamship owners should similarly default on their mortgages because the FAA promulgated airline travel.

      I'd ask the color of the sky in LudditeLand, but they probably can't answer me until Android learns to read smoke signals.

      -Aesop

      Delete
  11. Those punk cops will someday face their Maker.
    Shame on them!
    Anyway, Colorado is scheduled to be the new Seat of goverment following the arrival of Nibiru/Wormwood.
    So they are just setting the 'tone' of how they'll act when that happens.

    Signed: Retired Detective,

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mt Top Patriot11/02/2012 9:03 AM

    Waco Rules baby!

    Those who ignore the past take the dirt nap first.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The article says this woman had been unable to pay her mortgage "for several years"! That seems like plenty of time to find alternate housing. She had been mooching off family and friends since her nonspecific head injury. Sounds to me like a liberal trying to milk disability and get the gov to pay her mortgage. I'm with Aesop on this.

    ReplyDelete
  14. but Oleg says deer hunters cannot affect outcomes

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unless my eyes deceive me, that ain't grandma on the ground. Could that possibly be the reason for the team?
    I am in law enforcement and If I show up to serve a court order and they set diversions up to my legal entry, yes there would be a team on station. Mama didn't raise no fool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No that's not Granny. That's one of her buddies that got arrested. Watch the video. Granny got evicted, not arrested. (see title)

      Delete
  16. Part I (4096 character limit)

    And the reason they could not have just sent two Sheriff's deputies out to serve the order, is why, exactly?

    Were the stormtrooper gear and tactics necessary here? It didn't seem like any of these folks were armed. So why the AR-15s and riot armor instead of just their issued service weapons? (Intimidation factor, that's why.)

    And why are the police militarized in the first place? Doesn't that bother you?

    Funny, when I was growing up this kind of thing simply DID NOT happen. People defaulted on their mortgages back then as well. Sheriff's Dept just came out and talked to the folks. They certainly didn't SWAT team them.

    The bar for what is 'acceptable' to the public is way past what I'd consider an abomination. The more it's tolerated, the more it will happen. It's incrementalism at it's finest.

    I'm going to explain why this woman should not have been thrown out of HER house. So, listen up kiddos.

    If any of you internet Billy Badarses that are badmouthing those who are speaking out against this and if those who support this kind of thing knew their head from their dark and squishy parts, you'd know the basics of how the financial system actually works, and that it is the BANK that borrows credit from YOU, not the other way around. The credit is created by YOUR signature. You aren't borrowing from the bank. They're borrowing from YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Part II:

    It is common known fact in fractional reserve banking, that they lend out more money then they have. Not just lend out more than they have ON HAND, more money than they have, PEROID.

    Let me ask a simple question: Where does that extra money come from? Answer: Thin air. It's 'created'. But wait, that's unlawful. Yes it is. But they do it every single day. Because it's LEGAL.

    You go in, sign for a 'loan'. Your signature is the collateral that creates the currency. They then now can use this as collateral to make more loans, as money has just been 'created'. Then they loan you back, say, 1/20th of the amount that was just created by your signature as a LOAN to YOU, and charge YOU interest on your own money that was just created. That's a very simplified version, but that's the basics of it.

    If you are even remotely grasping this and not laughing like some ignorant twit, you should be feeling pretty taken to the cleaners right about now. And if you are just laughing like some ignorant twit, keep laughing. Truth does nothing to help the blind.

    The general public is so incredibly ignorant on how real credit actually works, is downright scary.

    They sit there on a pedestal acting all holier than thou, when they don't have the first flipping clue.

    Here's a few tips. Your birth certificate is on Bond paper. You are a publicly trade commodity.

    Your local courthouses and police departments are for profit corporations. Don't take my word for it, go look them up on Dun and Bradstreet.

    It's all about Admiralty Law vs Common Law.

    When you folks tout 'It's the law', you don't have half of a singular clue what you're talking about, nor do you know the difference between the two.

    You also don't know the difference betweel LEGAL and LAWFUL.

    But I digress. Bottom line is the woman owned her property free and clear, and it is the bank who defaulted not her. She could not possibly have owed anything on credit that SHE created in the first place, and by not explaining this to her when she went to get the loan, the bank was guilty of fraud. Any fraud involved in an agreement voids the agreement and is considered a default. Thus, she owes nothing and gets to keep the house.

    If you cannot, or will not understand that, or do the very basic research to verify this, then you should not be commenting about things which you obviously know nothing about.

    Don't waste an ounce of your time or energy trying to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, either. Instead, take 10 minutes, get off your lazy duff, and go research it yourself. Here's a term to Google. "Acceptance for Value" Also known as A4V. Read and understand some of that basic stuff, and you'll realize why SWAT teaming this woman and taking her RIGHTFUL PROPERTY was unlawful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drinking a whole jug o 'shine all in one sittin don't make you no Clarence Darrow, and one a them infomercial real estate classes didn't make you Donald Trump neither.

      And you don't never pay your mortgage after you told them banksters they really owe you, and so the house is your rightful property, din'cha?

      My donkey you did...

      Delete
  18. Meh. Anyhow. When you see those men in the garb and weapons, you don't see a peace officer. You don't see and cop. You see a frikkin military platoon.

    People can shake and bake it any way they want. They are quartered among us.

    And for those who can't see that, you have shit in your eyes and shit for brains.

    You stay in your foxhole and I’ll stay in mine. After it is all done and over, I’d hate to have to admit that we shared the same foxhole, thinking, “Well, here we go again. And I shared a foxhole with them.”

    Burr and Hamilton come to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jack Elliott11/06/2012 2:01 PM

    The latest "executive order"? Obama just signed one that basically federalizes all law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S. under the guise of "cooperation and assistance". Federal Police!!! Doesn't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy all over?

    ReplyDelete
  20. If you watch the video, played by 9-news in Denver, also found on the Colorado Foreclosure Resistance Coalitions website, many answers can perhaps be learned. Firstly, the captain himself stated that this is not normal procedure. Many evictions happen, and none lead to violence. Swat teams are not normally used for evictions. So why would a police force use increased response for a situation? Threat level comes to mind. So what threat was there? The news later reported that one of the protestors had a gun tucked into his waist band. This does not sound peaceful to me. increased response is warranted against increased threat. Imagine a peaceful eviction crew coming to the door and dying because someone feels the urge to harm. Protect and serve comes to mind. Later on the video proclaims the hand gun to be a "BB" gun. That little detail seems important in hindsight but prior to the eviction this means little. In the moment, and in the grand scheme, a gun is a gun and someone at a peaceful protest, protesting as the constitution allows chose to bring the facsimile thus choosing to show that he/she was ready to use force in some manner to resist the operation. If someone pulls a gun on me, toy or not, I will have to make a hard choice on weather or not to act. If the police knew someone had a gun, and did not yet know it was a toy, it is right to assume others have guns, weapons, or the desire to cause harm. This is my theory to explain the increase in response level.

    Any police officer would feel that the operation and protest, however peaceful to date was in fact a dangerous group willing to harm others to get their way because the evidence gained shows that one member or all the members could potentially be armed. The police department sworn to serve and protect their county will of course arrive with the force necessary to end the threat and return the area to safety. Not a shot was fired, but if someone chose to escalate the situation you can be damn sure that the situation was going to be dealt with.

    On another note, it seems odd that a group of peaceful protestors who want to help and support the lady didn't pool some dough and pay a bill or two for her. Take up a collection and try and stave off the inevitable for a while longer. If you couldn't offer a buck, why not pack a box for her. Rent a truck, offer to move her, offer to let her use your garage, maybe even offer lodging at your own house if that was an option. Be a nice neighbor. Maybe some kindness would have prevented this whole ordeal, prevented police involvement, prevented the need to show some schtick. At least it maybe could have spared some of the trouble collecting her things from the side of the road.

    Some people just want to watch the world burn, and Resistor is going to be the next one we see on national TV, gunning down the innocent because he/she doesn't know how to survive in a society that asks him to pull his own weight, live with some moral decency and respect a common law of the land that chooses humanity over anarchy.

    I am part of the Colorado Foreclosure Resistance Coalition... because I pay my house payment each and every month... not because I demand the world pay it for me...

    ~Wolf~

    ReplyDelete
  21. That SWAT team made a big mistake, There weren't enough of them to handle the situation. Seems like they just got their panties in a bunch because of the name calling and decided to break the rules. I'd guess that any lawsuit against the department in federal court would win. Apparently Clear Creek County Sheriff has the money to fight these types of lawsuits. The original arresting guy in the SWAT getup is WAY to immature to be leading anything. But that is the way that SWAT teams are being encouraged to be, militaristic offering overwhelming force to do the bidding of their political masters.

    The retarded occupiers were no better, it's apparent that the SO knew of the defenses erected (log barriers), and that the protesters would be there. SWAT should have done a safe perimeter and NOT become intermingled with the protesters - they put themselves into grave danger by needing to assuage their bruised egos.

    I've seen evictions like this before, almost always an older/elderly person. It never ends up looking good for anybody.

    ReplyDelete