• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Court to DEA: Don't Point Gun at 11 YO's Head

Go said:
Yup its better to return him to a 3rd world Communist country via the police kicking down the door of a private residence...
Click to expand...

So if your son was taken and strangers wouldn't return him, you wouldn't want the police in the jurisdiction to get him back for you?

The family was given ample opportunity to return Elian before that happened and you know it.
 
RJKarl said:
So if your son was taken and strangers wouldn't return him, you wouldn't want the police in the jurisdiction to get him back for you?

The family was given ample opportunity to return Elian before that happened and you know it.
Click to expand...

That whole thing was bungled by Janet Reno, you know that very well.

They handled it very poorly.
 
The family gave Reno no choice and you know that. It was the ONLY legitimate outcome.

Had we not taken Elian back to his father, the thousands of American families who are trying to repatriate their children from other countries would been impossible.

This should not be a partisan issue.
 
I think you are missing my point.

I understand the father deserves to have his son back but the gov't shouldn't have had to break down a door w/ men w/ guns to get the kid out of that house.
 
Go said:
I think you are missing my point.

I understand the father deserves to have his son back but the gov't shouldn't have had to break down a door w/ men w/ guns to get the kid out of that house.
Click to expand...

They were given no choice. They had given the family over a week to bring Elian to them without any fanfare or officers. Even in the 8 hours before the action took place, they pleaded with the family to bring him in without incident.

The only reasons this happened were the family and supporters wouldn't follow the law or simple requests. It's not on Reno. She tried to avoid it.
 
DeaconSig said:
Atlantic Christian has called. It wants its degree back.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a fixation on AC. But, carry on.

I expect stupid mess like this from a GOP administration, but the Anointed One told us he was tired of the waste of human resources associated with the War on Drugs. It's just another instance of Obama not being what he said he would be. If you don't believe me, ask his professor who came out against him.

This is all a sidelight to the main point of the story: the tragedy of a government agency that seems to see itself as unchecked by the Constitution. That holds true no matter who is in power.

ETA: I certainly am not saying this raid was conducted under Obama, but the Holder regime could have done the right thing by settling with the family. I would be in full support of Obama should he choose to end this ridiculous war.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
They were given no choice. They had given the family over a week to bring Elian to them without any fanfare or officers. Even in the 8 hours before the action took place, they pleaded with the family to bring him in without incident.

The only reasons this happened were the family and supporters wouldn't follow the law or simple requests. It's not on Reno. She tried to avoid it.
Click to expand...

This is not how I remember it at all bro but you're older and more experienced.
 
RJKarl said:
GO, so if you had a son and his mother was dead, you wouldn't have the right to have him returned to you?
Click to expand...

Here's your son. Sorry about the PTSD nightmares he's going to have for years from the assault rifle raid we conducted to get him back.
 
There wouldn't have been any guns had the family obeyed the many opportunities the government gave them to comply with the law.
 
RaleighDevil said:
You seem to have a fixation on AC. But, carry on.

I expect stupid mess like this from a GOP administration, but the Anointed One told us he was tired of the waste of human resources associated with the War on Drugs. It's just another instance of Obama not being what he said he would be. If you don't believe me, ask his professor who came out against him.

This is all a sidelight to the main point of the story: the tragedy of a government agency that seems to see itself as unchecked by the Constitution. That holds true no matter who is in power.

ETA: I certainly am not saying this raid was conducted under Obama, but the Holder regime could have done the right thing by settling with the family. I would be in full support of Obama should he choose to end this ridiculous war.
Click to expand...

This "stupid mess" did happen under a GOP administration.
 
RaleighDevil said:
but the Anointed One told us he was tired of the waste of human resources associated with the War on Drugs. It's just another instance of Obama not being what he said he would be. If you don't believe me, ask his professor who came out against him.

This is all a sidelight to the main point of the story: the tragedy of a government agency that seems to see itself as unchecked by the Constitution. That holds true no matter who is in power.
Click to expand...
Despite President Obama’s 2008 campaign promise that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state [medical marijuana] laws,” his administration has conducted more medical marijuana raids than the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
“I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books,’” the president continued, “What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.’”
Click to expand...
Oh really? Isn't that what he's done in respect to a certain segment of illegal immigrants?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/obama-administration-enforces-some-laws-others-not-so-much/
 
Sgt Hulka said:
Maybe if we got rid of our stupid drug laws, the DEA wouldn't have to act like a bunch of wanna be Jason Bourne's.
Click to expand...

What about them is stupid? You do realize that an overwhelming amount of the crime in this country is drug related, right (and that's discounting the actual drug charges)?
 
wfumike02 said:
What about them is stupid? You do realize that an overwhelming amount of the crime in this country is drug related, right (and that's discounting the actual drug charges)?
Click to expand...

Not all of them are stupid, but i can give you a few examples:

1) Marijuana should be legal
2) There should not be min mands on drug charges
3) The weight requirement for trafficking amounts...especially with pills.

I'm sure there's more, but those are all of the top off my head. In my experience, addicts are punished far too severely for their crimes. Especially in state court, the individuals going to prison on drug crimes are addicts or low level street pushers who are probably addicts themselves. Not some big time gangster king pin. And, usually, their sentences are disproportionate to more serious crimes, in my opinion (date rape, burglary, battery). I found this is usually because drug crimes are far easier to prove and prosecute than crimes with a victim...along with the enhanced sentencing penalties associated with drug crimes.
 
Les Grossman said:
Not all of them are stupid, but i can give you a few examples:

1) Marijuana should be legal
2) There should not be min mands on drug charges
3) The weight requirement for trafficking amounts...especially with pills.

I'm sure there's more, but those are all of the top off my head. In my experience, addicts are punished far too severely for their crimes. Especially in state court, the individuals going to prison on drug crimes are addicts or low level street pushers who are probably addicts themselves. Not some big time gangster king pin. And, usually, their sentences are disproportionate to more serious crimes, in my opinion (date rape, burglary, battery). I found this is usually because drug crimes are far easier to prove and prosecute than crimes with a victim...along with the enhanced sentencing penalties associated with drug crimes.
Click to expand...

1. Agree
2. Depends - this is something that is changing.
3. Also something that is changing.

What state are you in? Are you an attorney? I'd be interested to hear some examples and see how they are similar to or different from where I am.
 
Here is how the administration defended its conduct of the agents. It should be noted that Reason is a libertarian publication and doesn't have much use for the Republicans in the national government. Just so RJ doesn't do another jump circle defense of Obama. I am sure the Bush administration would have defended these actions just as strenuously.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/19/obama-administration-defended-use-of-vio

But what of the children? To sway the court, Obama administration lawyers softened their depiction of the agents' treatment of the 11-year-old and 14-year-old girls:

Agents also entered the bedrooms of plaintiffs B.F. and B.S. Avina, who were then fourteen and eleven years old, respectively. Both girls were in bed at the time, and B.S. was sleeping. B.F. complied with the agents’ instruction to get on the ground, and the agents thereafter handcuffed her. B.S. initially resisted the instruction, and agents responded by assisting her to the floor and handcuffing her. The agents did not use profanity in speaking to the girls.

Compared to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, which uses the facts presented by the Avinas, this is an utter white-washing. The girl identified as “B.S.” is the Avinas’ 11-year-old daughter. She did not “resist the instruction,” but was “frozen in fear.” Agents did not “assist her to the floor,” they dragged her off her bed. They did not just handcuff her, they held a gun to her head.

The Obama administration also white-washed the agents use of profanity during the raid. According to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (which--again--is based on the Avinas’ brief), the agents told both girls to “get down on the fucking ground.” According to the Obama administration’s brief, however, the use of profanity was spare:

In response to plaintiffs’ contention that “the allegedly extensive use of profanity somehow contributes to a finding that the agents used unreasonable force,” the [lower] court noted that there was “no evidence that suggests any use of profanity was extensive.” To the contrary, the court observed that “the evidence demonstrates that the agents sparsely used profanity,” and “did so only in association with commands during entry directed solely at the adults.” Id. “Though B.F. Avina testified that she heard profanity used in the background during the agents’ entry, neither B.F. nor [B.S.] Avina testified that any of the agents used any profanity directed at them.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

If neither of the daughters testified about the officers’ profanity, why is it in the Ninth Circuit’s Ruling? And why did the Obama administration omit from its own brief that an officer aimed a gun at the 11-year-old's head? (Update: Read a response to my questions about conflicting claims here.)
 
Last edited:
It's a civil case, not a criminal case. It's the government lawyers' job to advocate on behalf of the government (i.e. to prevent and/or minimize a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs). I'm not sure how DOJ can be faulted for advocating to prevent an award at the taxpayers' expense, and even moreso how them doing their jobs can be attributed to any certain administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top