Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts

Kim Dotcom Raid - What Really Happened 285

Posted by samzenpus
from the super-serious dept.
chill writes "People have been discussing the raid on the Dotcom mansion for months, but now more details and video footage of that morning have begun to emerge from the trial. From the article: 'At 6.46am on January 20, the raid was underway. The helicopter carrying members of the elite special tactics group flew into the Coatesville home of Dotcom. "Ground units, Gates are open," someone says into the radio. Dotcom's pregnant wife their three children, some guests and about a dozen staff were also there. All is quiet below. Within seconds four armed members of the special tactics group ran towards the main door. The helicopter immediately took off. The main justification for using it at all was that Dotcom's security staff could have stopped police vehicles at the gates. But as the chopper flew out, ground forces were already arriving just seconds behind.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kim Dotcom Raid - What Really Happened

Comments Filter:
  • by crafty.munchkin (1220528) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @08:05PM (#40925089)
    Of course not. The MAFIAA weren't calling for his blood!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @08:29PM (#40925333)

    Clearly you lack reading comprehension skills. Kim Dotcom was already charged, convicted, and punished of crimes. There is no need to punish someone again. Furthermore it is standard practice for people that have this kind of mansion to go to an emergency room whenever anything odd is afoot. He realized it was the police, kept the door unlocked and waited for them to come to him so he wouldn't be shot.

    He had no option to surrender himself to police because he was not sent a polite letter like Madoff. Dotcom was punched in the face and handcuffed all while FBI agents from the US were watching.

  • by turkeydance (1266624) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @08:50PM (#40925527)
    kinda/sorta like Waco without the wackos.
  • by thelexx (237096) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @08:56PM (#40925597)

    Corzine. Hundreds of millions in 'segregated' funds. Currently enjoying new multi-million dollar offices on Wall St.

  • by Lieutenant_Dan (583843) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:42PM (#40925941) Homepage Journal

    Can't believe I just spent 10 mins reading this guy's wikipedia entry yet this is the most important piece:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/28/kim-dotcom-judge-raid-illegal [guardian.co.uk]

    It's clear that the FBI acting on behalf of the MPAA/RIAA had an overzealous NZ police force keen to impress.

    The really interesting item for me was how UMG submitted an invalid takedown notice on a video on Youtube on baseless grounds. I'm surprised that some of the artists didn 't sue the record company.

  • by drnb (2434720) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @11:35PM (#40926941)

    Corzine. Hundreds of millions in 'segregated' funds. Currently enjoying new multi-million dollar offices on Wall St.

    It helps to be a friend of the President of the United States and a leading member of the Democratic party.

    “Jon Corzine one of the best colleagues I had in the Senate and one of the best partners I have in the White House.”
    President Barack Obama, Oct 21, 2009.

  • by Firethorn (177587) on Thursday August 09, 2012 @12:32AM (#40927349) Homepage Journal

    Just wanted to point this out to the 2-3 non-americans who might not already know, but in the USA 'lightly armed', IE with a service handgun, is pretty much the default for Law Enforcement personnel.

    You see an officer, he's going to have a handgun unless there's something special going on. 'Special' being it's somehow specifically dangerous to be wearing one(sometimes happens during crowd control duty), or 'special' in that an elevated danger situation is going on, where they'd be breaking out the shotguns/rifles and heavier body armor.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 09, 2012 @04:43AM (#40928723)

    The AC to whom you replied pointed out that Kim Dotcom had a collection of guns, he liked to show them off, and this is unusual in NZ. That is all true. If you have a gun collection in NZ, you're out there.

    No, he didn't. Certainly not on the Coatesville property anyway. The only firearm was in a locked gunsafe, and was owned by the bodyguard.

    Add to the fact the guy had a head of security. This is New Zealand, a sleepy, bucolic country of four million people and 70 million sheep. The Mongrel Mob has security; business men do not.

    Actually, business men worth a lot of money in New Zealand DO have heads of security. Graeme Hart for example has a fairly large number of full time guards and also a very well paid head of security. It's not unusual at all.

    You comment he was waiting for the police, but neglect to mention the fact he was waiting for them with a shotgun in his hands.

    Where are you getting your information from? The media said something ridiculous like this on the day of the raid, but retracted it because it's entirely incorrect. As I stated, the gun was in a gunsafe as per NZ law.

    The gun was however found to be illegal due to the fact it had a stock removed and a pistol grip, and the bodyguard and head of security Wayne is being charged for that.

  • by nut (19435) on Thursday August 09, 2012 @06:40AM (#40929321) Homepage

    You comment he was waiting for the police, but neglect to mention the fact he was waiting for them with a shotgun in his hands.

    *Bullshit.*

    Watch the news clip. He states was holding his hands up empty when he entered the room, and the police do not dispute this. There was, according to some reports I have read, a loaded gun in the room.

    The fact that you embellished this part of the story makes me suspect that some of your other statements also might be less than the unvarnished truth.

  • Re:Lol, republicans (Score:3, Informative)

    by andydouble07 (2344014) on Thursday August 09, 2012 @11:09AM (#40931663)
    First past the post guarantees that third parties can never succeed on a national scale. It's not a matter of "not believing hard enough", it's Duverger's Law [wikipedia.org]. Voting for a third party in a national election is just giving a pass to the (slightly) worse of the two candidates that actually have a chance of winning.

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...