SWAT Team Raids Innocent Family Over Stolen AirPods, Inaccurate 'FindMy' App Tracking (boingboing.net) 164
A SWAT team in St. Louis County mistakenly raided the home of Brittany Shamily and her family, based on the inaccurate tracking of stolen AirPods by the "FindMy" app. The family is suing for damages stemming from embarrassment, unreasonable use of force, loss of liberty, and other factors. The Riverfront Times reports: Around 6:30 p.m. on May 26, Brittany Shamily was at home with her children, including an infant, when police used a battering ram to bust in her front door. "What the hell is going on?" she screamed, terrified for herself and her family. "I got a three-month-old baby!" Body camera footage from the scene shows Shamily come to the front door, her hands up, her face a mix of fright and utter confusion at the heavily armed folly making its way from her front porch into her foyer. "Oh my god," she says. The SWAT team was looking for guns and other material related to a carjacking that had occurred that morning. Their search didn't turn up any of that -- though it has led to a lawsuit, filed Friday, that may lead to a better public understanding of how county police decide whether to deploy a SWAT team or serve a search warrant in a less menacing manner. Because in this case, the police clearly made the wrong call.
The carjacking that led to the raid happened about 12 hours prior, 16 miles away, in south county. Around 6 a.m., two brothers were leaving the Waffle House on Telegraph Road near Jefferson Barracks when a group of six people pulled up outside the restaurant and carjacked them. Two of the carjackers took off in the brothers' Dodge Charger while the other four fled the scene in their own vehicles. St. Louis County Police were summoned to the scene. As part of their investigation, a friend of the carjacked brothers told police that his AirPods were in the stolen car and that he could track them using the "FindMy" application, a feature that lets users locate one Apple device using another. Police did just that and, according to the lawsuit, the app showed the AirPods to be at Shamily's house.
There was just one problem. "FindMy is not that accurate," says the family's lawyer, Bevis Schock. "I actually went to my house with my co-counsel and played around with it for an hour. It's just not that good." Yet based on the "FindMy" result, an officer signed an application for a search warrant saying he had reason to believe that "firearms, ammunition, holsters" and other "firearm-related material" were inside. That evening, police showed up in full combat gear carrying a battering ram. [...] While the family was detained outside, the SWAT team "ransacked" their house, the lawsuit says. One SWAT team member punched a basketball-sized hole in the drywall. Another broke through a drop ceiling. They turned over drawers and left what had been an orderly house in disarray. After this had gone on for more than half an hour, the AirPods were located -- on the street outside the family's home. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. In January 2022, SWAT teams in Denver raided an elderly woman's home after the "FindMy" app falsely pinged her home as the location of a stolen iPhone. The woman was recently awarded $3.76 million in compensation and damages.
The carjacking that led to the raid happened about 12 hours prior, 16 miles away, in south county. Around 6 a.m., two brothers were leaving the Waffle House on Telegraph Road near Jefferson Barracks when a group of six people pulled up outside the restaurant and carjacked them. Two of the carjackers took off in the brothers' Dodge Charger while the other four fled the scene in their own vehicles. St. Louis County Police were summoned to the scene. As part of their investigation, a friend of the carjacked brothers told police that his AirPods were in the stolen car and that he could track them using the "FindMy" application, a feature that lets users locate one Apple device using another. Police did just that and, according to the lawsuit, the app showed the AirPods to be at Shamily's house.
There was just one problem. "FindMy is not that accurate," says the family's lawyer, Bevis Schock. "I actually went to my house with my co-counsel and played around with it for an hour. It's just not that good." Yet based on the "FindMy" result, an officer signed an application for a search warrant saying he had reason to believe that "firearms, ammunition, holsters" and other "firearm-related material" were inside. That evening, police showed up in full combat gear carrying a battering ram. [...] While the family was detained outside, the SWAT team "ransacked" their house, the lawsuit says. One SWAT team member punched a basketball-sized hole in the drywall. Another broke through a drop ceiling. They turned over drawers and left what had been an orderly house in disarray. After this had gone on for more than half an hour, the AirPods were located -- on the street outside the family's home. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. In January 2022, SWAT teams in Denver raided an elderly woman's home after the "FindMy" app falsely pinged her home as the location of a stolen iPhone. The woman was recently awarded $3.76 million in compensation and damages.
Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:2)
Still, they found them on the street outside of the home. Surprised I haven't seen this on the local news.
Re:Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't have cell service. Like an Apple AirTag, any nearby Apple device is used to send back location data anonymously. So while the AirPods themselves don't have GPS or cellular service, when the AirPods scan for nearby Bluetooth devices, they'll anonymously send their location based on location information from nearby iPhones.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And seeing it is a pair of airpods, how the hell do you sign off on "firearms, ammunition, holsters and other firearm-related material". That's like saying "you have cleaning materials so you are a bomb-maker".
Holstered firearms were used by the carjackers during the carjacking.
To be fair I have far less problem assuming armed carjackers will be armed, than I do with assuming the accuracy of airpod location data or the assumption that location must be the same as the carjackers location.
Re: (Score:3)
And I'm pretty sure airpods do not have GPS location of their own, so what location does the connected device transmit?
The connected device, most likely an iPhone, transmits its own location. This of course leads to a level of uncertainty because your AirPods/AirTag could've been pinged by a neighbor's iPhone, someone walking by your house, etc.
What seems so boneheaded about this is that when you locate a device that's been tracked in this way the app shows a circle around the item indicating that margin of error. I have an AirTag sitting at home right now that seems to have been recently pinged and the error circle cov
Re: (Score:3)
I have an AirTag sitting at home right now that seems to have been recently pinged and the error circle covers about half a dozen homes on my street.
Indeed.
And so this is definitely a *great* lead for the police to follow up on -- show up on the street and start looking around -- but it's nowhere near enough to pick a specific house and knock its door down, not by itself. And the police should absolutely already know this.
But here we are.
Re:Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:4, Informative)
The airpods were in a vehicle stolen by armed carjackers, with "firearms, ammunition, holsters and other firearm-related material". The mistake wasn't in going to the house prepared for armed criminals, the airpods being there is a reasonable clue to follow up on, the mistake was in not de-escallating as soon as they saw that the car, weapons, carjackers, etc., weren't there.
Re:Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:5, Informative)
They will anonymously connect to any nearby iDevice and update their location in the owner's iCloud/findMy app.
https://support.apple.com/en-u... [apple.com]
The Find My network is an encrypted, anonymous network of hundreds of millions of Apple devices that can help you find your AirPods, even if they're offline. Nearby devices securely send the location of your missing AirPods to iCloud, so that you can find where they are. It's all anonymous and encrypted to protect everyone's privacy. To make sure it's turned on: On iPhone, open Settings > Bluetooth. Tap the More Info button next to your AirPods, then scroll down to Find My network and make sure that it's turned on.
Re: Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:3)
Once the owner's device is within range it can command the device to transmit at a higher rate which makes it easier to find the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is similar technology that is used by a Airtag. That explains the wrong location, since the signal was picked up a Apple phone in the house and that used its location to ping, while it was some distance away from it.
Re: Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:2)
Well, the AirPods weren't in the house. But, they were outside the house on the street. Clearly, the phone picked up the signal as being nearby.
The error was assuming they were in the house based on a crude proximity detection. The "friend" who said they were in the stolen car clearly dropped them before getting into the car that was carjacked.
But, yeah, the cops f'd up by not checking the location as the got near the house. FindMy would have pointed them to the device before they barged in and terroriz
Re: (Score:2)
The "friend" who said they were in the stolen car clearly dropped them before getting into the car that was carjacked.
Or the carjackers realized that they were carrying a tracking device and chucked it out the window.
Re: Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically airtags (and other devices) send out a Bluetooth beacon with pseudorandom sequence of IDs. A small coin cell battery can keep this up for months and months.
If an iPhone hears this beacon, it sends its current position (the IPhone's current position) to Apple along with the ID from the beacon. Or the phone's last known position. The owner of the airtag can view the position since the owner's phone will have knowledge of which ID an airtag is due to use at different times.
So what it means is: "this receiving handset was at this coordinate when it heard a signal from device X", and it gets presented on the map as the current position of X (because ya need to dumb these things down).
Bluetooth range is usually not that big anyway. Once the owner of the airtag comes into range of the airtag with his own iPhone, his own iPhone can command the airtag to continuously transmit on UWB, which makes it possible for the owner to accurately pinpoint it. And find his lost keys and trinkets or whatever the airtag is hooked up to.
In practice in this case of the article, what the "ping" on the map most likely meant is that the airtag passed the house and happened to send out a beacon which happened to be heard by someone's iPhone near a door or window.
These beacons don't get sent out all that often. it's likely if a car drives down a street or through a town you'll only get a few pings (and the UI displays the most recent one and pretends it's the only thing).
The airtags have no GPS, and they don't actively initiate any communication. It's kinda close to a paper luggage tag with a barcode on it, but key difference being every iPhone is an unwitting barcode scanner constantly reporting on what tags it has seen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
After this had gone on for more than half an hour, the AirPods were located -- on the street outside the family's home.
Re: Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:2)
Read TFA? Or summary to the end? Well excuse me, I thought this was Slashdot ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
They typically will make a temporary connection with a nearby device (usually Apple or Android) and let them know they are nearby. Their identification is anonymous though. The device they connected to can then connect to Apple's servers and provide the identification along with the geo location of the device performing the upload. If the device has a GPS with a position, that's what will be sent.
But if the device was just turned on or is in a location with poor GPS signal, the accuracy of the location c
Re: (Score:3)
> I think a lot of the blame here is on Apple, for not being clear about the accuracy of the indicator
The device was found in front of the house. Seems accurate enough to me.
There is every possibility that the device making the report was in the house.
> that may be something the swat team didn't do
I'm at a loss how this equates to "a lot of the blame" being Apple. Especially as the language is rather obvious in the app.
Re:Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:4, Insightful)
The tracking was fine. The only 'error' was in that police not using common sense and checking the device's location more precisely after they got there, in which case they would have found the headphones in front of the house, and de-escallated instead of smashing the door down and ransacking the house. Sure, they should be careful when potentially dealing with armed criminals, but ransacking a house when the occupants aren't said armed criminals is foolish.
Re:Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone's missing the point: Yes, they instruct an iPhone to phone-home: Thus, people know the location of the helpful iPhone, not the Bluetooth device itself.
This isn't stupidity, this is bad policing, demanding a device do their job for them.
Re:Wait, Airpods have cell service? (Score:5, Informative)
Hey Boss (Score:4, Funny)
Q: Hey Boss, a different SWAT team lost a lawsuit for doing exactly what we're about to do. Should we check?
A: Nah, we'll be fine. 100% recovery rate, don't let the haters hate.
Re:Hey Boss (Score:5, Informative)
They don't care. No one is punished except for the taxpayers who now have to pay for the inevitable lawsuit.
Re:Hey Boss (Score:4, Interesting)
The officers who screwed up should be made to PERSONALLY clean up the house they ransacked. Maybe then they'd think twice about this shit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The officers who screwed up should be made to PERSONALLY clean up the house they ransacked. Maybe then they'd think twice about this shit.
They probably would have to get a search warrant before they can enter the house to clean it up, then they can use their battering ram again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey Boss (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hey Boss (Score:5, Insightful)
My standing comment about these shitshows is that the (guaranteed) settlement to the family involved should come from the PD pension fund rather than $CITY's general funds.
Hit these cops in their collective wallet and see how fast the "thin blue line" shreds and they actually start discipling their own.
Re:Hey Boss (Score:5, Insightful)
I favor this change in the law. Whenever any law enforcement people and the judge who signed the warrant invade an incorrect residence or business, they all (yes, including the judge) shall be responsible for making all repairs and restorations. That means cops hanging new drywall as needed, cops putting all clothes back in the drawers, the judge washing everyone's stained underwear, etc. maybe that will get them to understand their evidence source better and investigate in advance, before doing a "bust in".
Of course this is unlikely in red Missouri.
Re:Hey Boss (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 90% with you. Only 90% because I've seen what happens when non-builders try to do building work. Not everyone is handy. If anything the SWAT member should stand there and be forced to hold the tool bag and bring fresh coffee for the person doing the repair work. ... Oh and also pay that person's wages too.
Re: (Score:3)
Which State? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Which State? (Score:5, Insightful)
I looked at the photos in the article and those guys look more like an occupying army than policemen to be honest.
Re: Which State? (Score:2)
Just us, the Russians, and the Chinese. We're so alike. It's no wonder we can't get along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Which State? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The linked article has extensive quotes from the Riverfront Times, which is based in St. Louis, MO.
The Police State. (Score:2)
I'm guessing this was Missouri, but it doesn't say. I notice this in a lot of articles. I don't know why so many news writers think only people within 20 miles of them will ever read a story like this.
A SWAT team was deployed to a home in a country where citizens have a legal Right to defend themselves and do not have any legal requirement to retreat, ready to harm or kill anyone responsible forstealing a car.. In a country where citizens have NO legal right to use deadly force for such a crime.
The “state” you’re looking for, is The Police State.
End Qualified Immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidents like this won't stop until qualified immunity is done away with.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common line, but you understand qualified immunity is immunity from lawsuits right? And they are already being sued?
If there's a later story about this getting dismissed because of qualified immunity maybe, but that's frankly just a silly comment about this story as is.
And I in the other similar story linked, someone won almost $4 million . . . in a lawsuit . . .
So what would change if we ended qualified immunity exactly?
Re:End Qualified Immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
So what would change if we ended qualified immunity exactly?
Well, we could start with having a corrupt judge removed from the bench for signing a warrant to raid a home with a SWAT team in order to protect and defend a stolen car.. Otherwise known as an “insurance matter” for EVERY American citizen, and would NEVER justify the use of deadly force.
Then, we could continue with the SWAT team leader being charged with aggrevated assault, since they sent a deadly force to be used against an innocent citizen. Along with agreeing with blatant and obvious abuse with regards to every “justification” to use and abuse a search warrant in this case.
With that setting a precedent, I’m pretty sure every other judge would be sitting up and paying attention and maybe think twice about abusing a militarized police response in America. Especially over a fucking stolen car. What a bullshit excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Which of those things are ending qualified immunity.
Mmmmmaybe the assault part would, but I really doubt it. I mean Chauvin is in prison, but qualified immunity still exists. I don't think it's ever applied to criminal charges.
We should do all of those things, but a slogan about qualified immunity has nothing to do with any of them. "Incidents like this won't stop until qualified immunity is done away with" is nonsense.
Though also, what the heck are you talking about insurance matter? It's in the sum
Re: (Score:3)
Sending in SWAT was specious at best, as the "evidence" was not particularly compelling. I get they were searching for a number of violent carjackers, but (as we see): The carjackers were not there, and more importantly, they were at least smart enough to know that when they saw AirPods, they should ditch them.
The qualified immunity angle is simple: Qualified immunity means there's vanishingly small chance of legal recourse for the people whose property has been damaged and lives have been turned upside dow
Re: (Score:3)
...The qualified immunity angle is simple: Qualified immunity means there's vanishingly small chance of legal recourse for the people whose property has been damaged and lives have been turned upside down ...
Not exactly. Qualified immunity means that the victims of the SWAT team can't go after the policemen. They are able to sue the municipality the police work for, and are doing so.
...The only reason Chauvin is in prison is because is simple: massive amounts of public unrest....
Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with qualified immunity, which is immunity against civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecution.
Also qualified immunity is not absolute immunity. It means that an officer can't be sued for doing their job unless the person suing shows a violation of "clearly established statutory or constitutional
Re: (Score:3)
Man, I've never said this on a site like this before, but not the comment, just flat out, you are an idiot. I hope you're trolling, but I suspect you're not.
That is not why we have insurance policies, like, at all. Even if it were, you think the insurance company is going to just "handle it, with nothing more than paper money" without involving law enforcement? That is not a thing, anywhere in the world.
But hey, if a half a dozen people ever assault you and steal your car, you can not call the police I gues
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I've never said this on a site like this before, but not the comment, just flat out, you are an idiot. I hope you're trolling, but I suspect you're not.
That is not why we have insurance policies, like, at all. Even if it were, you think the insurance company is going to just "handle it, with nothing more than paper money" without involving law enforcement? That is not a thing, anywhere in the world.
But hey, if a half a dozen people ever assault you and steal your car, you can not call the police I guess. And call your insurance company. And see how that goes for you.
Let me say this loud and clear for all the ignorant ones here; if deadly force was the acceptable response when protecting our insured assets, then we would find those justified laws on every book in every state in America. We don’t, for obvious reasons. Police had little to nothing to go on, and I fucking promise you we would be having a totally different discussion had a dead 3-month baby old been the end result of a SWAT raid gone wrong. On the wrong house. All justified by a hunch given by the
Re: (Score:2)
stolen car
I hate to defend the indefensible, but a "stolen car" is not the same thing as an "armed car jacking".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no that's completely true, but to clarify a bit, the point is a lawsuit is already happening. Simply ending qualified immunity, probably wouldn't make the victim actually bring that lawsuit against the individual. And it wouldn't allow random others to do so either, they wouldn't have standing.
If you were this family, do you think you'd spend money to also sue the individual cop, who has no money to pay you? What would actually change?
Victims who were assaulted by Uber drivers sue Uber. I don't believe a
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us aren't trying to play the lawsuit lottery, and as a taxpayer, I don't feel like I've won if the defendant is my city. Ending qualified immunity should cause cops to stop and think twice about risking their retirement, regardless of how much is in their piggy bank.
Re:End Qualified Immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if you could sue the officers personally instead of making the taxpayers foot the bill we might see some changes.
Or just treat law enforcement like a lot of other professions, and make a current professional liability insurance policy a requirement to keep their LE certification. Eventually, the problem children will accrue enough claims to make them uninsurable, which also fixes the "resign and go to another agency" problem that's way too common. I too would prefer to see an end to qualified immunity as it currently exists, but the insurance angle would probably be easier to implement while remaining fairly effective in weeding out those who abuse their authority.
Re:End Qualified Immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Also the police unions need to be broken up. Even in the one-in-a-million chance that you get past qualified immunity, the police unions are so strong in the US that it's damned near impossible to terminate them... or often to punish them in any way... when they engage in stormtrooper tactics against the innocent like this. AND... DAs and judges need to STOP treating the police with kid gloves, giving them the South Park "It's coming right for us!" pass, and, for example, to prosecute and impression this particular pack of thugs just like any band of home-invasion robbers would be.
Have to take back the courts first (Score:2)
If the Boys in Blue still hold the Senate when that happens then they get back the Supreme Court (which thanks to the Mitch McConnell, the Heritage Foundation & Orange Menace is now a partisan body) and with it comes police reform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, qualified immunity does have its uses. For example, it keeps police from being sued by every tom dick and harry over a parking ticket.
What qualified immunity should not protect against is when there are procedural errors - you didn't get a warrant when you should have, especially if circumstances dictate you could've gotten one. Or you mislead the judge in saying "the thing we want is here" instead of "it's around here".
Basically warrants should have all the necessary information disclosed prior to gr
Re: (Score:2)
It's a US thing, made up by the Supreme Court when police arrested civil rights activists. For police, it didn't exist before and doesn't exist in other countries.
Nevertheless, given a choice between police being sued for parking tickets versus police being free to murder anyone for any reason, as long as the cop could pretend they were too stupid to understand even the most basic elements of civil rights, I'd choose the former.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't stop because police and prosecutors won't punish their colleagues for laziness, dishonesty or incompetence. (Eg. Claiming an iPhone ping is grounds for reasonable suspicion.)
Re: (Score:2)
Require human review? Doesn't matter. Consequences? Doesn't matter. Data looks weird to anyone with two brain cells? Doesn't matter.
It's not about the intelligence (or lack of it) of the people involved. It's about responsibility.
"The Computer Said" - I am not responsible for this - whoever put in the wrong data into the computer or programmed it is responsible, I followed the prescribed procedure, so I cannot be held responsible.
"I verified what The Computer Said" - I am responsible for this, after all, I did not believe The Computer and double checked it, so now it's on me.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as that rule exists, people are going to behave this way. Also, I doubt that such rule is going away any time soon, simply because otherwise the government (or even large companies) would stop working.
I am not a lawyer, but, as I understand, the police needs a court order to be able to conduct a search of someones home etc. You cannot fault a police officer who does the search while having a court order that looks legitimate (the signature does not look obviously fake etc, since you cannot expect ev
Can they sue Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
Could they sue apple? The way I understand it, if "Find My" data pointed them here for airpods, the way that fundamentally works, even if you don't know it, if you own an iPhone, your device is constantly pinging airpods and airtags that aren't even yours, to send along data to Apple so others can find their shit. Maybe, just maybe, roping a billion consumers' devices into your fancy surveillance network without them even knowing about it, wasn't a very good idea.
In this case, that helped get the Shamily Family (I had to) SWATted.
Though pretty silly headline. It wasn't over stolen Air Pods. It was over a stolen car, a car jacking. The AirPods were incidental.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really work like that. Unless they have a precise location (ie from GPS) then the find my app will show a region around the location, not a precise one. So it's likely that it showed a circle that somehow intersected with the house or showed the device near the house and then law enforcement assumed that must mean it's at the house.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it depends on which model you have. The 3rd gen and newer use the "Find My Network" which works exactly like that, and can be very precise.
https://developer.apple.com/fi... [apple.com]
The part I'm not clear on, I'm pretty sure the way it works, is if you say turn on Find My for your own device, then your device participates in the "the network."
Re: (Score:3)
They could sue Apple but it seems like the "Find My" feature worked as designed. The police were just too inept to realize that the the suspects could've ditched the AirPods.
If anything is silly, it's that it's a rather common trope in fiction for someone to attempt to throw off their pursuer by discovering a tracking device and leading them down a false trail.
Re: Can they sue Apple? (Score:2)
Overall it seems judicial and law enforcement put too much trust in technology. If a person says he saw the hijackers go into a house, would the police blindly trust this person, or would they try to judge the accuracy of his statements first? In this case it would have been fairly easy to get information on how Find My Device works and what the pin on the map means. In other cases, not so much.
This issue is seen world-wide. For example in the UK over 900 Franchisees were convicted of fraud, some of them ge
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine that if you read the small print, Apple say that the Find My data is not guaranteed to be accurate and shouldn't be used for anything, ever.
It's the judge's fault for signing off on this, and the police's fault for blindly following what the computer told them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> It wasn't over stolen Air Pods. It was over a stolen car, a car jacking.
According to TFS, the warrant was not for the Air Pods, or even the car, they got the warrant to look for firearms:
"an officer signed an application for a search warrant saying he had reason to believe that "firearms, ammunition, holsters" and other "firearm-related material" were inside. "
Re: (Score:2)
Could they sue apple? The way I understand it, if "Find My" data pointed them here for airpods
The airpods were there. They found them outside the house. What grounds would you sue Apple for? That they don't provide centimeter accuracy resolution?
In this case, that helped get the Shamily Family (I had to) SWATted.
Do you also sue Ford for manufacturing the car which was stolen? I mean if the car didn't exist then the crime wouldn't have happened. Your point would be incredibly silly even if the airpods weren't found at the scene, which they were.
Re:Not a silly matter. (Score:4, Informative)
No one said that. Did you even read the sentence you're quoting? Let alone the rest of the post?
The headline, saying it was about AirPods, is silly.
This "insurance matter" cut and paste of yours is just adorable. What do you think that means exactly?
If six people force you out of your car and drive away with it, you wouldn't call the police, just your insurance company? In this fantasy, do you think the insurance company would pay you . . . without a police report?
Re: (Score:2)
Deploying a deadly force in a country where citizens DO have a right to legally defend themselves and do NOT need to have a reason to retreat, can be deadly for law enforcement too.
And that's exactly the reason why the SWAT teams open fire before asking questions at the slightest provocation, real or perceived. In this game, whoever outguns the others, also outlives them.
Oh yes, there is. (Score:2)
>> In America, there is nothing “silly”
Oh yes, there is.
They were probably raided ... (Score:2)
The police had no way of knowing whether the AirPods were inside the house or just in the vicinity. Since this involved a carjacking and weapons, SWAT got involved. Had the Shamily home actually been involved in the carjacking and theft, the police could easily have drawn fire should they have attempted a "lower key" investigation without securi
Re: (Score:2)
Had the Shamily home actually been involved in the carjacking and theft, the police could easily have drawn fire should they have attempted a "lower key" investigation without securing the scene first.
Yes. And? That's what we pay the police to do: the dangerous things that might involve "taking fire". I think the basic level of assuredness that the Shamily family were involved should be necessary before they crash the door down with a SWAT team. Can't get that? Don't go in.
This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when you militarize civilians (Score:2)
This is what happens when you militarize civilians without any control.
Re: (Score:2)
when you militarize the police and spend 40 years telling them in they're in a warzone.
Well to be fair they are. The anti-gun nuts will tell you the only way to stop someone with a gun is to have a gun yourself. When everyone has a gun you have to assume everyone has a gun and will fire on you at any second. Kind of the definition of a warzone.
Many other western countries don't have this problem because there's no assumption that you'll get shot at when you look at someone wrong. We had that debate about Teslas the other day. Every car here by default has a hammer to break windows in case som
If it weren't for the very real risk of death... (Score:2)
I'd be happy to let the police trash my house for $3.76 million dollars.
I'd ask for it in advance, though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting feeling knowing that if you sneeze, a dozen scared cops are probably going to blow you away. I wouldn't recommend it.
They could trash my house for a few million if I wasn't home though.
Nail 'em up (Score:5, Insightful)
This wasn't law enforcement, it was just an excuse for bullying and felony vandalism.
There was no need to dump drawers on the floor or punch a hole in a random spot in the wall. Using a battering ram is certainly over the top.
When police search and find nothing, full reparations including maid service to clean everything up should be standard procedure, not something you have to sue for. If it was, they might learn to be more respectful of people who are, after all, presumed innocent.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be admittance of police being wrong and guilt. The police (in any country) doesn't do that.
Re: (Score:3)
>> The police (in any country)
Wrong.
How about suing Apple (Score:2)
I'm sure a good ambulance chaser could could find some liability on their part.
Buttle-Tuttle (Score:3)
The tracking was not "inaccurate" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I'm happy to learn it's this good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the summary is missing the point, because it's a summary and that's just how articles work these days. It's a purposeful race to the punchiest headline and is so ridiculous... but here we are. Railing against it is sort of like complaining about being wet because you are standing in the rain.
But yea, it was the GPS coordinates of the device(s) that "saw" the AirPods that were reported to FindMy. Since the phone(s) with the strongest BT signal from the AirPods was/were in the house closest to the curb w
Anyone in the family resemble the carjackers? (Score:2)
Moral of the story: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They ain't there for the car so much as the car jackers.
Re: (Score:2)
They ain't there for the car so much as the car jackers.
Bullshit. They made up some lie about “firearms-related material” to justify an illegal raid on the WRONG house (proving their “material” intel was in fact a lie,) in order to justify an armed police response over a fucking stolen car, which happens every hour of every day in America.
Don’t try and tell me I should feel thankful here as a citizen with (alleged) Rights. No citizen should feel good about this action. I doubt even the ones who got their car stolen feel good abou
Re: (Score:2)
How many stolen cars are reported each and every day in America?
Car jacking is much more serious than just car theft. You really want the cops to prioritise catching car jackers. That doesn't mean they should get a pass for unleashing SWAT tactics indiscriminately. They should be required to knock on the door first (yes, risking alerting criminals and endangering themselves) unless they have much stronger evidence that armed criminals are actually inside.
Re: (Score:2)
No Shit. We got the bullshit corrupt response instead.
Unlike those who want to get rid of police forces, I’m not arguing in support of crime here. I’m arguing against the idiotic response we see far too often. Exactly how in the hell can we blatantly ignore even violent crime with “progressive” DAs letting criminals out of prisons to commit more crime, while also dealing with this utter failure of an over-response that absolutely violates citizens Rights?
Car jacking is a real thre
Re: (Score:2)
You need to breathe in and Google what a "Motte-and-Bailey" argument is. Literally no one thinks deploying a SWAT team here was reasonable. Most people probably agree this PD shouldn't even have a SWAT team at all.
However, going from there to a "a carjacking is just an insurance issue" like you keep repeating is, and I'm choosing my words as carefully as possible here, just stunningly stupid. What insurance company, anywhere in the world, do you think is going to resolve that issue without involving law enf
Re: (Score:2)
There are probably some "insurance companies" in Somalia that specialize in that sort of thing. Movies have also told me that Italian gentlemen run organizations that offer such services in certain parts of New York.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't just a stollen car, it was a carjacking with use of a firearm, aka armed robbery.
Hyundai (Score:2)
>> How many stolen cars are reported each and every day in America?
If you exclude Hyundai, not much.
Re: (Score:2)
Police/military have their toys and training with them. What is the point of all that if they don't get to blow shit up and kill some people? They know that most calls are fake and the information is bad but THEY GET TO PLAY GI JOE!!!
Putting the militarization of American police forces aside for a moment, playing GI Joe IS NOT THEIR FUCKING JOB.
A car got stolen, so they figured they would rape the 2nd and 4th Amendment and attack innocent American citizens to justify their response? Seriously, it’s not even a joking manner, and certainly won’t be when it’s your loved one harmed by law enforcement abuse.
Think about the worst that could have happened. A infant laying in a crib was permanently harmed by flash-bang grena