DEA retroactively gets warrant after violent, botched raid on wrong address

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    ALPINE, TX — Federal agents violently raided a tobacco shop, unnecessarily broke down a door, tampered with surveillance cameras, and allegedly cracked a woman in the neck with a rifle stock. In the process, they also raided a neighbor’s home, only to later cover their tracks by acquiring a warrant retroactively. The carnival of injustice was completed when witnesses were ordered to recant their stories under penalty of law.

    * * * *

    While raiding a tobacco shop for suspected synthetic marijuana, the owner's sister was cracked in the neck by a DEA agent's M-16 rifle stock. When told to leave the property, she said, “What are you going to do, shoot me?”

    The agent began to grapple with the woman, and performed a leg-sweep, driving her into the ground. “At that moment, he took his foot and tripped her to get her off of her feet and have her down to the ground,” Ilana said to NewsWest-9. “One of her feet came flying up and accidentally hit him in the shin. At that time he started saying, ‘Well now you’re assaulting a police officer.’ And he started attacking her more. He took the butt of his M-16 rifle and smashed it into her neck.”

    “She was yelling, ‘Get off of me. You’re hurting me. You’re choking me,’” Ilana recalled. “He had his hand around her neck as he was holding her face into the ground of the neighbor’s property.”

    * * * *

    While the tobacco shop was getting looted by federal agents, the neighbor was getting raided too. He lives adjacent to the shop but in an entirely separated address and residence. He demanded to see a warrant when he came home to the armed thugs stealing his stuff.

    “I don’t need to show you a F—–g warrant,” the agent retorted, according to Branson.

    Branson said, “I need to see a warrant, based on the fourth amendment…”

    “‘Oh you’re a F—–g lawyer now? We can do this the easy way or the hard way,’ and put his finger on the trigger of his M-16. That’s when I just backed up,” Branson said.

    The only warrant that the agents possessed was to search the tobacco shop, the Big Bend Courier reported. After the raid on Branson’s home had begun, they sought out and acquired a warrant, retroactively, for his address. One was issued at 11:58 a.m., well after the agents broke through Branson’s wooden gate and invaded his home.

    * * * *

    Business owner Ilana Lipsen was arrested and charged with a first-degree felony, for allegedly selling a controlled substance, synthetic cannabis, in a drug-free zone. The charge is so draconian that it could result in a potential life-sentence in prison; not unlike the Texas teen who faces a similar charge for baking pot brownies.

    As a condition of her release from jail, the judge ordered her to pay $10,000.00 and publicly recant her story, which she had already televised to the media. The handwritten orders required that she request that pictures of her sister’s injuries be removed from the internet, and that she write an apology letter to the DEA for impugning their reputation. Specifically, the judge ordered that Lipsen “will advise media that her sister, Ariel Lipsen, was not beaten by agents… and her sister instigated/assaulted agents.”

     

    38special

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    2,618
    38
    Mooresville
    I was going to respond "unbelievable", but it isn't really.

    Agents should be arrested for this. Heads should roll.

    Nothing will become of it.
     

    smokingman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    9,510
    149
    Indiana
    It is all very disturbing.

    The holder of the integrity of the system though(the judge)is the most disturbing. As a condition of her release from jail, the judge ordered her to pay $10,000.00 and publicly recant her story, which she had already televised to the media. The handwritten orders required that she request that pictures of her sister’s injuries be removed from the internet, and that she write an apology letter to the DEA for impugning their reputation. Specifically, the judge ordered that Lipsen “will advise media that her sister, Ariel Lipsen, was not beaten by agents… and her sister instigated/assaulted agents.”


    She is to advise the media falsely reporting about her sister,remove images from the internet(rofl) so she can get out of jail.
     

    HeadlessRoland

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 8, 2011
    3,521
    63
    In the dark
    So, she was selling illegal substances?

    I personally don't care if she was running cocaine for the Columbians, nothing justifies this sort of behavior. Nothing. I don't care how many or how much of an illegal substance she may or may not have had, this sort of marque-and-reprisal and malfeasance of authority is why we fought the first War for Independence. Inexcusable.
     

    Expatriated

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 22, 2013
    783
    28
    I personally don't care if she was running cocaine for the Columbians, nothing justifies this sort of behavior. Nothing. I don't care how many or how much of an illegal substance she may or may not have had, this sort of marque-and-reprisal and malfeasance of authority is why we fought the first War for Independence. Inexcusable.

    That was sort of my point. I wanted to see if the "allegedly" consideration was going to be given to the agents also or just the shop worker. Most of these threads to me seem to be the defendant is always considered presumed innocent, even though alleged facts are presented to judge, federal prosecutors and citizens of a grand jury, whilst the law enforcement alleged improper behavior is automatically assumed to be factual, without facts being presented to anyone.

    I'm all for presumed innocence. I just happen to like it applied to everyone equally. I don't think it applies to some headshop worker in a greater amount than a LEO. Weird, I know.

    I also think illegal actions should carry harsh consequences. And that, too, should apply to everyone. LEO's and dope slingers.
     

    Bunnykid68

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 2, 2010
    23,515
    83
    Cave of Caerbannog
    That was sort of my point. I wanted to see if the "allegedly" consideration was going to be given to the agents also or just the shop worker. Most of these threads to me seem to be the defendant is always considered presumed innocent, even though alleged facts are presented to judge, federal prosecutors and citizens of a grand jury, whilst the law enforcement alleged improper behavior is automatically assumed to be factual, without facts being presented to anyone.

    I'm all for presumed innocence. I just happen to like it applied to everyone equally. I don't think it applies to some headshop worker in a greater amount than a LEO. Weird, I know.

    I also think illegal actions should carry harsh consequences. And that, too, should apply to everyone. LEO's and dope slingers.

    I think LEO should be held to a much higher standard myself, if one is to wield that kind of power over another.
     

    Expatriated

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 22, 2013
    783
    28
    I think LEO should be held to a much higher standard myself, if one is to wield that kind of power over another.

    Fine, but I think the Constitution should apply equally to all.

    I've read it a bunch and never found anything regarding different standards for different people. In fact, the theme of it, seems to me to be the exact opposite of different groups being treated differently.
     
    Top Bottom