Georgia Family evicted at gunpoint at 3am

Georgia Family evicted at gunpoint at 3am

www.alte rnet.org

"But out-of-hand does not even approach how Christine Frazer described the raid, saying in the days since the eviction she and her family, including her 85-year-old mother, daughter and 3-year-old grandson, have been split up and forced to rely on charity."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.youtube.com

This has been all over the news tonight. The news is reporting they did it this way to try to avoid Occupy Atlanta.
Occupy Atlanta got the family's belongings and dumped them at the sheriff's office.
They arrested one member of Occupy Atlanta, and impounded a van. They said the van was implicated in the 'littering'. That's what they got the guy on, littering and disorderly conduct.

www.alte rnet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Misleading title. Makes it sound like it was a total surprise to them that they were being evicted.

I'm not saying I agree with the banks, far from it actually, just that the thread title is misleading. They obviously have tried to get them out before.

reply to post by hadriana


They collected $240,000 for a $40,000 home..judge should have gave it to her.

Here's a MSM news coverage
www.myfoxatlanta.com... 8169831/occupy-atlanta-dumps-items-on-sheriffs-lawn-in-protest-of-eviction

It discusses the arrest.
The lady said that her eviction case was actually in court. This article says they gave her ample time to work it out.
Anyway, it seems jackboot to me. And with guns at 3am with an old woman, a middle aged woman and a baby?

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Well, it was the title of the news article. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.
But I don't think they expected an eviction at gunpoint at 3am.

Im lost for words................................

Originally posted by hadriana
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

Well, it was the title of the news article. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.
But I don't think they expected an eviction at gunpoint at 3am.

I'm not sticking up for the banks.

I know that the banks are saying things to homeowners to their face, then doing the opposite once they get off the phone. I experienced it firsthand. Thankfully I had enough assets to get caught back up and replenish a very depleted cash position. I had 5 major surgeries in 3 years, so I didn't work much and my cash position became unsustainable. I realize that most people don't have assets to fall back on, and I do feel for them.

But I think this is one of those cases where law enforcement was legitmately trying to avoid violence. The OWS movement has become increasingly militant and they're starting to wreck stuff. Outright violence can't be far off.

If OWS wasn't camping on the frony lawn there would have been a normal eviction.

I don't think - if the cops wanted to avoid violence, they should have went in with guns at 3am.
It was an old lady and a woman and a baby.

Why'd they need the guns?
Plus it seems sneaky. If you know you are in the right, do it in the daylight with the whole world watching.
KWIM? Maybe.

Well, I am colored a bit by my hatred of seeing all these empty homes when all these people are homeless.
I see people needing jobs, trying to start businesses but can't get the cash to start, and yet I also see completely empty shopping centers around here.

Things are really off.

This is just one case of many more to come. Banks are just trying to get people out fast now rather then work with them to try to keep people in their homes. I blame the family attorney some since he should have been aware of the eviction and informed the family of it beforehand. That's his job to keep up on that kind of stuff. It's a sad situation for the family and hopefully with the extra exposure they can get help from outside sources.

reply to post by hadriana


The guns and extra cops weren't for the women being evicted, they were for the OWS protestors camping in tents on the front yard.

Their presence escalated the situation to another level of caution.

Justifiable or not, extra cops spells extra caution to a cop.

Amazing that the foreclosing company was not the company of record when the foreclosure happened. Legally she would be able to sue for far more than the worth of the house. Not just the company claiming that they hold the mortgage, but the sheriff's dept. the judge, etc. In fact, it would be in the company's best interests to settle out of court for a clear deed to the house.

But as we all know, that is not how it works. Personally, I will never own what I cannot purchase outright. If it means that I never own a house than so be it. But I will not prop up a system that thinks it is fair to acquire the purchasing price by conjuring money out of thin air and then pay back about three times that amount. All the time crying that they were "robbed" if a situation happens that I can not repay their made up money according to their schedule.

reply to post by Ahabstar

Amazing that the foreclosing company was not the company of record when the foreclosure happened. Legally she would be able to sue for far more than the worth of the house. Not just the company claiming that they hold the mortgage, but the sheriff's dept. the judge, etc. In fact, it would be in the company's best interests to settle out of court for a clear deed to the house.

Seems like a slam dunk for a good lawyer, but I'm sure they can't afford one. Maybe the publicity will get someone to step forward and help them.

I saw an article somewhere today stating that many poor americans that need to file bankrupcy cannot afford the 2k or so it costs these days.

I would imagine that, if that's the case, a lot of families being evicted can't afford an attorney for that either.

I know there's public defenders for criminal charges, but I don't think there's much aid for civil and consumer related cases. So is that justice? I've just been thinking about that lately.

Now they are writing laws that effect civil matters and they are what? 5k pages?
It seems overwhelming to me.

I wonder if she paid for her lawyer or if occupy did.

I'll be that guy and stick up for the banks. First off, if she paid $240k for a $40k loan it is because she signed the loan agreement for that. If she didn't agree with it, she shouldn't have signed it. Another reason I agree with the banks is because why should they let people live in the house for free? I mean the grandma, I am sure gets social security plus a pension (assuming that she contributed to society for the first 65 years of her life). Or what about the mother or daughter that has a child? Why aren't either of them paying the rent? Its hard to believe that between the three of them, they can not come up with $600 a month for rent or whatever it is.

STOP BEING A FREE LOADER AND EXPECTING A HAND OUT!!! If you don't want to earn a living then except eating out of dumpsters and living on the streets. Our countries in this situation because people are always looking for a hand out.

And just for the record, I hate how the CEO's from all the banks are making rediculous amounts of money and get a way with anything as much as the next guy but you won't see me taking a loan from them nor allowing them to make money off of me.

Thanks for those who added details.. SO it wasn't just some average family in financial trouble and minding their own business when the first move to evict comes in a bum rush at gunpoint. Occupy got involved.

Right, Wrong or otherwise...it really doesn't matter for this context. Occupy = War with the cops. No two ways about it. They came to be associated with Occupy and the cops acted accordingly. I watched Atlanta on the live feeds when they were finally forced out last year. I'd seen the aborted attempts live, before that. That isn't the most docile bunch of people, to understate things to an extreme.

If folks think bringing the local Occupy in to help on something is a good idea, I can't argue that. It's a judgement call for those involved, in each case. Those choosing this path have absolutely ZERO to whine about when the end comes with force though. There have been months upon months of time to see this and understand how authorities in all 50 states are now responding to anything and everything connected to OWS or the national Occupy Movement.

Is this large a fight worth it? If yes, call 'em. If not...well...take your lumps and move on with a situation. Calling help didn't change the end result for this family. It didn't change a thing. It just put everyone's lives in danger by HOW the end came anyway. In my personal opinion? It was ill advised and incredibly foolish. I'm awfully happy no one was shot or killed for what should have been a daylight eviction by a Sheriff's Deputy and no raid team coming for the show.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Thanks for those who added details.. SO it wasn't just some average family in financial trouble and minding their own business when the first move to evict comes in a bum rush at gunpoint. Occupy got involved. :

FTR, I mentioned occupy's involvement right off. I didn't hide that, in fact, I too, thought it was important to the story, but perhaps not for the same reason.

I disagree that the police should have deviated from SOP due to occupy's presence. That's what occupy has been doing - setting up where houses are being foreclosed on, in order to bring attention to the fact it is happening. I think if you know you are in the right to do something, you should do it no matter who is watching.

Otherwise...it makes it look like- to me, that the police are affraid of old women, babies, and occupy.

They opened my door. I knew my rights that I didn’t have to open the door. They came with a locksmith, drilled off the locks, came into my house, with a flashlight in one hand and pistol in the other, [shouting] ‘Who’s in the house? Who’s in the house?’”

Actually after the house is foreclosed on she has no legal right to be there. She is occupying the building against the wishes of the property owner. She does have to open the door and she does have to leave.

“Who do you think was in the house?” she asked. “My picture and my story have been in the local DeKalb paper. They knew exactly who. Yes, they knew Occupy was there.

Exactly, that is why they asked who was there. Occupy is not a person, it is a group. They wanted to know how many individuals were there for there safety. For all they knew it might have been the women, baby, and ten protesters.

Believe it or not evictions turn very nasty sometimes. I know of some places that require an officer for each suspected resident. I also know an officer that was stabbed during an eviction. Unfortunatley you can not rely on all people to be peaceful.

“What I didn’t want to do was to put a whole lot of people in my jail who wanted to be in my jail, at $53.50 a day, which is a burden to the taxpayers,”

So, he moved it to 3am to avoid having to deal with a large crowd. He wanted to avoid the crowd to ensure the safety of officers, avoid political or media grandstanding, and to ease the burden on taxpayers. Sounds like the guy made the right call to me.

I hate that she lost her home. It isn't the Sheriff's fault though. He did what he was ordered to do by the court. He was ordered to take those steps because she did not pay the mortgage. It was done in an abnormal manner, but it was understandable given the circumstances.

Its not fun being kicked out of your dwelling. It has happened to me three times in my life and it is not pleasant. I am getting major flashbacks and am about to cry. If it wasnt for my carreer and job I would have taken out the whole entire city block with me that third time.

Evicting someone at 3am or even at gunpoint is unacceptable if the family just could not really make paymetns due to unforseen circumstances. Karma is a strange thing, it really really is.

reply to post by 1plusXisto7billion

First off, if she paid $240k for a $40k loan it is because she signed the loan agreement for that. If she didn't agree with it, she shouldn't have signed it.

Ok fine she should not have signed it, but the banks, the entire world creates a situation where you have no choice but to take such loans at times to survive on. Yes she was guilty for signing the loan statement but the banks are also guilty for providing such an easy target to prey on peoples hopes especially when they have the inabiltiy to pay such loans. They could have provided zero percent interest loans (as advocated in islam). No wonder why islam is being demonized because they do not allow such despicable practices.

Lets look at the final tally:
Bank gets: house + 240,000
She gets: homelss - 240,000

Who are the victims here really? By creating an easy predatory lending environment, preying on peoples hopes, entrapping them in USURY and debt and then confiscating their possessions, yea its the womans fault all right..