Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Activists and homeowner evicted from foreclosed house by SWAT team

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Activists and homeowner evicted from foreclosed house by SWAT team


www.examiner.com

Later in the day a white van parked in front of Donahue's house with 8 to 10 people who were sent to clear out her house. After being stopped by a blockade made from fallen trees and non-violent resistance from activists who were occupying the home, the moving van left. It was reported that at around 3 p.m. the SWAT team arrived, forcing activists and the media to the ground. 3 arrests were made but soon released with citations. Sahara Donahue is currently seeking a place to rent and to secure her belongings.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
This is about the growing police state in the US. I was amazed that a SWAT team arrived with M4 carbines just to evict a women and some friendly protesters. The pictures are disturbing and look like something from Waco. The Ustream link is choppy but has some good material. I'm glad to see more people are resisting foreclosure from these corrupt banks.


www.examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jmanshiphop
 


What does bank corruption have to do with the fact that the homeowner (Not really a homeowner) didn't pay the bills and was evicted?

She signed the papers to agree to pay the mortgage, but failed to upheld her end.

And so what if the SWAT team responded. It was clear that the people inside set up barricades and the Police don't know if people inside were armed, would resist or would retaliate.

No lost tears for a person that failed to uphold her end of a deal.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Apparently it is all good and well that tax-payer dollars are used to protect a bank's investment.... but from what?

If the reporter on this story has any foresight, we'll see another article in 8 months about how the house is still standing there rotting and empty....

.....but some real estate investment firm bought it for the price of a used car.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Apparently it is all good and well that tax-payer dollars are used to protect a bank's investment.... but from what?

If the reporter on this story has any foresight, we'll see another article in 8 months about how the house is still standing there rotting and empty....

.....but some real estate investment firm bought it for the price of a used car.


Regardless if it does sit empty, it is not the business of anyone else except who it is owned by.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


What do you mean"what does bank corruption have to do with it?"? Have you been under a rock for the past 5 years?

On top of that, why send a freakin SWAT team in as a first measure? It was a non-violent resistance. What a bunch of pu##ies. They could have just sent a sheriff deputy. They escalate these situations intentionally by sending SWAT teams in to try to flex their muscles. When was the last time you saw a SWAT team defend a bank customer against a bank? Never.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirefly


What do you mean"what does bank corruption have to do with it?"? Have you been under a rock for the past 5 years?

Did she sign the mortgage paperwork or not?
The action of Robo Signing docs and such really isn't the issue.


Originally posted by wirefly
On top of that, why send a freakin SWAT team in as a first measure? It was a non-violent resistance.

Because the Crystal Ball used by Police sucks as bad as yours. They have no idea how those people, illegally occupying a property are going to act.


Originally posted by wirefly
What a bunch of pu##ies.

I am sure that somewhere, a police offer is crying in the corner over this.



Originally posted by wirefly
They could have just sent a sheriff deputy.

The Sheriffs department could have been the ones to cal the SWAT team.



Originally posted by wirefly
They escalate these situations intentionally by sending SWAT teams in to try to flex their muscles.

No. They did not want to send in a single officer to a large group of unknown people.
Cops are paid to win and go home at the end of the day. Not play the low end of the "what if" game.



Originally posted by wirefly
When was the last time you saw a SWAT team defend a bank customer against a bank? Never.

That is about the dumbest remark I have read today. Really.
You have no clue as to how the Police operate and what they deal with on a daily basis.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   


The Sheriffs department could have been the ones to cal the SWAT team.
reply to post by macman
 

So is that what happened? All I read in the article was that after the moving van left, the SWAT team arrived. There was no indication to the contrary.

She did sign her mortgage. However, banks are not playing by the rules. They do things like refusing to accept payments and sending those mortgages into foreclosure to get the insurance money, which may very well be more than the value of the balance of the loan. Also, she was asking for an extension on her eviction as she has no place to go, not trying to rob the bank.

But hey, that's cool. If that's how the bankers feel about it, then that's the way they feel. One day, they may be in a position of need and find out how it feels when nobody cares. It won't be on my shoulders though.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirefly

So is that what happened? All I read in the article was that after the moving van left, the SWAT team arrived. There was no indication to the contrary.

I have no idea. That is the normal process, as SWAT is just not called out to respond from the get go.



Originally posted by wirefly
She did sign her mortgage. However, banks are not playing by the rules. They do things like refusing to accept payments and sending those mortgages into foreclosure to get the insurance money, which may very well be more than the value of the balance of the loan.

Is that what happened in her case?




Originally posted by wirefly
Also, she was asking for an extension on her eviction as she has no place to go, not trying to rob the bank.

Extensions are at the banks discretion and are not guaranteed to be given. If she did ask for an extension, then the above statement of misplacing money doesn't apply. She failed to hold up her end of the deal.



Originally posted by wirefly
But hey, that's cool. If that's how the bankers feel about it, then that's the way they feel. One day, they may be in a position of need and find out how it feels when nobody cares. It won't be on my shoulders though.

It has little to do with the evil "bankers" here. She failed to pay, thus losing her house due to her failure.

The idea that she went and got protestors and people to occupy the house speaks more towards the idea that she felt like this was the answer to her problems.

No one claims to have been hurt during their removal and really shows how SWAT should respond to a situation. They acted correctly and removed the people.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Lol sorry buddy cops are the new tax man. They are also becoming the civilians #1 enemy they sure are mine and yours to in due time. Sad really so many are former armed services members who defended us now sent to enslave us.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Apparently it is all good and well that tax-payer dollars are used to protect a bank's investment.... but from what?

If the reporter on this story has any foresight, we'll see another article in 8 months about how the house is still standing there rotting and empty....

.....but some real estate investment firm bought it for the price of a used car.


Show me where this only happens when a bank owns the property. What would happen if YOU owned a house and people were occupying it and refused to leave? Pretty sure you'd be all for sending in SWAT then. She did not own the house. She had no legal right to be there. She refused to leave when asked. She was lawfully evicted. SWAT was appropriate. Apparently you are for people FORCING tax dollars to be used because they refuse to obey the laws.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirefly



The Sheriffs department could have been the ones to cal the SWAT team.
reply to post by macman
 

So is that what happened? All I read in the article was that after the moving van left, the SWAT team arrived. There was no indication to the contrary.

She did sign her mortgage. However, banks are not playing by the rules. They do things like refusing to accept payments and sending those mortgages into foreclosure to get the insurance money, which may very well be more than the value of the balance of the loan. Also, she was asking for an extension on her eviction as she has no place to go, not trying to rob the bank.

But hey, that's cool. If that's how the bankers feel about it, then that's the way they feel. One day, they may be in a position of need and find out how it feels when nobody cares. It won't be on my shoulders though.


If the banks are playing foul you have recourse, such as take them to court. Show me where she attempted this.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 





No lost tears for a person that failed to uphold her end of a deal.


How about the bankers that have creamed trillions of dollars... Do you think that they should be arrested by swat teams.. Of course not they run the government and are conveniently protected by the laws that they helped to orchestrate...



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by macman
 





No lost tears for a person that failed to uphold her end of a deal.


How about the bankers that have creamed trillions of dollars... Do you think that they should be arrested by swat teams.. Of course not they run the government and are conveniently protected by the laws that they helped to orchestrate...


Blame Obama and his administration for that. Fact is we have laws in place for a reason. If banks are playing foul, the administration should have taken care of it. SWAT followed the law and did nothing wrong. Can you please provide evidence that this particular lady was taken advantage of by the banks?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


There is very little in the story.. I'm going on what I read in the article.My example was from another story from a family in Socal. They played by the rules and the bank didn't and the family got screwed. If you doubt it, look up any story about the banks playing unfair. There's plenty out there. If you want to see another perspective, you'll dig a little. If you've already made up your mind, you won't. Simple as that.

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe the banks are altruistic saviors to us who are so unworthy. Poor guys, mean old homeowners are trying to take advantage of them. They need the SWAT team to make the bad lady go away...waaaa.
edit on 1-11-2012 by wirefly because: Wanted to add some smart a##ed remarks.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wirefly
 


Or maybe what happened 150 years ago, or to another family in another story, has no bearing on this story. The problem is not the response. If there is a problem, you should lay it at the feet of the person Responsible, Obama. He had the opportunity to create laws that helped homeowners, he chose to help the banks. If the people are being screwed and the Federal government has let them down, and then the State government has done the same, why are you blaming SWAT, who did their job and did it well with no one being harmed?

ETA: Your waaa comment shows your mindset. Please grow up if you wish to engage in an adult discussion.
edit on 1-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by oasisjack
reply to post by macman
 


Lol sorry buddy cops are the new tax man. They are also becoming the civilians #1 enemy they sure are mine and yours to in due time. Sad really so many are former armed services members who defended us now sent to enslave us.


That may be your view, but DOOM on those that fight a cop.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by macman
 





No lost tears for a person that failed to uphold her end of a deal.


How about the bankers that have creamed trillions of dollars... Do you think that they should be arrested by swat teams.. Of course not they run the government and are conveniently protected by the laws that they helped to orchestrate...


Purplemer, nice to chat with you again, been a while.
The issue is not that of the evil "banker", different topic, different thread.

The issue is the woman failed to pay her mortgage, was ordered out on eviction, stayed and had protestors come in and was removed via SWAT.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

My problem isn't with SWAT. They're doing what they're told. My problem is with SWAT being called out for this.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by oasisjack
reply to post by macman
 


Lol sorry buddy cops are the new tax man. They are also becoming the civilians #1 enemy they sure are mine and yours to in due time. Sad really so many are former armed services members who defended us now sent to enslave us.


That may be your view, but DOOM on those that fight a cop.

No, doom on those that fight a group of cops. One cop, not a problem. They only become a problem as a gang.






top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join