SWAT unleashed on Food Stamp Fraudsters

Hard on the heals of Sharingan's thread yesterday of two SWAT teams being used over a dangerous shoplifter today we now have SWAT being unleashed against (wait for it) villainous "food-stamp fraudsters!"

That's right folks, the regular police fearing for their lives had to use SWAT to take down 3 dangerous individuals working at the K & S convenience store in Arizona.

“This business was stealing taxpayer money by allowing a person with a food stamp card to purchase something small, such as a bag of chips, and then overcharge that card to make a fraudulent profit,”

Wednesday morning SWAT units of the Phoenix Police Department entered the K & S convenience store to execute search warrants and seized $32,876 in cash, a key to a private bank vault holding $550,480 in cash, bank records, accounts, food stamp cards, business ledgers and three vehicles.

Source

These dangerous criminals had a private vault, ledgers and 3 cars! I don't know about you but I feel safer already.

Really do we need SWAT for this?

reply to post by Bassago


My suspicion is that this has more to do with civil forfeiture than anything else.

www.law.cornell.edu...

You can get a really nice espresso maker for the office with that much dough.

What's the problem?

SWAT guys do not make the law. They do what they are told.

I'm sure no cop wants to work that case. But that guy had a half a million.

I wish people did not flagrantly abuse the system. But they do.

First time I ever defended the SWAT team. I need a shower.

This really seems like overkill. My city did a EBT fraud sweep last year and netted a bunch of store owners fraudulently overcharging & permitting fraudulent purchases (alcohol) They didn't use SWAT, they used the normal city cops. How much extra does using SWAT for something like this cost a city, anyway?

reply to post by Bassago


This is freakin crazy, a total abuse of power and force for a white collar "type" crime.
Did they send SWAT teams after Madoff or Martha Stewart?
How about the Banksters at Whachovia that laundered billions of dollars of Mexican Drug Cartel money?
No, they are sending the troops into our neighborhoods after petty thieves and welfare/food stamp defrauders.
Wait for the people that will come in here and defend this action, most of them will defend it because these "leeches" deserved it for stealing my money, blah blah blah.

reply to post by Sharingan


Well as has been said many times this is to desensitize us to paramilitary operations within our communities. We need to keep posting SWAT overreach in hopes that even the supporters will finally see what's going on.

Nyiah
This really seems like overkill. My city did a EBT fraud sweep last year and netted a bunch of store owners fraudulently overcharging & permitting fraudulent purchases (alcohol) They didn't use SWAT, they used the normal city cops. How much extra does using SWAT for something like this cost a city, anyway?

Cost?

All those Tackleberry(s) gleefully jump for joy,

getting to play Rambo..

you should see it from the inside.. lame.

Originally posted by Bassago

 

Well as has been said many times this is to desensitize us to paramilitary operations within our communities. We need to keep posting SWAT overreach in hopes that even the supporters will finally see what's going on.

Either that or when people get used to it being a regular occurrence.

SWAT sits around doing nothing waiting for an actual dangerous situation, They need to dust off their breeches time to time so are being used for routine stuff. In this case it was to confiscate over half a million bucks for a crime involving a bag of chips. They were justified in using them. People might have gotten upset over that kind of police work and asset forfeiture.

Where the currency of the realm is concerned, all the king's horses and all the king's men...

Though it might be a bit overboard, it's no surprise.

This guarding the money thing goes all the way to the top. Aside from safeguarding presidents and dignitaries The United States Secret Service primary objective is to safeguard the currency.

There was probably a question of armament. Somebody with that much cash on hand, small business interest, assets, etc. would be assumed to have a firearm sitting on top of that stack of loot. Firearm + enclosed space = SWAT.

From what I've seen, this sort of fraudulent activity is standard fare. There is an exchange rate for cash and drugs. Small time dealers have been known to accept groceries.

1. They should not be allowed to buy chips on snap.

2. These people will actually have free Obama care ( others pay big time for Obama care, more so if single)
Used a calculator from Some health company...

3. Working people will pay for the unhealthy food and the heart disease that comes with it.

4. Obama's wife controls what kids eat in school as in healthy and less food.

5. Hypocrites everywhere.

alpha888
1. They should not be allowed to buy chips on snap.

2. These people will actually have free Obama care ( others pay big time for Obama care, more so if single)
Used a calculator from Some health company...

3. Working people will pay for the unhealthy food and the heart disease that comes with it.

4. Obama's wife controls what kids eat in school as in healthy and less food.

5. Hypocrites everywhere.

No chips eh? You will be seen as a harsh taskmaster. I know Americans eat too much junk food but it's bad enough having food-stamp police. We don't really need chip police as well. Maybe we could use some of those idle SWAT guys to take down some of the crooked bankers instead.

SlackOps

There was probably a question of armament. Somebody with that much cash on hand, small business interest, assets, etc. would be assumed to have a firearm sitting on top of that stack of loot. Firearm + enclosed space = SWAT.

There will always be a question of armament in the US. Always. If that is the standard then we should just get rid of the regular cops as they obviously can't deal. Really though my preference is to totally dump SWAT.

reply to post by alpha888

They should not be allowed to buy chips on snap.

I was once on food stamps and I had a crab/shrimp boil once a month.. How you like that?

alpha888 @ 31-8-2013 07:00 AM 1. They should not be allowed to buy chips on snap.

Soooo....what if a person has no house and thus no place to cook food? Should they starve cause a bag of chips, in your opinion, shouldn't be purchasable via ebt? Makes no sense to me.

I agree with SlackOps. With that much money, you think they weren't strapped? But food stamp fraud is a huge industry. The people get screwed cause its fifty cents on the dollar. Thus if u have $200 in stamps, you get $100. That's it. I get food with mine. Its hard enough to eat in Dayton.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Bassago
There will always be a question of armament in the US. Always. If that is the standard then we should just get rid of the regular cops as they obviously can't deal. Really though my preference is to totally dump SWAT.

Originally posted by jjsr420
With that much money, you think they weren't strapped?

There is a necessity for a highly trained, specialized, and well equipped task force within some police departments. It is not necessary to make a standard operational procedure of patrol officers carrying M4's or responding to every incident using military grade hardware and siege tactics.

There were several law enforcement agencies involved in the undercover operation. They probably spent more than they netted... to bust three guys. Seems like a couple of plain clothes detectives and some backup would have been able to handle this. Everybody wants to take credit for the state's biggest anything bust. They have to justify expenditures in order to receive budget.

A separate and ongoing investigation is mentioned in the article. It also seems like these guys might be foreigners or immigrants, their passports were seized. If they are somehow tied to a larger criminal organization or international laundering scheme then perhaps, maybe the overkill is warranted. Nothing like that is mentioned in the article, so really they come off as a three bonehead crooks trying to get one over on the system. Hardly worth calling in the cavalry.

Granted, though it must be stated, that whatever these guys got caught with is probably a fraction of what they got away with.

Originally posted by Bassago

 

Well as has been said many times this is to desensitize us to paramilitary operations within our communities. We need to keep posting SWAT overreach in hopes that even the supporters will finally see what's going on.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Either that or when people get used to it being a regular occurrence.

Should people get used to it being a regular occurrence?