Indiana BLACK grandmother suffers violent SWAT raid after a neighbor uses her wireless internet

[Ichingcarpenter]

EVANSVILLE, IN — An innocent elderly woman’s home was raided by SWAT when she was suspected of using the internet to trash-talk and post threats toward the local police. In response, gun-wielding assailants breached her doors and windows in a violent search for electronic evidence.

The hair-raising incident took place at the household of Louise Milan on Powell Street. It was the place where she and her husband had raised their six children, and had lived for three decades.

On June 21, 2012, the solitude of the familial home was shattered — along with numerous doors and window panes. Louise Milan, 68, was home with her adopted daughter, 18-year-old Stephanie Milan. Around midday, Louise had been straightening her bedroom when she heard a terrifying sound from downstairs.



snip

The ostensible reason for the raid was that someone had anonymously posted some internet tough-talk on an online discussion forum, and referred to the Evansville police. The subsequent violence directed at the Milan household was to serve a search warrant to find out who was responsible.

The alleged “specific threats” were posted in a discussion on the topix.com website. One of the posts declared: “Cops beware! I’m proud of my country but I hate police of any kind. I have explosives… Made in America. Evansville will feel my pain.”

In response, police packed their own guns and explosives and headed out to raid the owner of the IP address from which the posts had been made. That address belonged to the Milan family.


http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/louise-milan/


They even video taped it. You can't believe.

[pipoman]

1. your link isn't working...

Edit...now it works...is the case still in the system, or has it been decided or settled? I didn't see 5he answer in the article.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. works fine with my browser

google the headline you might find another acess

[corkhead]

2. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Good thing they don't have tanks.

Talk about swatting someone by accident. The ignorance of the police toward technology goes to show it's fairly easy to use the police to destroy anyone. Get them pumped up enough with their new military gear and they'll do anything without thinking.Seriously, how hard is to watch the house for at least a couple hours to see who lives there?

[Shankapotomus]

5. Aha! Caught them in the act!

Watching the Barefoot Contessa, were you?

Probably some high calorie recipe too.

[ColesCountyDem]

6. "gun-wielding assailants"

Hyperbole much?

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Nope..... the video shows some armed scary assailants.

the pictures also verify it.

[ColesCountyDem]

10. NOT an example of police overreaction.

While I will concede that the homeowner herself did not post the threats, someone using her IP address DID! When someone posts, in essence, "I hate cops, have explosives and am going to start killing cops" and the IP address reveals the poster's location to be at Physical Address X, it is unreasonable to NOT expect an unannounced visit from the cops.

[zeemike]

12. No, not when you judge by todays standards.

40 years ago they would have gotten a visit from the cops too, but it would be two cops knocking on your door...and when you answered it they would tell you they were there because someone had did something and they were investigating.

Now we have accepted the fact they will break your windows and doors, throw a flash bang in the house and with weapons drawn force you and your children to lay on the floor and shoot your dog before they ask any questions...assumed guilty and dangerous.

We have accepted this new method as normal now...just like the Fascist state of old.

[Louisiana1976]

39. Yeah--that's life in a fascist police state.

[Inkfreak]

54. Great point.

They've begun to treat everyone like a terrorist threat. Playing to the lowest common denominator of society. Person A was a threat so we'll treat Persons B thru Z the same.

[WinkyDink]

13. You make no sense. If one commits no crime, one does not expect anything of the damn sort.

[ColesCountyDem]

16. No, it's YOU who makes no sense.

The legal standard is what is 'objectively reasonable' here, and it IS objectively reasonable that the police would react as they did, given the fact situation.

[WinkyDink]

26. NOT to the house's inhabitants!! Would YOU expect a police raid based on what a thieving neighbor

did??

NO.

You speak from hindsight, which is, of course, NOT the vantage point under discussion.

[Trillo]

15. Obviously your "logic" is flawed.

If grandma didn't say it, then the concept that someone threatened cops from grandma's virtual address and got grandma physically in trouble, is clearly a massive logic flaw. The cops never saw her lips moving or fingers typing the alleged threats, yet guessed she made the statements, and guessed wrong.

[ColesCountyDem]

17. Sorry, but that's just silly.

Try standing outside of a school and typing that you have an assault rifle and want to kill some schoolchildren. Even if no one sees you do it, a reasonable response by law-enforcement will be a massive, immediate and very forceful response.

[Trillo]

19. You continue to make the same logic error in your analogy!

A more correct analogy would have been: TWO people stand outside of a school, NOT one, and only one makes the threat, but the cops respond forcefully to the one who did NOT make the threat, and let the other one with the assault rifle and threatening speech get away.

[ColesCountyDem]

25. No, no, no, no!

One house tied to an IP address. Where do you get this '200' garbage?

My analogy is FAR more accurate than yours.

[Trillo]

28. You now contend a house is a person?

This time your logic flaw is that a house ("One house tied to an IP address&quot is a person (that person who made the threats)!

I guess it at least explains the property damage. Take that you sentient house:

Whack whack
shattered glass.

How's it feel to have your windows broken?

[MADem]

31. I think the police response was OTT, but I also think you are wrong.

A person paid the internet service provider for that account. The person paying the bill was GRANDMA. Grandma even had to cough up her SSAN to get that service, too, in most communities these days. I don't think anyone is claiming that a house is a person, but if someone makes a phone call from a house, one tends to think the person making the phone call is IN the house. That's the logic that was operating with these not-too-clever police.

This is a lesson to Grandma--secure your wireless account, or risk bad consequences.

Back in the fifties, when cops would be more reasonable in their investigations, they probably would have been a little "on edge" if they'd received threats from an address via a land line (which is a bit harder to hack). They might have knocked forcefully and demanded that Grandma "come out with her hands up."

Did Grandma deserve such a forceful response? Perhaps not--but police aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Did the police do any investigation to figure out if Grannie lived alone, or what? Did they ask the ISP for any information beyond "What house is the router in?" Doesn't look like that.

Police confiscated Stephanie’s cell phone and laptop to see if they was related to the internet threats. They weren’t. In fact, it was determined that no one in the Milan household had been involved.

The Milan family was wrongly targeted because their wireless internet signal had been had been discreetly used by an unauthorized remote user. A neighbor, Derrick Murray, had noticed that the Milans had not password-protected their wireless router, and accessed it without permission via his smartphone and used it to browse the internet from his parents’ house. He was later arrested by the FBI and plead guilty to related charges of using forbidden speech.

The police most certainly used poor judgment in the way they attacked the house. A "community policing" approach, where Barney Fife could have said "Aww, gee, fellers, you don't wanna go busting up that house--nice ole' Miz Milan lives there with her daughter!!" before anyone got out the battering ram, would have prevented this entirely.

Bottom line--police need to have higher IQs. This "lowest common denominator" approach to policing is NOT working. Police also need to be psychologically profiled so that people with sadistic tendencies are screened out from this kind of work. People who are skilled in conflict resolution are better suited to police work than brutes. After all, conflict resolution and community interaction are what they do MOST of the time. Or what they SHOULD be doing.

If I were on the jury adjudicating damages to be paid to Grandma, I'd fix everything up for her lickedy-split, so it's better than brand-new. I'd also give her a hefty, hefty sum of money, of sufficient import to slow the roll of that PD so they don't think they can get away with that shit again.

[Trillo]

35. It appears there are a number of court cases that have ruled an IP is not a person.

A google search indicates the number is greater than one.

With the sheer amount of information and news items about hacking, cracking, spoofing, etc., that goes on, we read at least weekly of yet another credit card database breach, that to presume an IP is tied to a person (like those court cases), or even to a specific address, seems wholly absurd.

[MADem]

36. The poster did not say an IP address was a person.

The fact that you keep goading and baiting the guy by saying that he said that doesn't reflect well on you.

What he said is that the IP address is tied to an address, and that IS the truth.

What I said is someone at that address paid the bill for that IP address.

What I also said is that the police response was wrong.

I don't think you're productively discussing this issue, I think you're more vested in a "gotcha" game than shedding some light on the whole dynamic.

See--the police can be wrong in their reaction, even as they were correct in tracking the source of the transmission to that IP. What they didn't do, and what they should have done, BEFORE busting down the door, was gotten the information on the device used to craft the threats. After all, it's not unheard-of that people might "kite" off of someone else's IP. Usually, people are cool about it, they read the paper, send a few emails, maybe watch some Youtubes if the signal is strong enough--they don't make trouble. Anyway, once the police had the Smart Phone information, it would have led them to the Big Mouthed neighbor--which is what it did, eventually, AFTER the steroid-addled idiots busted up Miz Milan's house.

[Trillo]

37. Yes, he did! I'll quote him for you in this post.

The poster was defending the police assumption that an IP address was tied to a person. and that the police response was reasonable.

You just wrote,
"What he said is that the IP address is tied to an address, and that IS the truth."

No, the poster above, wrote, and this is copy & paste,
"IP address reveals the poster's location to be at Physical Address X". Note his words, "poster's location".

That phrase may not be clear to you, but it's really clear to me. The court cases have basically said that an IP address is not tied to a person (in this discussion, "poster's&quot .

It may seem like a silly parsing of words to you, but it also seems to me you have misread his precise words. I'm not the only one that called him on that post.

Then he tells me, "Where do you get this '200' garbage". I wrote "two" not "200", a couple of magnitudes off. But you claim I'm the one baiting?

I'm outta here.

[MADem]

40. He didn't say a house was a person.

And that is what you accused him of saying. It's not "silly parsing"--it's trying to nitpick, meaninglessly, instead of addressing the big points, such as police overreach, bad investigatory practices, and lack of common sense. It's was never about someone calling a house a person.

Being situated at a "physical location" (a house) is not the same as calling a house a person.

A secured internet connection would put a broadcaster at a specific physical location. An unsecured connection can put a person some distance away.

The point here is that it isn't unreasonable for the police to narrow down the perpetrator using IP address as a first step. We are not talking about "court cases" here, we're talking about investigatory police work. They should have investigated a bit further, though, and the Smart Phone information would have clarified their "perp" without busting up Grandmother Milan's home.

[ColesCountyDem]

44. A house is a fixed location.

I'm glad you find logic funny.

[WinkyDink]

27. The accused woman DIDN'T DO IT!! To CORRECT your analogy: The arrested would be NOT YOU.

[Heather MC]

18. Maybe they should have taken an additional two seconds of research

And found out who lived in the location. The police are so hyped up to find terrorist under every rock they are becoming the terrorist they fear so much

it is like that Twilight Zone episode where aliens make a neighborhood think they are about to be attacked and then they sit back and watch the neighbors attack each

[MADem]

33. They didn't do that, and it could have been a

boyfriend/nephew/other relative.

Perhaps the search warrant should have gone a step further, to identify not just the ISP but the Smart Phone owner as well. That might have solved the issue.

They did end up figuring out who did it--the "crime" was that they didn't do that "figuring" before they started busting shit up, handcuffing people, and laughing about it.

[Politicalboi]

30. So worried about explosives

Yet they rush in the home busting the glass door down. Go to the basement and don't even look in the washer and dryer. What a bunch of assholes. How embarrassing for that woman and her daughter. I hope they sue the shit out of these jack booted thugs. How about the cops KNOWING that IP addresses don't always mean a certain location with WiFi. They were just out on a fun run, innocence be damned.

[ColesCountyDem]

45. "Knock, knock, this is Officer Friendly! Go ahead and push your detonator-- I'll just wait here."

RRRIIIGGGHHHTTT!

[magical thyme]

46. Nobody says there shouldn't have been a visit, but they never gave them a chance to reach the door

let alone open it.

There was no reason or excuse to damage the house like that or to terrorize those poor people. If they have the ability to ID and trace the IP address, certainly they should be aware that addresses can be hijacked by neighbors.

Thank goodness they didn't have a dog or they would clearly have a dead dog now.


I had an "unannounced visit from the cops" when a registered sex offender filed a complaint against me (for yelling at him to shut up at 11pm quiet hours).

Yes they pounded on the door and yelled open up this is the police. Then they waited a few minutes for me to respond, and we had a nice conversation in my doorway (during which they advised me I needed to get out of town because they couldn't protect me from him), and after which they visited the registered sex offender and warned him.

[ColesCountyDem]

53. Did the RSO who called also tell them you had explosives and wanted to kill cops? n/t

[magical thyme]

55. I don't know what he told them but yelling at somebody to "shut up" hardly merits a cop visit

in the middle of the night (they arrived at midnight) and way to miss the point, but then that seems to be your intention.

It wouldn't have taken a whole lot of research for them to realize that there was an unprotected wifi connection there. They have some responsibility to be certain they are targeting the right house and the right person prior to breaking and entering.

Period.

You seem very invested in protecting the police "right" to forcibly break down doors, point loaded guns at children, terrorize innocent people, and so on.

Things have changed a lot in the last 14 years. I don't recognize this country any more, nor do I recognize many of its citizens.

Have a nice day. I have no interest in anything else you have to write, so you're going on ignore.

[ColesCountyDem]

58. " ...You seem very invested in protecting the police "right" to forcibly break down doors...."

I seem to be rational, and see the situation for what it was, unlike some posters in this thread who believe that unicorns fart magic rainbows.

[Jenoch]

7. Why did you change the headline?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Jeesh.

IP's can be spoofed too. If they'd had a more tech savvy person doing the trash talking, they might not have even had the address at all. (Heck, there's some fun for Anonymous - trash talk police with spoofed IP's that point back to IP's from other police

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. like I said not very tech savvy

With a laptop they could have scanned the IP near the residence and seen that its a open internet connection without protection. Once on the residence internet they could also see who else is using the IP ..sloppy police work.

[TransitJohn]

14. Sloppy police work

Is there any other kind?

[Louisiana1976]

41. I doubt it.

[Ed Suspicious]

20. Great idea! Or the home of an elected official. Lessons would be quickly internalized.

[SwankyXomb]

29. "It's coming from inside the station!" n/t

[Politicalboi]

32. Hey, I like that

Police raiding other police departments.

Keystone cops the lot of them.

[magical thyme]

47. great idea! Let's hope Anonymous gets on it right away

[whereisjustice]

21. we need a TV show called America's dumbest cops

[Politicalboi]

34. Do we have the time

Soooooooo many to choose from.

[marmar]

22. What did Smedley Butler term it, "Gangsters for Capitalism" ?

[Diclotican]

23. Ichingcarpenter

Ichingcarpenter

Last time one of my nabours - who is little unstable when he is getting something he should not do - got mad and was threatening everyone with death and destruction - police was for the first responding to his outburst - and was there in force - I suspect it was 3 cars with police - and a ambulance at is was clear that my nabour was not sane from the "self-medication" - after he was put on a stretcher - and put in the ambulance for the trip to the hospital - the police was knocking on everyones door to be sure we all was safe - and not harmed - I was not I was busy on my computer at the time - and was rather obvious for the action outside - and the police was even apologize for the fact they had to bother me as I was home.. NO Swat style equipment - just police officers doing their job .. And they even asked for the number to the janitor - as he had destroyed a few vindows - who needed replasement - who I gave them of course

And in Norway police still do not have weapon as part of the uniform - something that make it more easy to talk to them I would say - and also make the field more level - as police can not hide behind a weapon all the time...

But then again - in Norway Police have to go true a 3 year university level education to even be a member of the police - where they learn how to properly treat a scene - without using more violence than absolutely needed at all times....

Diclotican

[Louisiana1976]

42. I'd rather have a Norwegian-style police force than what we have in America.

[Enthusiast]

43. I like the no-weapon thing, Diclotican. The NRA would never allow it in the USA.

[Diclotican]

60. Enthusiast

Enthusiast

We doesn't have anything like NRA in Norway either - and I suspect most people who have weapon would have shaking their head if anything like NRA had tried to get into Norway... Most people is rather sane when it came to weapon here - and also we have one of the strictest laws in the world when it comes to weapon use....

Diclotican

[woo me with science]

48. Three-year university-level education to learn to properly treat a scene.

Interesting contrast:

New York: Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836#.UdyH_flJPzg

[Diclotican]

61. woo me with science

woo me with science

I know - and that is just for be an ordinary police officer - if you want to do more - you have to get more education too.. Not that beeing a police officer in its own right is a decent job But at least it does a lot to make sure the police officers are educated enough to not just bust true some doors and do as mutch damage as posible... And then have to pay a lot in damage to everyone surviving the onslaught...


Diclotican

[GeorgeGist]

24. Double Plus Stupid.

This is not how you handle a bomb threat. Even when you have the correct address.

[Louisiana1976]

38. The grandmother should sue the Evansville police department for repairs plus emotional distress.

[LiberalElite]

50. She is suing. nt

[LiberalElite]

49. And meanwhile the right wing loonies

can talk about revolution and assassination and it's on the news so it's no secret and what happens? NOTHING.

[Brigid]

51. Hey wait a minute!

How does the "add a comment" button at the bottom of the story know my *real* name?

[NYC_SKP]

56. If you're signed into Google+, Facebook, a few others... then it knows who you are.

The computer, it is, not the people on the other end.



Plus, it is "police state"... J/K

[Brigid]

57. I'm old enough that this sort of thing creeps me out.

[indepat]

52. Please take note, Senator Levin, what rises to the use of a SWAT team, not quite a gang

of heavily armed drug thugs, eh?

[JEB]

59. The cops in this country get way too much money.

Cut the police budgets in half nation wide and give the savings to our Public schools.

[dembotoz]

62. not really a new idea of a neighbor "borrowing" a neighbors wifi

if i were going to do a terror thing over the internet i do not think i would do it from my home ip

that would be as they say



STUPID