Drug Enforcement Outrage of the Day
The government commandeers a company's driver and truck for a drug smuggling operation without the company's knowledge or permission (and without any compensation). The innocent and apparently overly helpful driver then dies in a hail of bullets that also riddle the truck as authorities screw up the bust. In the process, police are wounded when they end up shooting at each other. What a mess.
Hasdrubal:
With all the civil asset forfeitures going around, it's amazing that they didn't just use a truck that the feds already owned. Even if Arizona is a non-civil asset forfeiture state, it's the DEA, why didn't they just call up their buddies in Mississippi and trade a truck for a weekend trip in Belize or something? Then, to not at least pay to repair/replace the truck, not even notify the owner when his property was destroyed, get one of his employees killed, how do agents sleep at night?
July 31, 2012, 8:42 ama_random_guy:
If the DEA is going to set up an operation like this, they need to have their own shell company. Using an innocent small business is inexcusable for lots of reasons. Not least: using the truck and driver without authorization is theft of services. Someone in the DEA needs to be prosecuted.
July 31, 2012, 9:34 amTJIC:
> police are wounded when they end up shooting at each other.
When I started reading the story I didn't realize that it was going to have a happy ending!
July 31, 2012, 10:28 amTJIC:
@ a_random_guy:
> If the DEA is going to set up an operation like this, they need to have their own shell company.
You're writing as if the people involved were competent enough to get a real job in the private sector as grocery baggers, or toilet cleaners, or fluffers.
I think that's your error right there.
July 31, 2012, 10:29 amPeter:
The 5th amendment requires compensation for temporary takings. This should be a slam dunk case for a temporary taking of property by the government. The supreme court ruled (sorry I have long since forgotten the case name) that the coal company taken over by the govt during world war II to keep the company running despite the dispute between the owners and the union, required compensation under the takings clause of the 5th amendment be paid to the owners of the company.
July 31, 2012, 11:25 ammarco73:
This sounds like a standard drug war screw up. The only this missing is someone didn't go over to the truck owner's house and shoot his dog.
July 31, 2012, 12:53 pmMingoV:
marco73: "This sounds like a standard drug war screw up. The only this missing is someone didn’t go over to the truck owner’s house and shoot his dog."
The drug suppliers may do that and worse, if the truck owner's fears are realistic. The drug suppliers may believe that the driver AND the owner set them up for the bust.
July 31, 2012, 1:51 pmSmock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and CRIS Diagnostic Expert:
The phrase I believe you are looking for is "Major League Cluster Fuck".
It is rare that anyone outside of a government agency manages to accomplish one of these.
July 31, 2012, 4:09 pmMark:
I am sure the company is liable for worker compensation claims.
July 31, 2012, 6:39 pmmarco73:
MingoV: Yes, in the story the family is afraid that the drug dealers may harm his family. And he is rightly very concerned.
August 1, 2012, 4:33 amI should have clarified my statement: "The only thing missing is police didn't go over to the truck owner’s house and shoot his dog.”
Ron H.:
@marco73:
"This sounds like a standard drug war screw up. The only this missing is someone didn’t go over to the truck owner’s house and shoot his dog."
I'm sure the DEA will correct that oversight as soon as they read your comment - and you know they are reading it, right? Or is that NSA? So many acronyms! I get them confused.
August 2, 2012, 12:20 am