And in case anyone thinks I'm trolling, I'm not. Dead serious.
Edit: I said FBI, I was wrong about that- but still- if she's accusing of unauthorized access, isn't such a raid par for the course? added allegedly above.
And I'm not buying that guns-drawn arrest with kids present is necessary. Dead serious.
In a situation where police are legitimately going in with guns drawn (like, I dunno, arresting actual terrorists known to have actual guns?), they don't have the luxury of determining whether someone's a child before pointing a gun in their face. If anyone in the house could be armed and firing back, they need to point the gun first.
So, there isn't a realistic "They shouldn't have pointed guns at children, but the rest of it is fine." Either it's okay to point guns at children because the situation demanded it, and the moral culpability of the child's trauma (or worse) is on whoever left children with armed outlaws... or they shouldn't have gone in with guns at all to the personal residence of someone whose alleged crime involved no violent action of any sort.
You've seen zero evidence of her being responsible and you still accuse her?
They had to get a warrant to search her home. Seems unlikely that a judge would issue a warrant without some kind of probable cause. While the system was poorly secured, a lot of poorly secured systems have basic logging. All it would take is an IP address.
None of us are privy to the details here, so it's really hard to say.
Unfortunately, here in the US that is not something you can bank on. There is a large amount of evidence that judges routinely sign on warrants without even understanding what the warrant is for, and there are even many types of non-standard warrants that do not need to follow that protocol.
She hasn't been charged, let alone found guilty, of any crime.
This was state police rather than federal (a highly relevant distinction, given the context) and the snide "surprised" is unwarranted/baseless when we don't have even the full facts from one side let alone both sides.
That aside, even if she did, is that reason to storm in with guns? The level of possible harm is incredibly out of proportion with the supposed crime.
The evidence provided in the article for the crime is flimsy at best however. The communication system had a shared username and password for everyone and the warrant was reported to be based on an IP address that was believed to be the source of the unauthorized access.
It seems reasonable to go 50/50 on either of:
1. they looked for and found a reason to charge her with this as retribution for her work.
2. she was disgruntled enough about being let go that she illegally accessed a poorly secured government system to send a retaliatory communication.
There is no where near enough information to know which is which though.
She hasn't even been accused of breaking the law. There have been zero charges.
From the article, I think it was the Florida state police, not the FBI.