I remember reading somewhere that the policemen in the raid did not know what were going on, or even who the target was. I wouldn't be surprised if they thought they were taking down a terrorist cell, given that the personal used was the counter-terrorism special tactics Group.
Reading the Wikipedia article about the task force, their job is in dealing with high risk situations involving armed offenders and possible terrorism related events. They also train with New Zealand Special Air Service Commandos. In that context, the raid makes much more sense in how it was conducted, with silencers, helicopters, dogs and 20-30+ personal. The real question then comes to who in the command structure decided to use such group for serving a warrant, and collecting evidence for an assisting copyright infringement case. Given the nature of the crime, the low threat level (admitted in court), this is rather uniquely in history. One might also wonder how much influence the FBI had in the decision.
I obviously don't know much but it seems stupid to not tell your team who they're going after. They would use that information to plan the breach and I'd suspect a good squad leader would demand to know before going in.
I was wondering about it some more, and tried to find where I could had read it. Sadly, I can't find it so take the statement with a bit of salt. Might just been a comment someone made regarding the officer who asked the nanny if she had any weapons or bombs. (http://gizmodo.com/5882967/watch-how-the-special-forces-bust...)
Or it maybe my memory is a bit faulty and what I remember is regarding the search warrant used by the police. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/mega-victory-kim-...) The article describe how police officers didn't know what they were looking for when executing the warrant. As the judge put it, the people executing the warrant "were not the investigating officers and had limited knowledge of the operation," despite being briefed before the raid went down.
If I do find the article, I will post it. Maybe its was in the court document.
The audio from the helicopter features radio reports from the ground team with words to the effect "target secured" (ie. they knew they were after Kim specifically, once he was restrained that was their objective completed).
I believe by what belorn meant regarding the police not knowing who the target was, was the they didn't know they were after a guy for copyright infringement as opposed to a armed and dangerous individual.
Why the distinction? Schmitz was armed when he was found. Also, he was arrested not only for copyright infringement, but also for racketeering and money laundering. Those are serious crimes, usually the domain of organized crime.
False. The bodyguard had a licensed shotgun, locked inside a safe. [1] Schmitz didn't own one, nor did he carry it. You could claim he knew someone who owned a gun, but that's about it.
> Also, he was arrested not only for copyright infringement, but also for racketeering and money laundering.
The NZ judge does not agree with your assessment. Maybe the judge is wrong, but: charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts but dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement[2].
The FBI claims that a website that offers users monetary rewards for uploading content, such as YouTube does, are conducting racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud if said uploads constitute copyright infringement. The judge did not rule if such legal claims are correct, but noted that any such claims depend on the copyright infringement and are not separate crimes to be considered.
[1]: (http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6298389/Judge-res...)
Meanwhile, Dotcom's head of security, Wayne Phillip Tempero, is facing firearms charges for providing Dotcom with the semi-automatic shotgun which was found in Dotcom's safe room when police cut their way in during his arrest. Tempero said that the gun had been purchased under a valid New Zealand license, and Davidson told the court that the saferoom and gun were for the safety of Dotcom's family.
But yes, the safe was apparently open. I did try to find if Wayne Tempero case of gun possession was concluded, but I can't find any news article about it.
Thanks for following up. As for the firearms charges, I only read the allegations, I hadn’t found the bodyguard’s response. Your quote leads me to believe the bodyguard had at least some kind of license (if he didn’t have proof, it would be foolish to state so in court), whether that license covered the semi-automatic shotgun remains to be seen.
The parent comment is either ill-informed or deliberate misinformation. Kim wasn't armed. There was a fully licensed rifle in the premises, but it wasn't with him. There was no warrant granted to arrest him, no due process, and the prime minister of the country has given him a personal apology for the event, which has been admitted to be a gross perversion of lawful policing.
Somewhere along the line he realized it was a police raid, but chose to wait in the panic room anyway, with the door open, to avoid startling anyone and putting himself at risk of being shot. Even so, and despite knowing of the existence of the room, it took police 13 minutes to find him, and when they finally did they weren't particularly gentle in apprehending him. Dotcom claimed he was punched in the face and kicked to the floor, and that one officer stood on his hand once he was down.http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118975-Kim-Dotcom-...
“Despite our staff clearly identifying themselves Mr Dotcom retreated into the house and activated a number of electronic locking mechanisms. While Police neutralised these locks he then further barricaded himself into a safe room within the house which officers had to cut their way into. Once they gained entry into this room they found Mr Dotcom near a firearm which had the appearance of a shortened shotgun.”
I assume that gun cabinet was kept locked and you couldn’t get in. Schmitz’s safe was open. Schmitz was hiding in his panic room, refused to come out for the police, and had a shotgun with him in that room. If not technically armed, he certainly created a high risk situation.
“The gun in question [...] was a type never seen before by arms experts in New Zealand.”
“She said a police arms officer said the weapon must have been modified. "It couldn't be cut off any further back because of the position of the magazine," she said. To get a license for that type of gun in New Zealand it would have had to be granted a permit.”
That's ridiculous tabloid journalism. They attempt to claim that expired passports represent multiple identities and a flight risk, drag up unrelated dirt from Kim's past, slanderously characterise MegaUpload as "a repository for films, TV shows and books, where users could watch content without charge". At least they are honest with some further amusing tidbit about the gun: Davison said the gun found in an open safe in the "panic room" with Dotcom had never been used and only had a rubber bullet.
I don’t see any signs of that. It’s a report of what was said at one of the court hearings. If you have a more verbatim version of what transpired, I’d love to read it.
> MegaUpload [is a] "a repository for films, TV shows and books, where users could watch content without charge"
That sounds like a charitable description of what Megaupload was. They could’ve easily characterized it as a child porn and terrorism information ring.
"The real question then comes to who in the command structure decided to use such group for serving a warrant"
"such group" needs practice similar to how firemen use controlled fires to practice their skills. As such it makes total sense that you would use this as an opportunity to hone the groups skills for a time when the target is much more important.
I've seen cases where the NYPD sends officers overseas to (sorry can't find a link) help with matters that have nothing to do with NYC at all. I assume this has to do with some kind of practice for when they need the same at home.
Oh geez the point is they use it for practice. Nobody is advocating (and it wasn't the point of my comment) that a situation is setup for that purpose.
Nobody is advocating (and it wasn't the point of my comment) that a situation is setup for that purpose.
I think you missed my point. When firemen want to practice they set up a fake fire at a safe location. When paramilitary police forces want to practice, they should and do set up a fake raid at a safe location, rather than practicing on some random non-violent offender's home.
Regardless of your stance on the entire Mega issue, no-one can deny that the raid is simply terrifying.
Personally I have no clue how they justified such a heavily armed response particularly considering the fact that Dotcom never posed a physical threat to anyone let alone the fact that there were a number of children in the building at the time.
Using a SWAT raid to arrest a subject in cases where the police also want to seize evidence isn't at all uncommon in the US these days. The ostensible idea is that speed and ferocity is needed to capture evidence before criminals can destroy it. In practice I think the situation is more that police departments feel they need need SWAT teams because of terrorism, etc. But once they have them they start looking for chances to use them so the members don't get bored. The police in the US are required to knock on the door and announce themselves before conducting a raid which would interfere with the police starting the suspects and getting them before they could, say, flush their drugs down the toilet. Thankfully for the police there's no requirement for how loudly they have to knock, so I don't think I've ever heard of a case where the suspect or neighbors heard them do this. There are some states where over half of police searches are done by tactical squads bursting in behind a battering ram.
As you mention this is quite common in the U.S. These "high-risk" warrant teams are used all the time for serving narcotics warrants on non-violent offenders. They also commonly get the wrong address or the wrong suspect with tragic results. Take a peek at the map of botched paramilitary raids for a sobering look at what happens when the police screw up: http://www.cato.org/raidmap
What's the point of buying all those toys if you never get to use them? And what's a better time to use them, but when you know they can't potentially get damaged?
> no-one can deny that the raid is simply terrifying.
It looked pretty amateurish to me. They had trouble climbing a 3 foot high gate, which after they had ‘scaled’ it, turns out was easily opened.
> such a heavily armed response
I counted 5 police officers who approached the house together, only one of them was armed with a rifle. I saw no violence whatsoever, it was pretty laid-back. At no point in the video did they point a gun at any of the suspects, and they lowered their fire arms before they entered the building (highly unusual if you think you’re in danger or if you want to intimidate someone).
> Dotcom never posed a physical threat to anyone
When you’re dealing with a rich suspect who loves expensive toys and has a large staff, you have to be prepared for anything. In the US, they would’ve sent an army to surround and comb through that enormous mansion. Given that Dotcom is morbidly obese, I doubt the agents saw him as a physical threat, it’s his staff and the presence of weapons they needed to worry about.
Seriously just cause you live in the US and everything is over the top including police force, that doesn't mean its the norm. I can ensure you police force in the US and the use of guns is over the top and unjustified, so was this in the case for Dotcom.
The norm is that police officers wear guns, the UK is an exception. But even in the UK, police carry guns and rifles during raids – especially if they suspect to be met with armed resistance (as was the case with Kim Schmitz).
Did you read the page you linked to? Guns are only carried by specialized units. While said units will be called in if the circumstances seem to merit it, that's an unusual occurrence; the normal case, even on a raid, is that noone is carrying firearms.
How does any of that contradict my earlier comment?
If the police plans to raid a building which they suspect hosts armed suspects, like in the case of Kim Schmitz, surely they’ll send in units carrying fire arms.
I find that interesting, as police officers in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) do carry firearms. I have to admit I know little about either Irelands, perhaps the situation in the Republic of Ireland is a lot less volatile.
As no reasonable police officer would execute a paramilitary operation over copyright infringement, no reasonable person can be expected to believe that the armed thugs busting down his door are police, no matter their claims.
The charges were filed weeks before the raid. Surely he was given numerous opportunities to turn himself in. Also, this was only one of many charges he couldn’ve been brought in for. Kim Schmitz is no boy scout. I don’t underatand why so many people (which includes HN members) idolize him.
I can't say I know what New Zealand's procedure for this actually is, but in the US, one of two things would occur in a white-collar case like this: The suspect would either surrender with his attorney at a prearranged time and place, or he would be arrested by a couple of officers who peacefully knock on his door.
Anything else would be seen as grossly excessive force, the fallout of which could easily involve ruined careers and political repercussions.
And I don't know who you're talking about that "idolizes" him. I don't. I actually have no particular opinion about him one way or another, only about the manner in which the case has been handled.
You're the one who seems to be taking things very personally.
Because Kim is super rich, they wouldn't have raid him in the US. It would have been like the Madoff arrest, knock on his door an arrest him. Hell they may have even contacted his lawyers and asked him to surrender.
Schmitz had fled several countries previously to avoid being jailed, why should this time be different? Because of his vast amount of funds and his loyalty to no one, he was a flight risk, so they decided to pick him up. However, they knew that was going to be tricky. Schmitz has an enormous mansion in a rural area. He has a large security staff and a private helicopter. In the end, police “neutralized locks and cut their way into a safe room, where Dotcom was found with what looked like a sawed-off shotgun”.
What I find most offensive is that this level of police response is that it's being used against someone that facilitated sharing of content between users that would have never paid for it, yet, good luck getting a third of these resources spent tracking down criminals that did things to hurt someone. Apparently, it's more important to protect imagined profit than people.
What's laughable is that if he had such a device, it's almost certain he would have a 3rd party capable of deploying in the event of, say, a highly publicized police raid of his home to arrest him.
Of course, the counter to that would be to contact whoever hosts his data ( it's doubtful it's in his basement ) and have them pull the plug before the raid.
Of course, if you do that, there's little point in raiding his house in the first place as the "doomsday device" would be neutralized. A simple summons would likely have been sufficient. "Hi, we've taken your servers from the co-lo, come in for questioning by tomorrow at blah blah blah".
What if he runs? Who gives a shit? It was a copyright infringement case. If he runs, you then lock his assets, put him on a watch list and let him crawl back out at his leisure, letting his servers rot in an evidence locker somewhere.
I'm not sure how they justify the car removal at all. I suppose they didn't, since the warrant was deemed to be overreaching.
If someone can make that up you wonder why they don't just accuse him of being in Al-Qaeda or having WMD and simply bomb him. Would save all the tedious business of due process and evidence...
It was considered, at the time, the most expensive house in New Zealand. However, he only rents it. He tried to buy it, but the New Zealand government get involved in overseas investment deals/land purchase, and he was denied permission to buy it because he was "not of good character".
It is known within NZ as "the Chrisco mansion", as it was built by the owners of Chrisco - a Christmas hamper mail order company. People still get wealthy the old-fashioned way down under.
It's a lot of food that you pay for in installments throughout the year. They deliver it at Christmas time so that you don't have to worry about laying out a lot of additional money for food at Christmas.
I remember him participating in the Gumball Rally in Europe in 2001 (Filmed by Jackass) in a Mercedes Benz S V12 Brabus, I'd guess a $900,000.00 car. So my guess is that he was quite rich before starting MegaUpload (founded in 2005) :-)
Oh yes, he has been lying, bragging and hustling for far longer.
In 2001, he told the NY Times his net worth was Euro 200 million. Obviously not true, but he did make at least some money by selling Data Protect to TÜV Rheinland.
1) That some very official looking people are forced to address him as Mr. Dotcom... which is on my list of the most ridiculous names a person could give themselves.
2) The giant statue of a rino in his yard. Really? A Rino?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
There is nothing "non-violent" about an armed police raid.
And his past convictions are irrelevant on every conceivable level -- not only is he not currently serving a sentence in relation to them, they provided no basis to believe he could be dangerous.
You think it’s OK to liken the arrest of a repeat offender to the genocide of millions of innocent men, women, and children?
In the video, I didn’t see physical force used. Neither did I read of anything like it in any of the reports of the arrest. What part of the operation is violent to you?
Schmitz was found with a sawed off shotgun, and the police had to cut him out of his panic room, so he could obviously be dangerous.
First they used the massive, militarized police force peacefully and I didn't complain because no one was injured. Then they used the massive, militarized police force to hurt people and I didn't complain because no one was killed. Then the massive, militarized police force started killing people, and it was too late to complain.
Something doesn't have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to have lessons learned from Nazi Germany usefully applied to it. No one said "OMG Kim Dotcom is exactly like Anne Frank!". The police raid was clear overkill and many people are, rightfully, bothered by the militarization of police forces. It is important to object, even in defense of a fairly shady character like Dotcom because eventually that apparatus will be turned on others and it will be too late to stop it. Really, we should have been complaining a long time ago when the police (at least in the US) started treating the inner city like a war zone.
I perceived fsckin’s comment as disapproving of Schmitz’s arrest and/or prosecution. In other words: ‘First they came for the pirate/embezzler/blackhat and I didn’t speak out’. That’s a line of reasoning I object to, and the original quote is far too serious for that.
Your comment is about the militarization of police forces, which I agree, is scary and should be objected to, even if it were only used against the scum of the earth.
I can not help but read your comments throughout this post and note the obvious bias. But what makes Kim scum of the Earth vis-a-vis this case? What makes megaupload any different than Google Drive or Dropbox, where people are illegally sharing file? Ironically, it is my understanding that megauploads actually gave copyright holders far greater control of protecting their content than Dropbox and Google Drive - giving them administrative access to remove content themselves and not be subject to serving copyright violations. Just curious what your underlying issue is with this guy, because it simply can not be that third parties used megauploads to illegally share copyrighted files.
> I can not help but read your comments throughout this post and note the obvious bias.
I plead guilty. I do not like Kim Dotcom and what he does. My impression of him is that he’s an egotistical sociopathic opportunistic hedonistic grandstanding thug without moral compass. Megaupload is only a small part of what gave me that impression, I’ve been reading about his ‘endeavors’ for over a decade.
As for Megaupload, in the articles I’ve read over the years, he hasn’t done much to combat piracy on his network, some go as far as suggesting he encouraged it. He also claims patents over web tech like two factor authentication.
He also posed on photos with all the firearms he has, which surely must’ve made the NZ authorities queasy about peacefully apprehending him.
Nothing wrong with disliking the guy, and of course he has a colorful past, complete with prior non-violent criminal charges. However, there should be certain things not to wish on your worst enemy, international state sponsored persecution should be one of them. Prosecution is fine where appropriate, but not persecution.
>Megaupload is only a small part of what gave me that impression, I’ve been reading about his ‘endeavors’ for over a decade.
Specifically as it relates to megauploads is there anything that differentiates megauploads from say dropbox or google drive (even youtube for that matter), and I don't care if its your opinion or you point me to a third party article. We all know copyright violations take place, but in no other instance, I am aware, has a website been criminally liable for the acts of its members, in fact the US created the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which creates a legal firewall between the websites and its members activities. Even Napster only got sued in a civil context, no criminal charges, much less a counter terrorist unit sent to detain Sean Parker.
>he hasn’t done much to combat piracy on his network, some go as far as suggesting he encouraged it.
According to this Wired article (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/) Megauploads gave Copyright holders far greater access/control to protect their registered copyrights than any other cloud sharing service.
>He also claims patents over web tech like two factor authentication.
Kim is the registered patent holder for this in the US, perhaps it is inappropriate, maybe even unenforceable, but compare this patent with Apple having a patent on rectangular electronic devices, or the ridiculous patents Motorola owns which is the sole reason for Google acquiring them. Do you equally hate Apple and Google?
>He also posed on photos with all the firearms he has, which surely must’ve made the NZ authorities queasy about peacefully apprehending him.
This is a slippery slop, more or less it appears you justify the use of counter terrorist operations, complete with helicopters and silencers to take down alleged non-violent criminals so long as there is a picture showing the alleged suspect with a gun. Having guns does not make someone a violent person, and I do not think pictures of Kim with guns made NZ authorities "queasy", because their intelligence was not limited to pictures depicting a man with guns, they knew everything about their target, Kim, including the fact that he is non-violent.
Dwelling on whether it's violent or not seems silly. It was excessive. And the problem with using excessive measures is that it makes the line between non-violence and violence as simple as one guy with a gun being surprised and accidentally pulling the trigger.
I can only assume you are confused by the meaning of "force". The actual application of physical force is not necessary for an action to be forceful and violent.
The video includes a court room clip of a police officer stating that force was used. Mr Dotcom also laid complaints with the police that excessive and unnecessary force was used.
Given that police officers had to break into his panic room (in which a firearm was present) to get him out, I don’t see how he could say such a thing with a straight face.
I don’t perceive him as a victim, even though his marketing team does a great job at making it seem as if he is. The video in the linked article has a lot of production value.
Reading the Wikipedia article about the task force, their job is in dealing with high risk situations involving armed offenders and possible terrorism related events. They also train with New Zealand Special Air Service Commandos. In that context, the raid makes much more sense in how it was conducted, with silencers, helicopters, dogs and 20-30+ personal. The real question then comes to who in the command structure decided to use such group for serving a warrant, and collecting evidence for an assisting copyright infringement case. Given the nature of the crime, the low threat level (admitted in court), this is rather uniquely in history. One might also wonder how much influence the FBI had in the decision.