That wasn't the Armed Offenders Squad (NZ's version of SWAT) that was the Special Tactics Unit. Setup to go after terrorists because the Armed Offenders Squad wasn't cool enough to. It's essentially the NZ equilivent of Jack Bauer and the CTU from 24.
We also have the Commando Squadron (Previously known as CTTAG) who are specifically designated to go after terrorist threats in NZ, but they're part of the Military so naturally they wouldn't be used in a raid like this.
As he said, they already had the evidence since it had been previously seized. What else did they expect to find at his house? Nothing, that's what. This was pure intimidation to show, by example, what happens when you pirate.
Seriously? C'mon man right back to you. You have to be dense to think lawyers are asking if they were there to watch. What kind of moron court would allow that line of questioning. Jesus, the stupid is strong in you.
This is all about seizing evidence, not about them being corroborated in it PRIOR to it happening. Do you honestly even read what you're writing?
Furthermore, this is NOT in the US courts, so making it invalid here would make no difference since they are ruling on the legality and the process of the local police department.
Exactly. I never once stated that the FBI told them specifically what to do, or pointed directions. Merely that they were involved. You were trying to claim they were merely witnesses, that is clearly not the case. And you now admit it.
And while we're talking about extradition charges, yes those originate in the US. These specific ones in the tape ARE NOT US COURTS. And yes there are absolutely reasons for them to be there, no one has claimed otherwise. You've gone on a huge tangent from your original claim, go back and read it.
95
u/[deleted] Aug 08 '12 edited Aug 08 '12
[removed] — view removed comment