Rise of the Warrior Cop: How America's Police Forces Became Militarized 835
FuzzNugget writes "An awakening piece in the Wall Street Journal paints a grim picture of how America's police departments went from community officers walking the beat to full-on, militarized SWAT operations breaking down the doors of non-violent offenders. From the article: 'In the 1970s, there were just a few hundred [raids] a year; by the early 1980s, there were some 3,000 a year. In 2005, there were approximately 50,000 raids.' It goes on to detail examples of aggressive, SWAT-style raids on non-violent offenders and how many have ended in unnecessary deaths. Last year, after a Utah man's home was raided for having 16 small marijuana plants, nearly 300 bullets in total were fired (most of them by the police) in the ensuing gunfight, the homeowner believing he was a victim of a home invasion by criminals. The U.S. military veteran later hanged himself in his jail cell while the prosecution sought the death sentence for the murder of one officer he believed to be an criminal assailant. In 2006, a man in Virginia was shot and killed after an undercover detective overheard the man discussing bets on college football games with buddies in a bar. The 38-year-old optometrist had no criminal record and no history of violence. The reports range from incredulous to outrageous; from the raid on the Gibson guitar factory for violation of conservational law, to the infiltration of a bar where underage youth were believed to be drinking, to the Tibetan monks who were apprehended by police in full SWAT gear for overstaying their visas on a peace mission. Then there's the one about the woman who was subject to a raid for failing to pay her student loan bills. It's a small wonder why few respect police anymore. SWAT-style raids aren't just for defense against similarly-armed criminals anymore; it's now a standard ops intimidation tactic. How much bloodshed will it take for America to realize such a disproportionate response is unwarranted and disastrous?"
And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
A place and time for anarchy? (Score:5, Insightful)
...until the degree of brutality reaches to levels that everyone can see.
Which takes us back to the final sentence of TFS:
How much bloodshed will it take for America to realize such a disproportionate response is unwarranted and disastrous?"
Trouble is, what everybody can see and what can be done about it are two different things. If you have a State that is content to say FUCK YOU, then, well, you're fucked. It really doesn't make any difference whether or not you protest, the behaviour will remain the same. There are only two things you can do about such treatment, and one of those (most likely) will make you a criminal as far as the law is concerned. The other, of course, is to do nothing. Good luck with that.
There is no point in placing asinine hope in democratic processes: we have been shown (time and again) that where these exist (!), they will be subverted by those who do not have your best interests at heart.
Re:A place and time for anarchy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The media have a role to play in this, as well. By not informing people that these kinds of abuses are happening, it prevents us from knowing just how bad the situation is becoming. If these things stay at the local level of reporting, or aren't even reported because the local media don't have the budget or the concern, nothing will improve. This is why Balko's reporting efforts are vital, and more people need to be involved in reporting these abuses.
Re:A place and time for anarchy? (Score:5, Interesting)
The media don't have a concern to call out police overreach because frankly, they rely on police for 90% of their reporting. If you don't have a source to start the story, you're out. If you don't have a source to confirm the story, you're out. And if you question what the police tell you, you don't have a source anymore.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/09/misconduct-is-only-news-when-journalists-say-it-is/ [popehat.com]
http://www.popehat.com/2012/03/21/chelsea-kay-of-krcr-tv-supports-shooting-being-a-lapdog/ [popehat.com]
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/12/a-brief-story-illustrating-my-view-of-law-enforcement-and-the-media-that-covers-it/ [popehat.com]
Re:A place and time for anarchy? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know how well this represents the larger population as most of the people I was talking to were both immigrants and females. I live in a pretty diverse area and I've found that immigrants in general seem to have a huge problem understanding the concept of freedom.
The Blue Wall (Score:5, Interesting)
When my 11 year old son was handcuffed in middle school for being autistic while following the IEP, the school was held accountable and we were made whole with respect to their actions. Our lawyer, however, told us not to pursue the officer. She was concerned that our son would be charged with assault and resisting arrest if we went to the prosecutor. She also told us about the "Blue Wall" that protects officers involved in even the most egregious misconduct.
Our son was covered in bruises, especially around the neck. The security camera footage from two angles clearly demonstrated the brutality of the officer applying positional asphyxiation and twisting his arm around far enough to see his opposite wrist visible from the other side of his back.
I arrived after 45 minutes and the cuffs were immediately removed. We left the school 15 minutes later after my son calmed down enough to travel.
The same officer had also arrested another student at school for running away from home the following day. The department refused all FOIA requests, and stonewalled at every turn. So we gave up and withdrew our son from their school for his safety. This same child is now an honor student at another district and has completed advanced placement classes several grades ahead of schedule.
Re:The Blue Wall (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes me sick of a justice system where a 11'yr child could be charged with a crime for something like this.... Does not matter if he was autistic or not, but autistic kids might even flip out a bit more if someone grabs them (not sure if that's the same for everyone?)....
Any police should be able to handle a 11'yr old kid verbally, and worst case taking a hold of his arms and then getting a kick or two from a kid is not really that bad.. If someone work as a police-officer they should at least be able to handle a few bruises when handling kids..
Kids are kids.. They flip out from time to time and it's normal..... The strange thing seems to be that the police that are sent to schools don't get any proper training on how to handle kids..... And working in a place where you have autistic (and other things too?) should require quite a bit more of education...
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to militarize, you must accept the code of honor that goes with it.
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the lawmakers actually told the police to kill anyone found betting in a bar. The basis of law is that one group makes the laws, one group brings suspected law-breakers to court, and another independent group figures out if these suspects are guilty and if so what the punishment should be.
What the US has is one group making the laws, one group killing and beating anyone they don't like the look of, and a court system with insanely long punishments for all classes of crime and a pro-police bias.
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
people stopped caring about other people some time ago.
No they didn't. There was never a magical golden age where everyone was generous, charitable, and concerned about the welfare of strangers. Our institutions have changed. Human nature has not.
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember a time when people where not so mistrusting of everyone..
What has changed is not "trust", but your naivete. Did you know that back before I turned 13, people didn't have sex?
Just looking back 15-20 years i remember things like..
You remember wrong. In the last 20 years, crime rates have fallen dramatically. Volunteerism is up. In almost every way our society has become both more trusting and more trustworthy. You are looking at the past with a rose tinted rear view mirror.
"Shock and awe" force implies scaredy-cat police (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the "shock and awe" SWAT tactics just reveal an underlying fear in the police that they could deal with the situation any other way. I guess this is what you get if you have a society where everyone may have a gun and be willing to use it on unwanted visitors, so the default setting of society is excessive violence. Reminds me of that South Park animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDCh4-pKrrE [youtube.com] -- America was built on scared people (running away from Europe on the Mayflower -- don't blame me, South Park folks said it), and has continued in that great scared tradition (excessive military, excessive foreign intervention, excessive fear of others in society, excessive use of guns, etc, etc). Probably better to rewind 400+ years and try again.
Re:"Shock and awe" force implies scaredy-cat polic (Score:4, Informative)
That animation is from Bowling for Columbine, not South Park.
Re:"Shock and awe" force implies scaredy-cat polic (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, no. America was imperialistic long before the Pearl Harbor attack. Go read about the invasion of the Phillipines, the Spanish-American war, and the Banana Wars. Don't forget the Barbary Wars. America has been big into foreign intervention since the early 1800s.
Re:"Shock and awe" force implies scaredy-cat polic (Score:5, Insightful)
So helping a country declare independence is imperialistic?
If you setup a puppet state then yes.
Besides the US has invaded plenty of countries.
Re:"Shock and awe" force implies scaredy-cat polic (Score:4)
Indeed. In fact, one might say it has been the norm throughout recorded times. No matter what civilization you're talking about.
Completely And Utterly Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
This statement is so ignorant of American history that I have to start from its beginning.
First of all, the United States is a land of conquered nations and foreign intervention. There were only 13 states in the beginning. We committed genocide to conquer the midwest and the west, invaded Mexico and took their land (where do you think the name for New Mexico came from?) and we have been invading neighbors consistently and for the sole purpose of directing their internal affairs since the 1820s. The only thing that stopped our numerous invasions of foreign lands was the Civil War.
Here is a list:
1915 invasion of Haiti by the United States
1900 invasion of China by the Eight-Nation Alliance (including the United States)
1898 invasion of the Philippines by the United States
1898 invasion of Puerto Rico by the United States
1898 invasion of Spanish Cuba by the United States
1893 invasion of Hawaii by the United States
1846 invasion of Mexico by United States
1813 invasion of Canada by United States
1812 invasions of Canada by United States
1805 invasion of Tripoli by United States and mercenaries
Those are just the "official" wars. There is much more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations [wikipedia.org]
Please read just a bit on the topic before you make misleading comments like this. America learned everything from it's ancestor, Great Britain. We've been invading, conquering, taking, and killing since our inception. This whole ridiculous and infantile notion of America's Exceptionalism, even in our imagined good old days, is pure bullshit. The real difference back in those days was whether the United States should stop at our "natural" borders, which included all of North America, the Caribbean (including Cuba), and Hawaii, or if our "manifest destiny" was to continue marching west until we conquered the entire world.
I know it's difficult to see from inside of the news you're exposed to, but the truth remains: we are the empire.
For the past 12 months I have had the great honor to lead over 328,000 service members and 38,000 civilian employees along with all of their families. Our area of responsibility is diverse and complex. Stretching from California to India, the Indo-Asia-Pacific encompasses over half of the Earth's surface and well over half of its population.
This region is culturally, socially, economically, and geo-politically diverse. The nations of the Indo-Asia-Pacific include: five of our nation's seven treaty allies; three of the largest and seven of the ten smallest economies; the most populous nations in the world, including the largest Muslim-majority nation; the largest democracy; and the world's smallest republic.
The Indo-Asia-Pacific is the engine that drives the global economy. The "open and accessible" sea lanes throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific annually enjoy over 8 trillion dollars in bilateral trade with one-third of the world's bulk cargo and two-thirds of its oil shipments sailing to or from nine of the world's ten largest economic ports.
By any meaningful measure, the Indo-Asia-Pacific is also the world's most militarized region with seven of the ten largest standing militaries, the world's largest and most sophisticated navies, and five of the world's declared nuclear armed nations.
When taken together all of these aspects represent a region with a unique strategic complexity and a wide, diverse group of challenges that can significantly stress the security environment.
Effectively engaging in the Indo-Asia-Pacific requires a committed and sustained effort, and USPACOM, as the military component of this commitment, is clearly focused in our efforts to deter aggression, assure our allies and partners, and to prevent should our national interests be threatened. [pacom.mil]
Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III
Commander
U.S. Pacific Command
House Armed Services Committee, 05 March 2013
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:4, Interesting)
From my perspective, we could be at the point where a straw could break the camel's back, where one viral video of a "legal" home invasion and manslaughter could start the process.
I'm not saying I think that's about to happen. In fact, I really doubt it. Just you state it like a certainty. People are rarely good at predicting when revolutions are going to happen or are not going to happen.
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:4, Informative)
I'll play devils advocate for a moment. In part, the cops have attained these capabilities because of the increased capabilities of organized crime and street-level criminals. Something of an arms race going on.
Add to that the fact that the military conglomerates were looking for a way to expand their markets. Police agencies are the perfect answer.
Done with the advocate thing.
Not only are the cops armed like small armies, they act without regard for law. Here is an egregious example. A court's marshal in Clark County, NV, sexually assaults a woman in family court and then arrests her when she tried to confront him about it, IN FRONT OF A JUDGE. Who then proceeds to act as if nothing happened. [copblock.org]
Given the impunity with which these people behave, and the firepower they are enhanced with, people should start to question how the police are a benefit to society.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your subject line and message content say opposite things. Hey, you'll be right either way! I see what you did there.
you might want to consider reading things before posting.
"And it's only going to get worse" = going to get worse
"And it's only going to get worse, Before things improve" = going to get worse
"Before things improve, they will get worse." = going to get worse
no matter how you read it the subject and body agree.
IRS Too? (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Brit, the stuff I read about the cops in the USA freaks me out, maybe because of the relative lack-of-guns here.
I read articles saying even your tax collectors are doing armed raids on houses, is this right? It seems like something from a Terry Gilliam film, nightmare-ish.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Interesting)
On TV, you watch the U.S. 'Cops' and you see violence all over from the cops.... ... you watch the Canadian show 'To Serve & Protect' and the cops are all,
"You've been driving drunk, eh!... I'll give you a warning this time. Did you want us to drive you home or can we call you a Taxi."
A much different look at police tactics (or TV show tactics?)
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Watching COPS, and Australian/NZ similar shows the differences are stark. The default on COPS seems to be if some mildly drunk person gives some backchat, they get crash tackled, two cops twice their size pound them into the ground screaming "STOP RESISTING" despite the person appearing to be more dazed and confused if anything. In the time I watched it there were plenty of cases where tasers were deployed to obtain conformance to the officers requests, rather than as a defensive measure, in a few instances directly used as a threat against someone for nothing more than talking out of turn. Maybe its just the producers showing the more "exciting" footage, but so many times what they show I would consider the cop assaulting the "perp" for not bowing to his demands rather than being an actual threat.
On the NZ shows they are almost placid - look up "always blow on the pie" to see what I mean. I am sure they have their rough and tumble, but the sort of assault and direct threats you see on COPS is not present, and even when they go against someone drunk and agro they try and talk their way down and only deploy capsicum spray or tasers as a last defence. The Australian cop shows are too heavy edited to show some of a heaviness the cops use here - I have do doubt they have certain groups they don't mind putting the boot into, but most of the confrontations you see on COPS would be resolved differently on the Aussie cop shows in similar situations.
I think shows like COPS though are the sort of thing that attract the wrong people to policing. The sort that like the power trip and the odd chance to rough someone up under the cover of a badge, rather than actually engaging and protecting the community. That said, there are those in the community I don't mind having those sorts of cops available for.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Informative)
Taking 3 steps back = Resisting arrest.
So the officers deliberately get too close, natural reaction it to preserve personal space and step back. Three small steps and now you are resisting arrest.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
On TV, you watch the U.S. 'Cops' and you see violence all over from the cops.... ... you watch the Canadian show 'To Serve & Protect' and the cops are all,
"You've been driving drunk, eh!... I'll give you a warning this time. Did you want us to drive you home or can we call you a Taxi."
A much different look at police tactics (or TV show tactics?)
Cops was created to desensitize the American Public to police brutality. That is the only reason the show was created and still going 20+ years, even though the show has always sucked.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that individual is also known to be stockpiling arms, as happens in the US from time to time, then I can see how an armed raid is justifiable.
Or they could, you know, just grab him when he leaves the house to go to work, or to the grocery store. Yeah, it'll cost a little overtime since he'll have to be watched for a couple of days, but that'll be a lot cheaper than the department invests in equipping and training the SWAT team -- and one hell of a lot safer.
It doesn't offer the police officers the same rush, though, which is why they'll argue they really need to gear up and break down his door.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well put. An armed raid is the best way to escalate violence and increase the chances of someone getting killed. Why the police agitate for that escapes me. Actually, it doesn't: the police want to create the conditions in which they can kill people with impunity. Murdering a suspect after he's in custody is a crime. Killing him in his home because you "thought he was reaching for a gun" is just a mistake. :-/
For the IRS specfically, I was thinking of groups like the self-styled "sovereign citizens" [adl.org], who have basically the same attitude about wanting to create opportunities to kill police officers. Serving an arrest warrant on a member of a group like that is a situation in which I consider an armed raid to be justifiable.
Re: Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IRS Too? (Score:4, Funny)
The IRS needs them when they go after accountants. An accountant cornered with his MS software and a sharp pencil is a vicious beast.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:4, Informative)
As an american I watched in disgust as the brits did nothing for 25 minutes as one man hacked up another in the middle of the street while being recorded. In the end special police units with guns had to be called and they still used the same amount of overkill american police use.
Which is scarier?
The American system by far. Did you notice the asshole didn't have a gun? And did you notice that the police didn't shoot any innocents? Compare and contrast this situation with the Christopher Dorner killings. During that fiasco, the LAPD tried to extrajudicially execute an elderly lady and her daughter (100 shots fired) for simply having a similar car to Dorner near where he lived.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Informative)
During that fiasco, the LAPD tried to extrajudicially execute an elderly lady and her daughter (100 shots fired) for simply having a similar car to Dorner near where he lived.
The shooting of newspaper delivery women happened not where Dorner lived, but where some police boss lived. The shooting was done by his protection team.
There is a very small chance that those ladies could know the location of Dorner's house; but there is exactly zero chance that they could possibly know where protected persons live. Therefore they couldn't just avoid the area. Besides, it was their duty to deliver newspapers to those addresses. The police acted as Elite Guards of some paranoid dictator.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
You sounds like a bit of a fool to be honest. Your line of reasoning is something along the lines of:
Someone from a country where something bad is happened is criticizing my country so I must attack him and defend my own country!
That is idiotic and people like you are the reason SWAT teams run rampant. People like you are looking for any excuse to declare that your country as better than anywhere else and further use that as an excuse to feel that everything is OK.
It isn't. Actually try to observe things as they are and compare them to your own moral standards.
Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Full disk encryption. & Call my attorney.
Do not talk to police without an attorney.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Three words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Full disk encryption. & Call my attorney.
Do not talk to police without an attorney.
Last year, after a Utah man's home was raided for having 16 small marijuana plants, nearly 300 bullets in total were fired (most of them by the police) in the ensuing gunfight, the homeowner believing he was a victim of a home invasion by criminals.
I don't think either of those would have saved this man.
Re:Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's good advice, but it's nowhere near a solution to the problem. Some of these people didn't live long enough to meet with an attorney.
Then there's the case of Daniel Chong [wikipedia.org].
Pfft. If you have done nothing wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
...you have nothing to fear, right?
At least that is what the early proponents for increased surveillance and by extension armament of the police forces kept saying.
It is the lawmakers and the police that keeps escalating trivial issues to full out combat.
They did it during the occupy demonstrations as well. Kept battering peaceful demonstrations wearing riot gear, then go nuclear when someone had the audacity to tell them to stop.
It is a disgrace.
Re:Pfft. If you have done nothing wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullies like being bullies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are supposed to be Checks and Balances but they have pretty much failed - police and prosecutors tend to work hand-in-hand in any country.
It could be worse [guardian.co.uk] though, much worse [guardian.co.uk].
Re:Bullies like being bullies (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also the insanity of "sovereign immunity" or "prosecutorial immunity" here, where basically the police and district attorneys can do nothing wrong, if it's in the execution of their duties. So, the police can break into a house (with no warrant), "accidentally" kill all the pets, attack the residents, "accidentally" shoot the owner, and when they find out it's the wrong address, basically get away without even apologizing or making restitution.
Re:Bullies like being bullies (Score:5, Interesting)
I got stopped for not pulling over when they flashed lights, which I couldn't see because my mirrors and back window were fogged (no working defrost, sadly) and I was driving under traffic lights and streetlights, which meant my whole back window was flashing anyway. I got two guns pointed at my face and I got to sit on the curb for an hour in the cold with no shoes on (hey, it's legal in Santa Cruz to drive without them) while they rummaged through it and found nothing whatsoever. This was nearly twenty years ago now. And they had pulled me over for nothing whatsoever. I hadn't sped, run lights, et cetera. They just didn't like the look of my '83 Citation on the road at 2AM. Neither did I, but it's no justification for a traffic stop.
I don't even have to imagine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, no they weren't. See it wasn't asymmetric power in those days. Anyone could carry the same gun(s) and keep the power balanced between authority and citizenry. Today, not so much.
'Merica (Score:5, Funny)
Violent crime rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Violent crime in the US is occurring at the lowest rate in my lifetime and still declining rapidly. There are some, I'm sure, who would say that SWAT teams are a contributing factor to that. I'm skeptical of that claim. I would argue instead that declining violent crime rates make SWAT teams irrelevant. The wasted money alone is reason enough to quit using them; the number of extra-judicial "accidental" killings is a stronger reason.
I've lived in the Boston metro area for over 15 years, and the only incident I've seen or heard about that justified use of a SWAT team was the apprehension of the marathon bombing suspects. Frankly, something that we need that rarely, we would be better off without. Let the governor call out the National Guard when the threat to public safety is enough to justify military force.
Re:Violent crime rates (Score:5, Informative)
In comparison of SWAT teams busting friendly poker games this may sound a little bit irrelevant. But that dog incident a couple of weeks back illustrates perfectly why the cops don't feel like a civilian organization anymore.
The cops were busting somebody. A guy came along and proceeded to film him with his cell phone. Things escalated and he got cuffed. Here two things had already gone wrong.
The cops reacted to being filmed. Why? What's wrong with that? Aren't they accountable for what they do? Then they cuffed him. Which comes way WAY too easy for them nowadays. Cuffing somebody is a major thing to do and should come as a last resort. Repeatedly saying no to the request to stop filming does NOT warrant detaining somebody.
The guy had a dog with him. Who got excited by the cops handling his owner. The guy was asked to lock his dog in his car, which he did. The cops continued their cop thing. The dog got even more excited and broke out of the car. Cops shot the dog. Dying dog all over Youtube.
Here's my thing. If you point a gun at me and mine then I will not treat you as an officer of the law. I will treat you as a threat. I will treat your uniform as very elaborate gang colors. And I would imagine I am not the only one who feels that way. And that's why I totally buy into the stories where cops got wasted in a SWAT style home invasion for being mistaken as violent gangsters.
Serve and protect it once was. Now with all this "Getting tuff on jaywalking" they are just plain bullies. Trust is at an all time low and we always suspect some CYA coverups happening. And while we are at it, have them wear name plates. And for fucks sake ban those ridiculus mirror shades. They hide behind them and I'm always tempted to check my hairdo in them.
These raids are to prepare us for the future ones. (Score:5, Informative)
These raids being discussed above are to get the populace to accept them as normal, and to eventually get immediate compliance and prostration on "routine" raids in the future. Then disarming people, or shooting them, "for their own good" so that "misunderstandings" don't happen in "routine" raids in the future. These early raids will weed out those who will resist, as they ramp up eventually they'll get everyone who would resist.
People think there are sheep and wolves. Truth is there are sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. The job of the wolf is to get the sheep to fear the sheep dog - and it's working. The sheep dog is the biggest threat to the wolf, and the wolves are systematically weeding them out.
A near miss [heraldtribune.com].
Nowhere near a miss. [wikipedia.org]
My thoughts [google.com] on that one.
In WA State: Man shot 16 times (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In WA State: Man shot 16 times (Score:4, Informative)
In Auburn, WA a corrections officer was seeking another person. [komonews.com] The DOC officer and King County police shot an unarmed man (Theoharis), the officers later claiming say they thought he (Theoharis) was reaching for a gun, though no weapons were found in the room.The independent review also found evidence the sheriff's office was more interested in advocating for its officers than uncovering the facts behind the shooting.
I've lived in WA all my life and stories like this aren't new. When I was in high school, the police got the wrong address, bust the door of a "suspected" drug dealer, killed the guy on the couch because he was holding up a remote control. They find out wrong address. Justified shooting. Another time after a "all clear" call, a police, still speeding to the scene, hits a car and kills the person inside. Policeman wasn't hurt and didn't get in trouble.
Cops generally get away with a lot here. Only 1 time did a hear about a cop getting in trouble, and that was because he was shaking down junkies and dealers. Probably didn't cut his fellow cops in, i don't know, but he got in trouble and off the force for it.
Another notable example (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheye Calvo, then mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD: His crime was bringing a package inside his home. It turned out that this was a package of pot that the police had been tracking and put on his porch, and as soon as the package was inside the SWAT team stormed his house, shooting his dogs, nearly shooting his mother-in-law (cue jokes), no knocking or announcing. It turned out that the only reason that the package had been addressed to his home was that some drug dealer had gotten his wife's name and address at random, and then have the local UPS delivery guy just take the packages to whoever was really supposed to get them. There was also an obvious entrapment issue, as Calvo would never have seen the package without the police putting it there.
Nowadays Calvo spends most of his time traveling the country giving talks about out of control SWAT teams. He also points out that there are lots of people who this happens to that nobody paid attention to because they were poor and/or not-white, rather than relatively well-to-do, white, and the local mayor.
The US has been at war for over 60 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The US has been at war for over 60 (Score:4, Interesting)
Violence in the US isn't "prevalent", it's "publicised".
Most of the US is quite cozy, with violent crime being largely confined to areas where toxic people prey on each other.
Much crime is VERY geographically restricted. For example I live in a county with an impressive number of assaults and propertly crimes, but I don't live in the "bad part" of that county. I've never had a problem in thirty years.
It's also an area where anyone burgling a home would expect to be shot, so crooks only hunt familiar territory. We pay the police to make sure their operational radius is short, so to speak. "If you don't belong there, stay the fuck out because it's not yours."
This is where Police States are formed. (Score:5, Insightful)
The police are increasingly regarded with fear and distrust, which insulates them from the community they work in, which makes their behaviour in turn more aggressive and antagonistic. This widens the gap to the point where the police are not a part of a community, but something that oppresses it.
History has proven that a lot of people are happy to mistreat or kill or torture others, assuming they see the other as an "enemy".
The Warrior Cop seems to me to be not just a result of militarisation, but politicalisation. Cops are told again and again they are fighting wars against drugs, or terrorism, or crime, and unsurprisingly they turn into a war making institution. Not only that, but an institution that sees everyone as an enemy.
This seems to me a result of consistently electing lawmakers who are too fucking stupid for words.
Re:This is where Police States are formed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Mostly because a large number of cops act like complete assholes.
Officers should be forced to be courteous and professional at all times. They speed off duty? Instantly fired. The problem is that most cops act like they are above the law and treat EVERYONE as a threat.
Reduce the number of assholes in uniform, and you will reduce or reverse the decline of the public image of the police.
If there was any doubt how over the top this is (Score:5, Insightful)
Police SWAT (Score:3, Interesting)
Being a cop can be boring (Score:5, Insightful)
So then comes along SWAT. With the occasional columbine the cops are able to convince the local politicians that they don't want to be caught with their pants down. Internally they wont meet much resistance because who doesn't want to play soldier and act all tough. You get to do cool training (pit maneuvers, kicking down doors, and lots of shooting). Basically action hero stuff; who didn't become a cop without at least a small hero fantasy in the back of their brain.
But then the last factor is that most police departments are by nature separate from the politicians. This is sort of a requirement otherwise politicians could too easily interfere with investigations "I can vouch for him personally, he would never do anything like that, I think you should drop it, Now." Plus the police need to be able to distribute their resources as they see fit. Again the politicians would distribute the policing according to political needs which would generally be very different than distributing the resources for crime prevention.
But the real question becomes one of authoritarianism vs libertarianism. This is the true divide in North America, not left wing and right wing. There are those who believe that we should be exposed to no risk and aim to impose some kind of perfect Disney society. They believe that with enough rules that this society can be achieve. The war on terror and the war on drugs are perfect examples of this. Yet the simple measure of the impossibility of this would be maximum security prisons these places are full of drugs and violence. If near 100% removal of liberty and relentless monitoring can not work in these facilities, what hope is there outside in "free" society? Bizarrely the various police agencies are slowly turning "free" society into those very failed prisons.
This sort of behavior often has many unintended consequences. This us against them mentality might first pervade the police but it then pervades the public. You end up with a public who stop cooperating with the police as a rule thinking that any cooperation will be used against them. This significantly reduces the usefulness of the police while reinforcing their mentality of us against them.
But then this feedback loop seems to get worse. The authoritarianism begins to spread to the legal system where you get angry prosecutors and hanging judges trying to prove that the system still works. The politicians are then harangued to make the penalties stiffer and stiffer as toleration of any libertarian policies would be to admit failure.
But luckily fantasy can only hold out so long against reality and as we are seeing a few jurisdictions have effectively eliminated their marijuana penalties. The world did not come to an end. Money is being save and lives aren't being ruined. But the authoritarian types are still desperate to hit people with sticks. So they are now making DUI laws where you will test positive a week or more after smoking up. Also these involve taking a blood sample. A fairly invasive and nasty privilege to give to the police.
So my suggestion is to fight fire with fire. New fundamental laws need to be put into place that will severely punish any members of the legal system who violate people's rights. There should be a people's jury that can be called that can permanently remove from office any official who is accused of abusing rights (judges, police, prosecutors). Freedom of information laws should be massively strengthened to the point where when a FOI request is issued that the officials will place it at the top of their todo list with little recourse to say no. Information is truely the lever of power and by giving information back to the people the people will regain the power that is rightfully theirs.
Re:Being a cop can be boring (Score:5, Insightful)
The key problem with all this is that it can be cultural. In the US there is a culture of glorifying extreme success. While this can be argued to push people to achieve, only a tiny tiny minority will every be extremely successful. Yet since so many dream of being wildly successful they won't support measures that might hurt the successful, including those that would vastly improve their own lot. You have the working poor not supporting minimum wage all the while watching the owner of the business they work for buy another BMW for his kid going to a $50,000 per year collage.
The question is coming as to how all this is going to play out. It is easy to look at the NSA stuff and extrapolate out to the US being Nazi by 2019 but if you look at McCarthyism (which was pretty bad) it just ended overnight. One day there was a red under every bed and then poof the losers running the nuthouse were shut down. Communists were still a threat just not a threat worth destroying yourself over. The same may happen with the NSA.
As for left and right being different seeing that things like Guantanamo and PRISIM were created by Bush and not shut down by Obama I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two.
As for dealing with the militarization of the police it can quickly be dealt with. You make things like no-knock warrants almost impossible to get. You restrict the types of weapons that the police can possess. You cut off terrorism funding and tell them that things like that will be handled by the FBI. But most importantly you remove the investigation of the police from any body associated with law enforcement and you give them the ability to terminate police without any recourse of their unions. I saw this up close; when the police screw up they not only look bad but they make their political masters look bad. So solid investigations that solidly confirm that policeman X was bad and is now fired is confirmation that politico X isn't doing his job. Thus it is in their best interests that the investigations are "Internal" and "Confidential" (i.e. not embarrassing). This is why so few autopsies are performed after unusual deaths in hospitals; they are only going to expose screwups.
No consequences for the officers (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a question for the police chiefs around the country. When an officer conducting a raid "accidentally" shoots an unarmed person, why are there no consequences for that incident? It would seem to me, someone who will accidentally pull the trigger during a raid is exactly the kind of person who should not be trusted to participate in raids.
"a home invasion by criminals" (Score:3)
Well he was right. The US Constitution had to be amended to prohibit alcohol, as the Federal Government did not have that power. It was repealed. Nothing was added to the Constitution to give it the power to prohibit ditch weed, or anything else of the sort. The whole War on Drugs is illegal - at least if the Constitution is still in effect.
When people swear to defend it against enemies foreign and domestic, these are the domestic ones they're talking about. I'm saddened that this veteran saw death as his only way out.
Somebody in DC thinks we're better off now then we were before, when he had 16 plants in his house.
Cops on steroids (Score:4, Interesting)
The cops are taking steroids. There's no stigma against it like in pro sports, but just as much pressure to perform. You all know there are many performance enhancing drugs, not just steroids but even something as simple as ritalin or adderal. Cops have easy access, too.
I'd like to see random drug testing of cops, and drug testing of cops following these ridiculous events where they fire hundreds of rounds for no particular reason other than that all the other trigger-happy cops are firing. You can't substitute calm, rational peace-keeping with hyped-up cops over-compensating for their tiny guns.
We need to raise awareness of cops who are pulling a Lance Armstrong.
Map of botched raids (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised the (otherwise excellent) article neglected to include the Cato Institute's map of botched paramilitary police raids [cato.org].
This really is a serious problem. I teach home defense along with my concealed weapon permit classes, and the question always comes up "If someone is breaking into my house, how do I know if it's the police?" The answer, of course, is that you can't know, but if you guess wrong it could cost you your life. Good luck.
In my opinion, raids are simply too risky to be justified unless there's an imminent threat to an innocent's life. The reason for using aggressive entry tactics in the vast majority of cases is to prevent the destruction of evidence. That's simply not a good enough reason the kind of high-risk situation the aggressive tactics produce.
I think there are very rare circumstances in which SWAT really is appropriate, and we should scale SWAT capabilities appropriately. Perhaps each US state should have a single group of state troopers who form such an elite force, and are equipped with transportation that allows them to respond quickly anywhere in the state. A big, populous state like California may need two or three such units. But when every podunk PD has its own SWAT team, their mere existence is going to guaranteed that they get used for all sorts of other things. They're too expensive, and too cool (to the police), to just leave sitting around all the time.
The fox in charge of the hen house (Score:3)
NASA? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do SWAT teams wear black? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do SWAT teams wear black? It may seem like a small point, but when designing uniforms symbolism and psychological effect are certainly considered. When I see a black uniform the first thing I think of is Gestapo. I'm sure that I'm not the only one. What other uniforms are black?
Don't say it's for camouflage, as any solid color is bad camo. Even at night straight black is far from the best - that was known as least as far back as WWII. The standard, and immediately recognizable, color for (local) police uniforms in this country has always been dark blue. State police and sheriffs deputies may wear grey or khaki. Recognizability is useful - that's why certain brands of products have "trademark" colors. It says much that they want black associated with SWAT.
What do you expect from the WSJ? (Score:4, Funny)
What do you expect from the WSJ? They're a well known far left radical pacifist publication. It's not like this was in the mainstream media or anything.
Observer bias much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cops have been breaking down doors, shooting people and abusing their power ever since the dawn of civilization. I think there is something about the Sheriff of Nottingham written about that. "Fritz the Cat" came out in 1972 and cops were called "pigs" then.
Just because your adult life is more recent, or your selective memory prefers to discard negative events (as human memory does), does not mean things have changed much. They did not call it "SWAT" or "raid" then, but they did the same thing.
That's not to say any of that is a "good" thing. But the false nostalgia for the "good old days when a friendly cop stood on the corner smiling to children and waving a friendly nightstick" is just that, and it's dangerous if used as a pretext to "let's go back to those wonderful times". Those times sucked. Move forward, fix things today.
Don't slip like Egypt (Score:5, Interesting)
Definitely a problem (Score:5, Informative)
To preface this, I live in a fairly affluent area with extremely low crime. My town has no standing police force, just a satellite sheriffs office. Next town over has about the same demographics but has a 300+ member police force. A few years ago they trained a swat team and bought a very expensive 'urban assault vehicle'. I'm not sure for what, there is zero gang related activity, almost no drug stuff aside from the usual medical marijuana, and as far as I know no dangerous criminals have ever been brought in from the community.
Of course, this comes at the expense of things like schools, where we're jamming 30+ kids in a classroom and the teachers can barely do classroom management, let alone actually teach something.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, don't forget Poland!
On a related note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCzT4njsyH4 [youtube.com]
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
3.Well we can start with the 4th amendment if you like ;
Right to feel secure in your persons. Right against unreasonable searches and seizes.
But there is also the right to privacy.,
Re:Wake up (Score:4, Interesting)
Strawman, no one is claiming cops come to a house unarmed, but they dont need a swat team in 99% of the cases they use them.
"I find this whole subject silly in that we are making out police to be the evil" Some police are evil, no one is making them all to be evil, no one is even making out the vast majority of them to be evil. But some ARE evil.
"Where in the world do the police go around with no guns?" Define your statement a little better, no guns as in any cops dont carry? If that is the case then easy, last I checked UK has beat cops that cary sticks instead of guns. In any case you have us on a red herring. No one is claiming cops should not cary guns, but they should not have a team of 20, in full riot gear, with fully auto machine guns, knocking on the door to serve summons and warrents to non violent offenders.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why the "militarization of the police" is a problem. You're not a soldier, this isn't war, and you aren't an occupying force dealing with insurgents. If you think you are, and you treat all non-police as potential threats, you need to turn in your badge and gun and get psychological help.
Re: Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
You got shot for investigating what the founding fathers called "gardening". That's what's truly f***end up about your story.
Re: Wake up (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to be a pizza delivery guy in Niagara Falls, NY. I've delivered pizza to places with crack and guns on the table in the living room. Let me know when you've been standing in front of a cracked out gangbanger with hundreds in your pocket and nothing to defend yourself with but a 2 liter of diet coke. Yeah, that's what I thought.
Re: Wake up (Score:5, Funny)
Next time, carry a pack of Mentos with that Diet Coke and maybe you'll have a chance.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer to why police have become more militaristic is because criminals have become more murderous against cops.
More murderous as compared to when? Crime rates have been falling in this country for years.
They are tired of being shot at ... there is safety in numbers ... I'm a medically retired cop ... who was shot in the line of duty while investigating a massive marijuana grow ... I was alone.
It sounds like you're talking about the opposite extreme. No reasonable person is going to complain about sending several officers when there is a potentially dangerous situation. Personally I'd complain if they didn't. But there is an enormous difference between that and sending fully militarized SWAT teams in under situations that clearly don't warrant it.
I wonder if the SWAT teams don't make things more dangerous for the police, especially in the long run. If you know you may come up against a military assault team, it's tempting to arm yourself likewise. Unless perhaps you're wanted for murder or something, the dumbest thing you can do is shoot a cop. I know many criminals aren't the brightest of people, but if military assault teams weren't the norm even they might come to realize that. Hey Charlie, you may do some time for growing pot or jacking cars, but it's a lot less time than for shooting a cop.
Arms races go both ways, and I suspect that this militarization, in addition to making police lose the respect of the public, ultimately may make things more dangerous for the police.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
the local swat decided it would be a good idea to use an ambulance to go in and conduct a raid
For which the genius who approved that idea should have been fired without pension, if not summarily executed. Even in a war zone they don't send in soldiers under cover of a red cross.
Re: Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Most SWAT is used at 3am when the suspect ASLEEP.
It's about TERROR and the raid being punishment.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an occupational hazard, the sort that is greatly amplified by stupid management. In your case, it seems a bit idiotic to send one man, alone, to investigate a "massive" marijuana grow. As idiotic as sending a dozen officers wielding submachine guns to get an unarmed optometrist who used to bet $50 with his friends.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
I served in Iraq. I know what it feels like to be under threat of death daily. Instead of a crazy crack head every so often, I dealt with roadside bombs, mortars, and snipers. Daily.
I disagree with you in the utmost.
If you are too scared to do your job without violating peoples rights, then you should not be doing the job. In fact the whiny attitude that you have about wanting drones and more officers because then you would be "whole" Just proves that you were never fit for the job to start with.
Lets say that all police officers are 100% honest and honorable (HAH!) We then trust them with equipment that allows them to violate rights at will. (Drones, license plate camera with massive storage, etc) This is not a problem because of how honest they all are. What happens when those honest cops get replaced with dirty cops. We have given the dirty cops the ability to violate our own rights.
This is compounded because cops never rat each other out. It is one big circle jerk that falls back to the old canard that the dirty cops just wanted to make sure they went home every night.
If the police actually monitored themselves, and kept their own house clean I would not worry about them having powerful new technology. As long as "clean" cops protect dirty ones, I think poorly of all police officers, and do not trust them.
I will again reiterate. If you are too scared to do the job, then find a new profession. I do not want you to be scared after all.
Ohh and the pro weed argument. You will hear it. The ban on weed it an over reach of the state. What right does the state have to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body. In fact I feel that federal regulations on it are an inherently unconstitutional abuse of the commerce clause.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem(in addition to the effects on the public being 'protected and served') is that this sort of disproportionate force isn't even a positive development for officer safety.
Doing no-knock full SWAT raids probably improves safety against people who are willing to shoot police; but those people are relatively rare: shooting at cops is risky, and you have to be guilty of a lot before you won't notice the additional jail time. Against people who wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to shoot police, though, it's performing a very convincing violent home invasion(a situation where a great many more people would consider shooting to be a reasonable thing to do) for no good reason. Overwhelming force might usually mean that the resident loses; but you only have to get unlucky once.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Informative)
The answer to why police have become more militaristic is because criminals have become more murderous against cops.
Sorry, officer, but you're full of shit. 160 police officers died in 2010, a 37% increase from 2009. [csmonitor.com] Ten years earlier 150 died. That's out of [nleomf.org]794,300 cops. And remember, those are all deaths including squad car wrecks. [wikipedia.org]
To put that in better prospective, 774 construction workers died in the US in 2010. [bls.gov]
Being a cop is a hell of a lot safer than being a construction worker.
Here's a little hint, Officer Moore: you might want to google before making a fool of yourself.
Re:Don't think you can have it both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
If gun ownership in a society is as ubiquitous as in the United States then the police necessarily have to be at least as well armed and trained in military tactics.
which, in turn, stems from the stance of the government. The Second Amendment isn't about deer hunting or self-defense, per se, it's about being able to overthrow your government when you need to, as the guys who wrote it had just done.
This massive military government was never envisioned - the Army was only to be able to be stood up for two years at a time.
It's a failing of the highest order, and makes the People less safe. The answer to "does the Second Amendment allow people to own a nuclear weapon" is clearly, "if that's a problem then the government should get rid of its nuclear weapons."
A constant escalation by both sides cannot end well. Actually, just that we have 'two sides to the conflict' is damning evidence enough.
Re:Don't think you can have it both ways. (Score:4, Insightful)
If gun ownership in a society is as ubiquitous as in the United States then the police necessarily have to be at least as well armed and trained in military tactics.
Gun ownership is protected by law. And that is all the more reason that the police should behave in a calm and civil manner; they are creating the problem they fear by behaving like violent criminals themselves. "I have to to home at night" will never be an excuse for breaking into someone else's home and creating situations where people get murdered (and the murderers get off being put behind a desk, rather than behind bars).
If they get a warrant describing the specific place or persons to be searched, knock, and calmly identify themselves and their purpose before drawing arms (as they are expected to), they have nothing to fear from normal citizens.
As to the cases where there is genuine risk from armed criminals involved (which remains the case regardless of the legality of arms), well, quite frankly they were aware of that risk when they signed up. If they are not willing exercise more due diligence first or put their lives on the line to protect and serve, then they should find another line of work.
Re: Summary of TFS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That was the 1990s, which was coincidentally exactly the time that libertarians like Radley Balko got interested in police violence.
Re: Summary of TFS (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's probably news because white people are being raided now, whereas previously it was only scary black people like Fred Hampton who got murdered by militarized police."
Radley Balko here. I was 17 during Ruby Ridge. I was 18 during Waco.
So you're assertion that I only got interested in police issues after white people were raided is incorrect.
I got interested in this issue in the mid-2000s. You might Google the name "Cory Maye."
And you should really know what you're talking about before you imply racial motives to someone you don't know. Especially when there's very public information available to contradict you.
I have awaken from my near-decade-long Slashdot slumber to rebut the attempted race-baiting of Radley Balko.
Radley Balko is the type of person who calls out injustice, individual and institutional, regardless of who it impacts. And has done so for a long time.
Radley Balko is also the kind of person who has spent hundreds of hours of his personal time meeting with, writing about, agitating for the release of, and providing assistance to, wrongfully-accused defendants... most of whom, in my thirty seconds of scanning the 'net, are black.
"Google Corey May." Classic. Well done, sir.
Radley Balko is a goddamn American Hero.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As a devils advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:swat vs assault rifles (Score:4, Informative)
Notice how swat usage skyrockets within a decade of the US Army replacing the M14 with the M16, a true assault rifle.
The M-14 was a fully automatic weapon that fired a large 7.62x51mm cartridge. By comparison the M-16 is a pop gun firing a 5.56x45mm cartridge. They switched because the M-14 and its ammo are heavy. Many people who were around at the time objected because they felt the M-16 lacked firepower.
theoretical is 875-1000 rpm for the M16
Actually they slowed it down a little to 850rpm to reduce fouling, but either way with a 30 round magazine you can't fire for long at that rate. Modern versions are limited to 3 round bursts for just that reason.
BTW, in the 1920's civilians could freely buy fully automatic weapons like BAR's and Tommy guns, so your screed about the choice of weapons makes no sense. You should also note that the military has a different job than the police.
Re:swat vs assault rifles (Score:4)
Re:Summaries that advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument over who's at fault entirely misses the point. With a little planning the officers could have searched the house without mounting a paramilitary style assault with a SWAT team. They could, for example, have entered the man's house while he was at work. That would have been a safe, predictable, and effective way of obtaining the evidence they needed. Instead the police chose a dangerous and unpredictable alternative.
There's no reason to believe the cops didn't announce themselves, but the instant they *do*, the clock is ticking. If the suspect actually *is* armed and hostile every second waiting increases the danger to the officers on the raid. That puts them in an automatic escalation mode. There's no way for officers put in this situation to distinguish between the case where the occupants aren't responding because they'are asleep, as in this case, or because they are preparing to repel the assault with force.
Ultimately the responsibility for the officer's death lies with the commander who ordered an assault because it was his automatic way of dealing with drug searches. A little thought could have reduced the danger to which his officers were exposed, not to mention anyone who happened to be in the house. A SWAT team is a powerful tool, and like any such tool fools can get enamored of the power and use it where a little finesse would be simpler, safer and more effective.
Nobody deserved to die in this situation, but somebody deserved to lose his job.
Re:If you don't like this... (Score:4, Interesting)
If we do not like this, we could always repeal the second amendment and get the semi-automatic guns out of the general population. There would be less reason to carry out raids with such a show of force. Until then, we have the society which we have sown.
How did America's policy forces become militarized? The second amendment.
the people they're supposed to be raiding would still have guns.. and you didn't have this amount of raids back when full auto weapons were legal in USA... despite having prohibition gangsters going around at the same time.
but it's actually real simple. if you invest in a swat team you're going to use that swat team.. it's just good use of money... but if you use them as a swat team that doesn't announce it's presence when starting the raid(no door knocks and waiting and serving the warrant) for cases that would have been previously handed like normal warrant searches of course the amount of times things go fucked is going to grow. so cities which have swat teams are assigning them searches that shouldn't be handled by swat teams - and the swat teams handle of course every case as seriously as any other case because "that's just smart", even if the proper procedure for that case would be acting completely differently.
what's worse is of course the same clowns then moonlighting giving home defense courses on how you should shoot home invaders! WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
Re:fuck old people (Score:5, Insightful)
So you made up these points of view by older people in the world between your ears. Make sure your geriatric 40+ straw men get plenty of straw fiber. Meanwhile, in the real world, those of us over 40 are very concerned about our decline into a fascist police state.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)