Interesting commentary on the decline toward police state

[Jonnin]

talks about the over-use of swat teams and heavy handed police tactics

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html

[RobertNashville]

That's a good read and one I've shared on facebook.  The question is; what can we do about it?

 

I'm thinking that maybe the most useful approach is to, as a matter of legislation, get the state or our towns, counties, etc. to essentially make these kinds of raids illegal as a matter of law except for rare circumstances and even in those circumstances, with significant oversight to ensure that these 'SWAT" raids, no-knock warrants, etc are absolutely necessary.

 

Of course, that's not going to protect us from our imperial overlords like the IRS, DHS, DeptOfEd, DEA, BATFE, FBI, etc., etc.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good article. It addresses one way to get rid of the SWAT, but it is far from adequate. Getting rid of the Property

Seizure and Forfeiture laws, along with changing the laws on the so-called drug war, would go a little farther, and

then start nullifying a bunch of laws authorizing all these alphabet agencies in the federal government to have and

maintain SWAT's of their own. Our government is militarizing our police agencies too much.

 

The war on drugs led to this, along with the IRS and many other agencies usurping too much power over the

individual. A natural response from the citizenry is to arm themselves further, which should never be necessary.

 

We don't need new laws every day, but need to begin nullifying the Hell out of them.

 

We don't need a "Stazi".

Edited July 24, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[mikegideon]

From another perspective. A rebuttal article...

 

http://www.thebangswitch.com/militarization-or-modernization/

[RobertNashville]

From another perspective. A rebuttal article...
 
http://www.thebangswitch.com/militarization-or-modernization/

I read it...I think the author missed the real point of the issue. It's not what weapons or vehicles or uniforms that cops have, it's doing these raids at all. I think most people can understand and support SWAT style raids when you have an active shooter; barricaded individual; hostages, etc...but not for someone with a dozen pot plants or any other non-violent situation (or where no one's lives are in imminent danger) these raids trample on our rights for no good reason.

Edited July 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest nra37922]

I read it...I think the author missed the real point of the issue. It's not what weapons or vehicles or uniforms that cops have, it's doing these raids at all. I think most people can understand and support SWAT style raids when you have an active shooter; barricaded individual; hostages, etc...but not for someone with a dozen pot plants or any other non-violent situation (or where no one's live is in imminent danger) these raids trample on our rights for no good reason.

Agree.  But there will always be an excuse for abuse of power, even if its called a 'training exercise'.

[Guest Brutnus]

From another perspective. A rebuttal article...

 

http://www.thebangswitch.com/militarization-or-modernization/

 

That dude missed the point entirely.

[Jonnin]

Oh, we need a swat team with the gear and training, there is no doubt about it.    But they need to be treated the way we treat nukes --- threat of force that is seldom needed and seldom used.

[leroy]

I've been whatchin this one for some time.  I, like many of our brother and sister opiners here, am concerned at the "militarizing" idea.   Havin said that, i think the only solution is pressure on elected officials. 

 

I've believed for a long time that the city police force thing has been way out of hand in lots of juristictions (...not all...) due to the fact that police chiefs are appointed and not elected. There seems to be no greater "rush" for the would be dictators and sourlands politicos and the political class (...with the possible exception of spending and looting the citizen's money....) than to have a SWAT type group of "police" at your beck and call ALA Bloomberg and Menino (...Boston...) to give the "muscle" to do whatever the machine wants.   I think one of the main reasons you have the SWAT type operation abuses (...and over-uses...) in big cities is exactly because of this.  Look at the Boston thing as a great example.  The scenes from Boston look like somethin that i saw as a kid comming from the Communist Block.   It's un-American on it's face.

 

This militaristic policing concept is basically un-american on it's face... It points right back to the problem that i believe is endemic to the "big cities" (...and some other locations as well...); the problem of being a "serf" and a "subject" that bows to the political class, no matter the offense or incursion on the rights of the citizenry.  There are many in the political class and in the citizenry would have you go right back to the european fiefdom model to be "subjects" rather, than retaining the american model where you are a "citizen".  It's the battle (...as my 24 year old is fond of saying...) of the "New World and the "Old World"; nothin else.  

 

Many in the inner cities have no notion of what it means to be an American, to live in the "New World", and to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted here.  They seem to have no notion that there was a war over these very offenses that are now common.   I think this is an over-arching problem in the blue states and cities where machine politics runs everything.  But, for the most part, that seems to be what folks in those locations like...  I they like it, so be it.... Just dont bring it down here.

 

Sheriffs, by way of contrast, are elected, so they have to be in tune with the citizenry, so to speak.  I'll grant that there are abuses there, but there is a mechanism to handle the problem if it gets out of line.

 

RE:  The federal bureaucratic, alphabet SWAT thing (...FBI, INS, IRS, DEA, KGB, NSA, on and on....): Ive been waitin for one of the federal SWAT bunches to commit a heinous enough blunder (...they will, sooner or later, they always do...) to gin up support at the federal level to stop this foolishness.  This one will be a slam dunk when it goes up against the Bill of Rights (...i think...) due to the Fourth Amendment thing and the ability of congress to defund certain activities within the ABC organizations specifically.

 

As other have wisely opined, I think that the drug laws and the seisure laws are way out of hand everywhere; and i dont understand why some fortunate son hasnt made this a federal issue ALA the Fourth Amendment.

 

In sumary, i believe this one is simmering (...witness the WSJ article, in and of itself....) and may boil over if the right set of circumstances come up.  This one needs fixin, and it needs fixin bad. 

 

leroy

[mikegideon]

I read it...I think the author missed the real point of the issue. It's not what weapons or vehicles or uniforms that cops have, it's doing these raids at all. I think most people can understand and support SWAT style raids when you have an active shooter; barricaded individual; hostages, etc...but not for someone with a dozen pot plants or any other non-violent situation (or where no one's lives are in imminent danger) these raids trample on our rights for no good reason.

 

He did discuss the overuse of SWAT. I may have seen a different version. Anyway, he felt compelled to speak up. FWIW from somebody with boots on the ground.

[Guest rmse9]

This has been gaining energy far too long with all involved from republican , democrat, independent all agreeing with removing our rights and freedoms. It continues to grow like a cancer and will one day consume our entire country. Homeland security especially is being built as a gestapo type agency with little respect for our rights and freedoms. Could it be the lead agency that Obama promised before being elected of a private army as big as the US military? You see them involved in many local and state policing agencies and many times sporting their newly acquired armored vehicles.

Do they have legal precedent and authority to do that? We have allowed our country, rights and freedoms to be taken away from us. All of this in the name of safety and security. The terrorist have already won a large part of their battle against us because we are now prisoners with limited rights within our own country. God help us!

[JAB]

Basically, in a lot of cases (especially smaller cities with relatively low crime rates), I think what happens is that a LEA manages to get ahold of some cool 'toys'.  Naturally, they want to keep their toys and justify even better toys.  The only way to do that is to show a 'need' for those toys.  As a result, I think they create a 'need' for those toys where such a need does not and really never existed.  For instance, in the case of the article in the OP, four or five uniformed officers wearing standard body armor could have knocked on Mr. Stewart's front door and likely arrested him without incident.  He'd have had to pay a fine and maybe spend a month or so in jail and that would be it - no dead cops, no dead Mr. Stewart, no drama.  But that wouldn't have allowed the department an opportunity to use their 'toys' or the officers to act like they were 'high speed, low drag operators' or something.  Honestly, for the most part, I think 'Special Tactics' cops are pretty 'special', alright.  I view them with just about the same respect as I view the gun shop commando who straps his thigh holster onto his mail-order BDUs and worries about how to tactically enter the local convenient store to pick up his tactical loaf of bread and tactical jug of milk.  IOW, they are a joke.  Unfortunately, in this case, they are a dangerous joke. 

 

To me, they are part and parcel to the small-town cops who claim their jobs are 'high stress' and that they never know if they are going to be going home at the end of the day after working a shift where most of their day is spent taking a nap manning a speed trap on the edge of town.  In other words, a bunch of poser nonsense.

Edited July 24, 2013 by JAB

[Guest semiautots]

I think the answer to an over armed constabulatory is an over armed and regulated citizenry.  We desperately need a citizen militia to check the power of the state.  There are so many local, state, and federal laws, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, that a citizen has no way of knowing when a law has been broken.  It is unreasonable to subject one's self to such tyranny. 

 

It would only take a few thousand, dedicated freedom lovers to change the direction of this state.  A force that could be called upon to check the application of tyranny.  I certainly hope such an organization can evolve, before the State believes us to be it's biggest problem.

[DaveTN]

As a former Police Officer that has participated in high risk entries without having to dress up in tactical gear; I have always opposed this. The possibility of someone flushing some dope should never been a reason for putting people’s lives at risk.

 

High risk means just that. Unless someone’s life is in danger there is no reason to kick in a door in the middle of the night; especially when there is any chance you have the wrong house.

 

If you have to make entry it should be made by Officers in a standard Police uniform that people recognize.

 

What can you do? You can put this right at the feet on the only people responsible for it, and in every department that is one man or woman; the Chief or Sherriff.

 

We saw it happen with disastrous results right here in Lebanon a few years back; needless death of an innocent man because the Officers were not prepared or trained for what happened.

 

This reckless conduct puts the citizens and the Officers at a risk that cannot be justified in everyday use.

 

[Guest Bonedaddy]

The way I see it is, we're all sittin' here with our thumbs up our butts, enjoyin' the air conditionin', watchin' our fave TV programs way too damn much to actually do anything that needs to be done of any value and votin' will NOT get it done. Never has. Never will. Oh, they may make you happy, in any particular election year, on one of your fave subjects but they'll be sneakin' an (typo) NDAA in your back door when you ain't lookin'. What side they come from does not matter. They're all the same. Next thing you know, Monsanto will have it's own damn SWAT team, too. Maybe the Big Pharma, too. Hell, throw Walmart in there, also. Face meet palm.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Bonedaddy

[Randall53]

Well, It's the LEO's that's taking us there. It will only get worse as the older and more mature non militarized and power trip officers retire or move up to other jobs. I know there are decent LEO's out there, but we can all see the changes that are happening. Sadly, those same "young buck" LEO's don't even know what they are doing, or what kind of police state type of world they are leaving to their kids.

[JayC]

The federal departments are much easier to handle than the local SWAT teams...  Just remove law enforcement powers under state law for the federal agencies.  Then turn around and limit the ability of the state and local police officers in providing them support unless the 'raid' meets the requirements under state law.

 

TN state law is a major enabler in the problem with the federal police powers...  we remove that authority and stop providing them local help and they'll be a small enough problem to not have any real impact on the situation.

 

 

 

That's a good read and one I've shared on facebook.  The question is; what can we do about it?

 

I'm thinking that maybe the most useful approach is to, as a matter of legislation, get the state or our towns, counties, etc. to essentially make these kinds of raids illegal as a matter of law except for rare circumstances and even in those circumstances, with significant oversight to ensure that these 'SWAT" raids, no-knock warrants, etc are absolutely necessary.

 

Of course, that's not going to protect us from our imperial overlords like the IRS, DHS, DeptOfEd, DEA, BATFE, FBI, etc., etc.

 

[JayC]

I agree completely Dave, if the warrant is high enough risk, the SWAT team should be on site and ready to take over if the suspects start shooting or act in an openly hostile manner.  But to kick in doors in the middle of the night is just asking for trouble.  Sure, we might have a few more 'prohibition' cases not happen because some product gets flushed, but really how is a guy going to dispose of 16 pot plants while officers have the house surrounded in daylight knocking on his door?

 

Also, my understanding is one reason a lot of officers like nighttime raids, is overtime.  Don't forget to look for the money trail, and overtime for 'special duty' is a huge incentive to do these types of raids.

 

As a former Police Officer that has participated in high risk entries without having to dress up in tactical gear; I have always opposed this. The possibility of someone flushing some dope should never been a reason for putting people’s lives at risk.

 

High risk means just that. Unless someone’s life is in danger there is no reason to kick in a door in the middle of the night; especially when there is any chance you have the wrong house.

 

If you have to make entry it should be made by Officers in a standard Police uniform that people recognize.

 

What can you do? You can put this right at the feet on the only people responsible for it, and in every department that is one man or woman; the Chief or Sherriff.

 

We saw it happen with disastrous results right here in Lebanon a few years back; needless death of an innocent man because the Officers were not prepared or trained for what happened.

 

This reckless conduct puts the citizens and the Officers at a risk that cannot be justified in everyday use.

 

[TMF]

Also, my understanding is one reason a lot of officers like nighttime raids, is overtime. Don't forget to look for the money trail, and overtime for 'special duty' is a huge incentive to do these types of raids.

Night time raids are standard no matter the environment. I've done a whole lotta them in Iraq. I'd say less than 5% were done in daylight, and there was a reason for it; either mission dictated or time sensitive.

People sleep at night. It's the best time to get bad people. Less chance of early warning, less chance of collateral damage and less chance the bad guys are awake and ready for ya.

Of course, as things changed so did tactics. By the end of the war it wasn't the norm to go kicking in doors of very bad people, since they might have bombs strapped to them or booby trapped the points of entry. So we did the stuff the Popo used to do. Get on the bullhorn and tell everyone to get out. Once the occupants were out you let them know anyone left inside is getting killed. Too easy.

Why can't cops in the states do that? It would greatly reduce the chances of innocent casualties. They might destroy evidence? Well, if I was a cop I'd rather have them destroy evidence than risk shooting an innocent person because I got the wrong house.

I guess my problem with all this is not just the cases where SWAT gets the wrong house, it's the attitude afterward where the department acts as if the homeowner is either at fault, or they were justified in their actions because they were going after bad guys; mistakes me damned. The most recent being the Fed Marshal down in Sarasota who acted like he did some innocent woman a favor by not shooting her! What f***ing halfway decent cop has that attitude???

[JAB]

As a former Police Officer that has participated in high risk entries without having to dress up in tactical gear; I have always opposed this. The possibility of someone flushing some dope should never been a reason for putting people’s lives at risk.

 

High risk means just that. Unless someone’s life is in danger there is no reason to kick in a door in the middle of the night; especially when there is any chance you have the wrong house.

 

If you have to make entry it should be made by Officers in a standard Police uniform that people recognize.

 

What can you do? You can put this right at the feet on the only people responsible for it, and in every department that is one man or woman; the Chief or Sherriff.

 

We saw it happen with disastrous results right here in Lebanon a few years back; needless death of an innocent man because the Officers were not prepared or trained for what happened.

 

This reckless conduct puts the citizens and the Officers at a risk that cannot be justified in everyday use.

 

This is pretty much what I was getting at but you put it in better, more concise terms.  Thanks for that post.

[DaveTN]

 

 

Also, my understanding is one reason a lot of officers like nighttime raids, is overtime.  Don't forget to look for the money trail, and overtime for 'special duty' is a huge incentive to do these types of raids.

I worked at night; I wasn’t getting overtime. When we did a raid it wasn’t announced ahead of time to see if anyone wanted to do it, we pulled from the Officers we had working and did it. Street cops, no dressing out, no subdued uniforms, just the uniform and the gear we wore every night.

[three5seven]

I realize this is a late addition to the thread. I read this article a few weeks ago on the topic (link below). It advances the argument that today's military-style police would have been considered "standing armies" at the time of the American Revolution. Gives some statistics. Apparently, a certain federal agency has 56 SWAT teams alone.  

 

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how_did_americas_police_become_a_military_force_on_the_streets/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

[Chucktshoes]

I realize this is a late addition to the thread. I read this article a few weeks ago on the topic (link below). It advances the argument that today's military-style police would have been considered "standing armies" at the time of the American Revolution. Gives some statistics. Apparently, a certain federal agency has 56 SWAT teams alone.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how_did_americas_police_become_a_military_force_on_the_streets/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

It may have been a late addition, but it was a worthy one. Thank you for posting it.

[TNMTBik3r]

Somewhat related to this, article is about the build up of military equipment.http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-impact-little-restraint-military-giveaways

[Guest Bassman17SC]

Sorry for the slight thread drift, but my concern is not only of the militarization of the police forces, but the training received.

 

A lot of stories have been published lately about trigger-happy officers/deputies shooting first and asking questions later.

 

1. In the manhunt for the "rogue cop," LAPD officers riddled a truck that they thought said rogue cop was driving.  Turns out the occupants were a couple of ladies delivering newspapers.

2. A few weeks ago, a Fort Worth homeowner was shot and killed by the police on his property when they went to the wrong house while investigating a burglar alarm.  The two officers were rookies.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/robert-farago/wrong-house-raid-cops-kill-texas-homeowner/

 

3. Last week in FL, an unarmed man was shot (but not killed) on his property by deputies who fired 17 rounds at him.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/robert-farago/self-defense-tip-three-ways-not-to-get-shot-by-the-police/ 

 

This kind of crap has got to stop - now.

 

I don't know if the issue lies with no training, bad training, or what.  But too many mistakes by the police are putting too many citizens in harm's way lately.

 

Why does this concern me?  Because I home carry and I could be getting ready to go fishing at any time of the day or night.  What happens if I am putting around my garage at o'dark thirty getting my fishing gear together and some neighbor calls 911 about a prowler?

 

I would hope that the responding officer would get the correct address and use common sense before making a terrible mistake, like in the examples above.