Militarisation of law enforcement - Overkill in America's domestic wars on everything

Remove all ads!

Actually Ragusa it is a risk everyone takes in any country. There is always a possibility someone in law enforcement will make a mistake -- is it acceptable? No, but it happens and anyone who is realistic understands there is always a risk. You can't tell me it doesnt happen in Germany -- I have several coworkers who travel there regularly (and we have a manufacturing operation in Germany), the roadblocks are quite frightening even for an American.

 

Ragusa, it seems from your arguments that you're coming at this from a foreign perspective and not understanding the realities on the street. I don't know firm statistics, but I'd guess for every one innocent civilian killed in such raids, 10 SWAT members are killed in them. That's because most drug crimes in the US (and most of the Americas) are associated, directly or indirectly, very well equipped, very violent criminal organizations. Usually, we're not talking about a hippy couple with a pot of... pot, on their balcony. It's more like dealing directly with the cartels themselves (and it isn't uncommon that it is). I deleted it, but a friend sent me an email of the results of a drug raid in Mexico. There was enough cash to make a king sized bed (from the cash), with pillows, and enough guns and ammo to outfit an army, and not even a terribly small army. It's not uncommon for SWAT teams to be outgunned, but they have better armor and better training.

The only issue I see here is the information, and even there some mistakes are guaranteed. The only question is: how many are being made compared to those raids on accurate info? Oddly, that's one critical statistic I didn't see in that CATO report (though I admit I may have missed it). I only saw 'case studies' on those, which are useful for learning how something happens after you've determined it's frequency, but not for determining it's frequency in the first place. Coming from such a well-known and large organization, I found that surprising. Coming from one so firmly entrenched against government power, I sadly didn't.

 

I am not speaking of roadblocks. Actually, it's been years I found myself in one, so I vehemently challenge the notion that this is happening frequently.

I am referring to policies that lead to a militarisation of law enforcement, resulting in situations like when police with automatic weapons is being used on a routine basis for routine tasks like serving warrants, creating high stress situations in which there is a needless escalation. Precisely because SWAT teams are trained to overcome all resistance they will just do that when facing resistance, be it from a disoriented guy whose house they accidentally invade, or the real target.

A mentality that aims on overcoming resistance to enforce the law is essentially an adversarial one, and that is not a healthy attitude for a police force to have vis a vis their citizens.

There is a special in SWAT as in 'special tactics', to be used where normal tactics no longer work. When this special becomes the routine you do something wrong.

 

Ragusa, I think it's your definition of 'routine' that's wrong. Routine doesn't mean mild, or safe. Routine means regular. When you're regular drug-related search warrant is served on 6 young guys high on coke with firearms, two uniformed officers just isn't sufficient. It's still routine, though.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The cops probably endangered the life of the child more than the parents did. But they had some real dangerous citizens there, so start the guns blazing and why take chances? As for the "war on drugs," we've had this debate before on here, and I feel it's a complete farce and largely political.

Before anyone starts that crap about how cops walk on water for everyone, I lived with one for years and come from a family of them. Some of them are great, just fantastic in what they do; others are nothing more than the mafia with badges. But all cops can pretty much do what they want, regardless of the law. If you have a problem with that, they can generally fix you up, one way or another. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Here's another:

They did this on house with a 7-year old child in it? No one has to worry though, no cops were injured in the attack....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37209647/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

Yeah, that last one has made big news in the US recently. Numerous neighbors said people pointed out the toys in the front yard. The police response was to toss a flash grenade in the front window and, according to the attorney for the family, fire into the house immediately after!! Apparently, there's footage from one of those Cops shows that caught it all, too. The way I figure it, some officer deserves prison for this.

 

And you don't think this little tragedy is a result of the approach?

 

I don't think the approach is to blame. I think the idiot who decided to flash-bang a child and then shoot blindly into an occupied house is to blame. For the record, in the article I read, a judge said that, not only was using a flash-bang in a house with children unprecedented, using a flash-bang in any situation where there wasn't a clear and present danger to the officers was unprecedented. And shooting blindly into the house? Well, that's just plain stupid. Criminally stupid, if true.

My point is that individuals are responsable for individual actions. If you can show that the statistical likelyhood of this has substantially increased over the past 20 years, then I'll believe the 'militarisation of law enforcement' has contributed, but you haven't provided the relevant statistics yet.

 

You mean: The police had no choice but storm the house? They couldn't possibly have waited until he came out and snatch him there? Was assaulting the hause really the only possible solution? Or was it just the approach to the problem they were most used to, or the one that would produce results most quickly?

The point being: If your SOP is to storm houses, and that's what you train, you storm houses. If your SOP is to employ 'diversionary devices', you employ 'diversionary devices'. If you train subduing resistance with overwhelming force, you do just that in practice.

To a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Guy's in a house? Let's storm the house. Because it's SOP. That's rigid military style thinking. Enemy ahead? Let's call in artillery or an airstrike.

Just to get back to that point: Every civilian bystander killed is a big deal, not just if it is an obviously innocent child. Being harmed by police action is not a risk citizens have to accept in order to allow the cops to more easily enforce the law.

 

Exactly. Nor should citizens have to give up their protections and Constitutional rights.

That's a pretty offensive statement (and I don't think you mean to be offensive). As a dad, I don't want my kids or family to become "relevant" statistics for some random threshold that some individuals [or you] have decided must be met before a potential problem may be looked at. Are they waiting for a magic number of dead bodies of citizens and children to appear? And then say, "Oh, we have problem." Or is it more intelligent and worthwhile to prevent citizens from being injured or killed before it happens by critically scrutinizing events such as this?

 

Oh, I'll agree that it shouldn't be the only tool in the box, nor should militarized SWAT (was that the group involved in that one? I haven't heard) be serving generic arrest warrants (they were looking for a murder suspect). But the tool should be there.

The risk should be minimized, certainly, but it can't be entirely eliminated unless you don't give the police any weapons or authority at all. As long as you have any real police force, there will always be some risk that innocents will be harmed during enforcement. It is also a tragedy (though less so simply because they accept the risks) when a police officer is killed in the line of duty, and that risk should also be minimized. The problem is that minimizing one risk increases the other. At what point do you accept the balance? When one civilian dies for every 10 cops? Every 50? Every 100? You just can't eliminate it entirely. To date, you've only provided individual case studies, which only shows that it happens and how it happens, but not how often. Whenever an officer get's careless or makes a serious mistake, the officer should be held accountable, but that doesn't mean the entire principle of the SWAT program should be abandoned.

I realize this and I do understand, but I also understand that it's an emotional reaction to an emotionless statement (about an emotional topic). I agree that it's a tragedy every time it happens, but unfortunately life has tragedies in it.

To some degree, this is the same reaction as people have every time any tragedy happens. They become entirely risk-averse. Minimizing risk is great, but at a certain point you have to accept that if you want anything done, you have to accept a certain level of risk.

 

You think worrying for our kids and families is emotional? You just keep right on being offensive, don't you? It's bad enough that we have to worry about real criminals (we have to hover over our kids every minute). Now we have to worry about what cops might do to them as well? Wow.

 

To be fair, I don't think NOG is supporting those imbeclie cops for one second. What I am seeing here is that one case of some really dumb cops has been blown up to be some sort of an epedemic. What happened in this incident was horrible, and a real good, close look should be taken at both the individuals involved and the policies that are in place. But it's not offensive to point out that such cases are extremely rare and that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. I've got kids too, Chandos, and I care about them just as much as the next parent. But I wouldn't let that care for them make me want to hamstring the police based off incidents that are so statistically uncommon.

 

That's not what he said:

LKD - That's pretty damn lame. Having concern for the safety of one's family is not an "emotional reaction." His "understanding" is pretty limited if that what he thinks. We all realize that these incidents are pretty isolated. Nevertheless, these events may indicate that police are being more agressive, maybe even when they allow reality TV along for the ride, than they need to be in areas where there are families and kids.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

If this is what you mean, I still don't get it. Please explain this more closely. "Hamstring" them in what way?

 

The hamstring comment is about allowing the police to keep every possible tool in their arsenal when dealing with criminals who are violent and don't respect the laws for spit. Now Ragusa has pointed out that in his opinion, far too many cops are using their most violent tools far too often -- when that tool is not appropriate (to put it mildly). However, I am not sure if I believe that such horrific incidents reflect a pervasive problem in all police forces across the USA - -a problem that requires widespread, drastic changes that would make life for police forces more difficult and dangerous. I believe that in addressing screw-ups like the situation we've talked about here, we need to look at the facts of what happened, and why, and react appropriately. An inappropriately drastic reaction to this incident serves the interests of no one.

 

WTF? A cheerful soul you are. Are you indeed proposing a cost-benefit calculation for how many civilian bystanders police is allowed to kill in the line of duty in pursuit of law enforcement? The answer is zero. There is no balance or an acceptable exchange ratio cops vs. civvies.

Cops must not harm civilians, at all cost, they instead have to protect them at risk of their own life, meaning: If a cop dies to save a life that is sad but acceptable. If he kills a bystander it is not acceptable. Yes, cops are at a disadvantage there. Too bad, that's probably the price for not living in Soviet Russia. While that doesn't mean they ought to be sent to the lions naked, that doesn't mean they have a free hand to protect their hides. Risking their lives is part of their job.

Cops are public servants, sworn to protect the citizens. That is irreconcilable with them being allowed to harm innocents, even by accident. Yes, while it may happen at times, any policy that makes that more likely is utterly wrong headed.

Far worse than that: The apparent idea proposing that cops may kill a bystander and that that is acceptable for the greater good as long as it happens only occasionally (you know, acceptable exchange ratio) is equally wrong headed. That's pernicious authoritarian thinking. Civilians have individual constitutional rights, that means neither the rights nor the people themselves are at the disposal of the executive.

You are not listening: I don't want to abolish SWAT, I just question any policy that make routine use of them in standard situations (you may recall that Hammer and nail reference) ...

 

Ragusa beat me to it. Which is just as well....

Which "inappropriately drastic reaction" are you speaking of? I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

I used to believe that, but now I think they are just representatives of the state, to do the bidding for the state...maybe I'm being a bit too cynical.

 

Certainly there are cops who are total <snips> who do see themselves as agents of the state and not as servants of the public good. I would hazard I just think there are fewer of them than you do, Chandos. The drastic responses I am referring to is the abolition of SWAT, or other major disarmings of the police leaving them with . . . flowers* to fight heavily armed thugs.

You know, I'm gonna draw an analogy here, despite the time that some people here seem to be allergic to them. Thousands die on the highways of the nation due to drunk driving, speeding, etc etc etc. Even one death on the highways is too much, but what I fear is someone whose solution is something like "shut down the highways" -- I know that's not what you or Ragusa are arguing (as Ragusa made clear) but it is an extrememly emotional issue, one that can enrage people to the point that they might advocate a solution to the perceived problem that would be too severe (disarming the police, or overly harshly limiting their options)

I know there are differences between the highways and cops doing really <snipped> up things, but the idea remains the same to me. It is, of course, not acceptable for cops to be killing civilians while trying to enforce the laws. That's a no brainer. The real trick is that if something like this happpens, what do we do? What is the solution?

 

Can you show me where anyone suggested that?

I'm just speaking of the experience that most of us have with them. For instance, handing out tickets, crowd control, securtiy, that kind of thing.

It's not really emotional. It is quite reasonable. If you are around children, you use a bit of extra care. You try not to put the little ones in danger, needlessly. In both instances, we saw that shots were fired needlessly around children. That's just blatant disregard - and it's cowardly.

You really believe that would happen? You're not serious....

Cops should be held personally accountable for their individual actions. If it appears to be a larger problem, you move up the food chain. In most large organizations, problems come from the top down, not the reverse. You just hold the right people accountable.

 

Are you saying you don't get emotional about your kids, Chandos? Are you saying you actually don't care?

Yes, let's look at what I said that actually started all this. My 'first offense', if you will:

Well, odd, that looks like exactly what LKD said I was saying.

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Honestly, I would consider concern for one's family emotional, but it's a justified and reasonable emotion (yes, such things can exist). It's taking that concern and turning it into an over-reaction that I'm casually dismissing. It's the call for alcohol to be completely banned because of drunk driving, or the driving age to be raised, despite the fact that it actually won't help any. It's the emotional reaction to events that's not helpful and can even be dangerous.

Ragusa hasn't exactly come out and said it, but he seems to be suggesting that we should disband SWAT teams and melt their weapons down for plowshares. I don't know if that's what he actually intends, he may just be advocating more control and less use of SWAT teams, but his criticism seems pretty wide-spread at the moment.

Now you see, you've contradicted yourself here. You say they shouldn't be 'sent to the lions naked', but as long as you give them any weapons at all, you're enacting a policy that makes it more likely that they'll kill civilians.

You're not listening either. Every time a cop kills an innocent, it's a tragedy. Every time a cop kills an innocent, there should be a review of policies and actions that led to it. If appropriate, the cop should face criminal charges, or the department should face civil suits. The pursuit of the 0-casualty police force should be eternal and fierce. That doesn't mean we should give up on anything just because we haven't gotten there yet, though.

Your ideal police force that never kills a single civilian for as long as it acts would be a powerless force that couldn't even stop a pickpocket, much less a serial killer, and that's the only way such a force could exist.

You know, those two can co-exist. Something (especially the well-being of people) can be both emotional and reasonable.

Here we entirely agree. 100%. I'm just asking you to show that it's a larger problem.