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

Remove all ads!

No I didn't contradict myself. There is something like a gradual approach.

Criminal trials and civil suits are no solution - they may somewhat help a victim's relatives, but not whoever caught the stray bullet in the head.

Just to make sure you don't miss it: I am just doing that - recommending a policy change and a review of policies and actions

I made the point, a couple of times by now, and in vain it seems, that the strategy as it is being pursued right now (SWAT terms serving warrants on a routine basis) is counter-productive if what you aim on is to reduce bystander casualties in the broadest sense, including people suffering accidental home invasions.

Iirc Americans once rebelled over searches by the British. I dare say the redcoats were probably less invasive than a contemporary SWAT team.

 

You really have learned from your conservative masters well, haven't you? What is it Rush and O'Reilly are saying these days? Liberals don't care about their kids?

More patronizing? Oh, I understood you just fine. Make no mistake. You tried to dismiss the concern that I have as a parent, as an emotional reaction, certainly to be "expected," but emotional. Now of course, since you were called on it, you are trying to weasel out of that by saying that you were "misunderstood." Do you have anymore phony remarks about "emotional parents" you wish to make? Please get them out of the way now.

 

Here's some additional info about the Detroit case:

http://detnews.com/article/20100520...ok-led-to--senseless--murder--further-tragedy

The police were executing a murder warrant, and the guy actually was there and was arrested, so there was no mistaken identity or location involved. As far as I'm aware, the story about police firing into the home has been recounted only by Fieger, who is notorious for sensationalizing tragedies for profit. The original police account is that there was a struggle inside the home which led to the accidental shooting. Fieger claims to have video, but the latest on that is that it's mysteriously no longer available, and nobody else has seen it besides Fieger. (If Fieger had fears that police would suppress it, surely he would have had copies made while he was viewing it, and /or shared it with various media outlets?) Also, the officer that apparently fired the shot has been involved in various charitable efforts for children.

Lastly, it's not stated in the link but I have heard independantly that the murder that the guy they arrested at the house was being sought for was committed with an assault rifle, so the police would have had reason to suspect that a high-powered weapon might have been present and possibly available for use while executing the murder warrant.

 

Gaear - That info was largely in the link that I posted:

The tape belongs to A&E the Reality TV show that was filming the arrest. They are holding it from eveyone atm, for some reason (probably their lawyers told them to).

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

 

Gaear, if or when I ever need a Private Detective, your Hired!

 

...It appears the police may have had the wrong house. And the police did take the tape:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/16/michigan.police.child/index.html

 

Thanks - sorry if that was redundant then.

Hopefully the truth will come out through the state police investigation. Chances are good for that, because the MSP is decidedly not in the pocket of (or otherwise beholden or committed to) the Detroit Police Department. And if Fieger can show recklessness or wrongdoing, more power to him. I'm generally skeptical of him though because he always shows up whenever there's a dollar to be made (and typically only then). I'm pretty sure he wasn't 'family attorney Geoffrey Fieger' before this tragedy occured.

Sounds good ... I'll give you the friend rate!

 

I agree, Gaear, but consider the father:

But as you say, we will have to wait for all the facts before we can know what really happened.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/ap/national/main6489341.shtml

 

Here's the problem with that, though. Any application of force, of any kind, ever, brings with it a risk of injury and death to civilians. Any move away from an entirely forceless police (and thus entirely ineffective), guarantees there will be innocent casualties (provided it's maintained long enough, and I think we're all assuming an effectively infinite duration). That's my point. Bad things happen. Even freak bad things. If your police are even allowed to chase a suspect, without any weapons, and they aren't even allowed to lay hands on the suspect, just chase, they risk the lives of innocents around them. It's just not much of a risk.

My objection is that you're recommending a change in policy before the review of policies and actions. The review should come first, and then the changes should be made (if any are recommended) based on the results of that review.

No, it wasn't in vain, I'm just applying it more than you. If you want to make the aim of the police the reduction of bystander casualties in the broadest sense, the only logical option is to disband them entirely. Thankfully, though, that's not their primary aim. Their primary aim, as law enforcement, is to enforce the law. Protection of civilians is a major secondary concern that must be balanced with that. Equipping them with RPGs and WMDs would certianly help bring down the crime rate, and punish criminals, too, but it would also endanger civilians. Eliminating the police force entirely would protect the civilians from them, but then there'd be no enforcement of the law. SWAT is one point inbetween the two. Your real argument is that it's too close to the enforcement extreme and not close enough to the protection extreme. That's a valid opinion, but you should support it with more data than you've presented.

... If you really believe that, then, well, you need to revisit revolutionary American history. The Red Coats were vastly more invasive than contemporary SWAT teams. Not quite as bad as Uganda's police are today, but probably closer to them than to SWAT.

 

The oil spill in the Gulf may be next on the list of declared "wars." I think the spill "wins." We lose the Gulf (the beaches).

 

I received this message from Firedog today:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-05-19/news/mickey-mess/

 

This is an unfortunate aspect of the seperation of federal and state lawmaking. California has legalized marijuana for medical purposes, but the Feds haven't, so the federal forces are still conducting drug raids in California, even against 'legal' dispensors. As for the rest of this, I'd like to know what the search warrant was for, and what the justification was. There's no reason to sieze petition signatures, as they aren't either illegal or evidence of illegal activities (it is possible to want to see pot legalized without using it yourself). I suppose an arguement could be made for the cash being 'drug money', but it'd be a stretch.

 

The raid itself seems justified. The reason I say this is because it appears that they were not following the guidlines and just selling the MJ to people who walked in off the street rather than checking to make sure that they really needed it for medical reasons. My problem is not with the raid itself but with how heavy-handed it was, holding a gun to the head of an unarmed teen, the alleged theft and "needless" taking of the petition and signatures. As Regusa points out, this is just overkill, if it is true.

 

Interesing. I'm not sure if it's the same case or not, but I found this.

A 14-year-old kid can easily fire a 50-cal hand gun. So, the question becomes, did they point the gun and then handcuff, or handcuff and then point the gun? Also, given the anti-establisment militia-like paraphenalia, the petition signatures may have been siezed in a legitimate conspiracy investigation. Not sure about the cash from the girl, but I suppose it could have been marked bills used in an investigation.

Again, I don't know if it's the same raid or not, but it's all I could find.

 

As an informed guess: A 14 year old kid, unless he or she does body building, cannot easily fire a .50 calibre handgun with any conceivable hope of hitting anything. 14 year old kids would also be well advised to wear a motorcycle helmet to prevent head injuries due to presumably violent muzzle rise. There's a potentially relevant recoil issue here, you know.

 

A slight correction Ragusa "... any hope of hitting twice ..."

Anyone can aim and fire a 50 cal handgun -- they just may not be able to use their hand in the near future. It's easy to fire, not so easy to prevent injury from the recoil.

 

I don't think that's the right case (did you bother to read the link I posted?), but what the hell, I'll play along:

So what? There's no reason to hold a gun to anyone's head who is unarmed. That's just stupid.

Again, if you have the right case. They said they have no problem returning the list atm, so obviously they did not need it. But looking at the date, it did not match the date of the raid in your article, since that was in March and this was in May.

So, please take the time to read the link.

 

... Somehow I missed the link. Sorry. I swear, I even looked for it. Given the dates, it does seem that it couldn't possibly be the same raid.

Your link does, however, explain why they took the cash from the girl. They were trying to prove that the parents were illegally profiting from the sale of pot. $80 seems like an awefully nice bonus for an A report card, but it also seems like an awefully small haul for illegal drug sales. They also found other cash ($3000) in the house, so I don't know that it was really necessary.

As for pointing the gun at the head of a child, it's perfectly reasonable if they suspect the child may go for a weapon. Of course, there's no mention of weapons in the report anywhere, so I doubt that was reasonable.

 

I beleive you.

I actually looked for that in the link. Can you show me?

No, it's not. My girls get a little more than that for theirs as as well. Actually other members of the family chip in on that too (grandparents). Again, if you could just point that out in the link....