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

Remove all ads!

I have mentioned an American tendency to cast policy as a wars on nouns - drugs, crime, terror. Hand in glove goes the militarisation of law enforcement. This deserves a thread on its own, and what started making the issue interesting for me was this video on a home - yet another skirmish in America's war on drugs:

​

Based on a tip, Columbia, Missouri, police department’s SWAT team served a drug warrant at the home of Jonathan Whitworth and Brittany Montgomery. During the raid, police shot and killed the family’s pit bull. At least one bullet ricocheted, injuring the family’s pet corgi. Result: Misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia charges and second-degree child endangerment (i.e. for smoking weed; with far reaching ramifications for potential future child custody deliberations).

One ought to keep in mind that the possession of drugs for recreational use is a victimless crime. And because it is a non-violent crime there is no point in using a SWAT team cracking down on it. And as for the child endangerment, they probably only only threw that in after the embarrassment of not finding anything serious, and shooting that dog. That much for heavy handed.

In Germany that would lead to forfeiture of the contraband and no charges, and if there was one, the search warrant would be served by ordinary uniformed police, in daylight (since night raids - the dreaded knock at the door at four in the night - were a favourite terror tactic of both the Gestapo and the Stasi, they are used only in case of serious crimes).

The US approach as illustrated in this incident is ridiculous, it's overkill, and a waste of resources. It is even possible that the overkill is the result of an over-abundance of resources. Because there is no violent crime to crack down on, SWAT teams are free to be used to deliver search warrants on potheads.

My point here is not legalisation of drugs, though I think the US would be well advised decriminalising marijuana. It's the militarisation of law enforcement that came with fighting the drug war. That is the far more pernicious aspect, and it transcends the drug war.

Before commenting, I recommend reading this report [PDF] from the libertarian Cato Institute on SWAT activity in the war on drugs. Horrible stuff.

Those draconian drug laws have become a monster that is running amok. Judging by this case there is no reason to assume that America's equally hysterical anti-terror laws are faring any better. This is a serious problem as it erodes citizen protections under the law, and makes way for a heavy handed and adversarial attitude of police towards citizens.

 

This is one of the rare instances where I'm in full agreement with Ragusa. The militarization of our police forces is very disturbing to me. I live near a town called Framingham and recently they had a guy flip out on his own property. On the front page of the local paper there was a picture of a "Framingham SWAT sniper" on the ground. It stunned the residents of Framingham to find out that they even had a "sniper" on the payroll and in these days of budgetary problems there was quite a few people who were upset that they are cutting the school budget and local services, yet are maintaining a military force.

 

I'm not a fan of pit bulls so there's just nothing tugging at the heart for me here. And if a person wants to commit a crime around their kid ... well I don't really have much compassion there either.

I realize police departments make mistakes. But that happens in every country.

 

Few countries send out their SWAT teams to deliver about all drug related search warrants and have as draconian drug laws.

To jump to Balko's conclusions:

 

You should amend that to read "few European countries send out SWAT teams...". Illegal drug organizations on the North and South American continents are notoriously violent. If a police force does not enter into a potential drug raid without adequate firepower they will incur high personnel losses. Draconian is a relative term -- given the amout of violence surrounding illegal drugs the use of force is not a bad thing. The FBI has a great unofficial motto ... "The presence of overwhelming force increases the likelihood of cooperation."

Every now and then you hear about a drug bust gone wrong -- the informant gave up a minor user or the police even got the wrong house. Lawsuits have reduced the numbers of such mistakes. Personally I really wouldn't care if they took drug use laws off the books and concentrated on illegal drug sales. I think we as a society would be better of rehabilitating drug users rather than putting them in prison. But with the current climate it is better to avoid recreational drug use -- users make themselves targets for law enforcement which is obviously not a good thing.

To me the article and links give a nice lesson of "don't use drugs" because someone, somewhere is going to take the heat off themselves and finger you (it's also a common ploy in divorce cases).

 

And there people say that it's the Germans that are deferential to police and authority.

What about the point that police response is in such cases disproportional to the offence in question, not to mention the bystanders hit? Smoking weed is against the law atm, and so they had it coming?

Using 'overwhelming force' and 'better safe than sorry' sound great, but I presume you wouldn't say that when they kick down your door at 4am and drag you, your wife and your kids out of bed at gunpoint, just because they got the address wrong and that's just their standard operating procedure.

The idea of overwhelming force is something I was taught in the military. Hit 'em hard, suppress all resistance to achieve your objective and then take care of prisoners and wounded. That's something for war or for violent confrontations, not how you engage civilians on a regular basis. I find that approach is irreconcilable with the function of what used to be called 'peace officers'.

 

So I guess when cops aren't absolutely positive the people in the house are hard-core drug dealers with substianting evidence of a weapons cache in the house they should just go up there with two uniformed officers carrying handguns.

Not likely.

If the cops break down my door because they went to 714 E Hall St instead of 714 W Hall St (made the address up, by the way) ... yeah, that sucks. It happens and the police department pays for the damages and perhaps a bit more.

I'm all for anything that increases the odds of police officers going home to see their kids at night ... even if it causes me a bit of difficulty. I don't want them to violate any Constitutional rights, but I also realize people make mistakes.

 

Who says that in today's world?

Drug possession, selling and using is against the law. No different than holding the stolen jewels. Cops know that when they are gointo a drug house, the odds are the are going to encounter weapons as well. They would be idiots and risking lives to go in there unprepared. You 1st state that the SWAT went in there "Based on a tip". What type of tip? Was it a known informant who has given correct info in the past or just a telephone call from a concerned/anonymous neighbor? All of that and many more circumstances are sorted out before deciding to go in with guns drawn. It's not Draconian, it's called keeping your force alive to fight crime another day. I don't personally know anyone who thinks of a cop who raids drug homes as "a monster that is running amok".... they thank them for keeping the rest of us safe.

You are confusing "Peace" with "Policing". Peace officers are politicians and representatives. Police officers put their lives at risk to give the rest of us peace.

 

Of course not, but since for drug laws weed is just as much of a drug as crack cocaine - there is the universal approach being applied. I am not for the cops needlessly taking risks. SWAT teams have their justification.

Now how again was that in Iraq? Something like: An over-emphasis on force-protection crippled the US outreach to the local population? Why would it be any different in the US?

In a country where guns are as prevalent as in the US, armed resistance is probably always possible. I read of cases where cops sent a SWAT team because the fingered suspect owned a legally registered gun, iirc that even was the case with Mr. Whitworth. So law abiding behaviour and what for Americans is a constitutional right is marking them as a potential risk. One feels tempted to assume that instead it is an indication of a general law abiding attitude.

And the problem apparently is that there are too many SWAT teams for too little violent crime. Having successfully reduced violent crime, if there was some, SWAT teams are free for other tasks. Now, heaven forbid, they'd be downsized due to reduced need. Even local police departments have to be tough on crime, and what's tougher on crime than a SWAT team?

The abundance of SWAT teams is probably a consequence of America's decentralised and redundant zoo of law enforcement agencies. Local police departments have their SWAT teams, state police has their SWAT teams, the Feds have their SWAT teams and so forth. Probably, local law enforcement only can afford having SWAT teams because of all the free equipment and training they receive.

The problem is in the law that has a zero tolerance for all drugs, not (generally) in what the cops do. When SWAT teams are being used as the tool of choice for all drug related warrants, from raiding The Big Lebowski's little weed garden to busting the hideout of Pablo Escobar, then you have a problem at your hands.

BoV,
I was told by a friend that as recently as last month a US guest professor in psychology (or maybe sociology) told that her German audience. With a straight face. The class too polite to laugh her out of the room, but it was met with universal derision.

Speaking of blanket statements, the blanket statement that after all 'it's against the law' doesn't fly either. Yes drug possession is against the law. So is speeding and false parking. Genocide is against the law. Misdemeanours are against the law. Does that justify a one size fits all approach for all lawbreaking? What about the hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail?

 

Rags, when the cops raid a drug home, do you think the find "just" pot or do they usually find more drugs as well. My guess is they find pot, coke, etc.. together more often than just pot. With that said, it doesn't matter. Are you trying to tell me the pot dealers aren't as well armed as the coke dealers? They both make a ton of money and both types are well armed. They type of drug has nothing to do with it. It's the type of person they're worried about.

 

No, what I am telling you is that they are treating all drug related warrants the same way - crashing down equally on drug dealers, small scale non profit pot growers, medical marijuana doctors, medical and recreational marijuana users and innocent bystanders alike.

 

And how are they supposed to know which are which until they go in?

 

That's the tricky part isn't it? That's the part where it's about brains not brawn.

Now what about indications like 'lawful possession of firearms' as indication of them not being violent?

 

How about the highest risk (and death rate) for a police officer is going to a domestic dispute where the owner of the residence has 'lawful possession of firearms'?

Registering the weapon does not mean the owner won't use it.

 

So there maybe a point in not sending the cops to homes of gun owners at night where they might be mistaken by confused, sleep dazed citizens for criminal intruders? There have been cases where citizens have been shot because of that. See p.19:

Needless to say, citizens don't stand a chance against a SWAT team. They get riddled. And then, you assume that the SWAT teams always acts on stellar information when they know that there are drugs in a place. Apparently, quite often they do know far less than that. Of 146 no-knock raids conducted in the Denver in 1999, only 49 produced charges of any kind. And of those, just 2 resulted in prison time for the targets of the raids (p.26).

That's a lot of innocent people whose door got knocked down.

 

In that study how many innocent people got "riddled" with bullets?

It must happen all the time based on your argument ... by the way I haven't assumed anything about the information and even questioned it in my first response. The police don't just come barging down the door on the slightest whim, they need a judge to buy off on the deal.

 

I understand you Rags, but I think the problem isn't the force they use itself, as it is needed in alot of cases. I think it's the determining process prior to entry that could be shaped up a bit. They don't just raid every home with incredible force unless they have reason to believe they will encounter more resistance than just average joe pot smoker. they can guess incorrectly you know. You posted a few instances about how they used too much force. I get it. But how many times does that happen across the nation? You listed Denver stats previously, but no link. What about across the nation, as you are condemning all of America.

 

T2,
if they even killed one citizen accidentally that's a big deal. I presume you're not arguing that that's a risk every US citizen has to accept in order to allow the cops to more easily enforce the law.

BoV,
it appears to be happening throughout America. Just read the paper.

 

I read the paper everyday, as well as several major media websites. I don't see what you are talking about. I guess, over there, you only read reports of bad things that happen, and not the overwhelming good stories of hero cops that risk their lives and go beyond the call of duty to help others. It seems to me that I read about more of those types of stories everyday. I will condemn a bad cop with the rest of the nay-sayers when they are in the wrong. But I WILL NOT condemn the bulk of them as over-zealous, crazy, gun-wielding lunatics who are just wishing for a fight. That is just wrong.

 

Paper as in this paper [PDF]. There is little reason to assume he's making things up.