Scenes from a militarized America(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Scenes from a militarized America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/04/scenes-from-a-militarized-america-iowa-family-terrorized/
103 comments
'The reality is, the "us vs. them" mentality of many citizens nowadays is likely beyond fixing.'
I think to fix it you need to first fix the "us vs. them" mentality of many cops.
I think to fix it you need to first fix the "us vs. them" mentality of many cops.
Totally agree here. The only way to fix it the mentality for police, IMO, is to legislate police as they will never voluntarily give up the power they have. Unfortunately, this is one of the things I doubt will ever happen.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap is also rather sober reading
Each marker can be clicked for further information.
Each marker can be clicked for further information.
Great link, thank you. It's quite disheartening to see innocent people put in jail and _sentenced to death_ for rightfully defending themselves against the intruders who do not identify themselves as police before starting their offense. Sadly it is often overlooked that the police is not held accountable by the law. The law allows them to do exactly what they want with little to no repercussions.
The onus for fixing the "us vs. them" situation is on the police. It's part of their job. I've seen police successfully practicing those soft skills with civilians many times.
It's also on the legislators, to make the police less of an enemy to more of the people, and the courts to hold police accountable when they overstep.
It's hard to imagine the situation getting much better without greater political change. The Second Amendment has made it very difficult for police to casually come in and slap you around, and that's not a bad thing. However, when they feel that they need to arrest you, well, they're going to bring a veritable army to avoid being causalities...and that's kind of reasonable.
So what has to change? Hopefully, the non-important and trivial laws (i.e. simple drug possession) are no longer enforced. But do concessions have to be made in terms of citizen gun rights? The police would definitely think so.
Meanwhile, while this civic debate goes on, departments are funding these militarized teams. Even if laws are changed so dramatically that these heavy SWAT raids become practically unneeded...you think the middle-managers/deputy-chiefs are going to give up the funds that enlarged their staffing and armories? Or are they going to petition for more trivial laws to enforce?
So what has to change? Hopefully, the non-important and trivial laws (i.e. simple drug possession) are no longer enforced. But do concessions have to be made in terms of citizen gun rights? The police would definitely think so.
Meanwhile, while this civic debate goes on, departments are funding these militarized teams. Even if laws are changed so dramatically that these heavy SWAT raids become practically unneeded...you think the middle-managers/deputy-chiefs are going to give up the funds that enlarged their staffing and armories? Or are they going to petition for more trivial laws to enforce?
> The Second Amendment has made it very difficult for police to casually come in and slap you around, and that's not a bad thing.
I couldn't agree more.
> However, when they feel that they need to arrest you, well, they're going to bring a veritable army to avoid being causalities...and that's kind of reasonable.
I couldn't disagree more.
I couldn't agree more.
> However, when they feel that they need to arrest you, well, they're going to bring a veritable army to avoid being causalities...and that's kind of reasonable.
I couldn't disagree more.
Are you completely unable to see it from the perspective of an arresting officer? I can imagine not wanting to go arrest certain people without a good amount of backup. I don't think they'd need something like this for most arrests of course, definitely not cc theft, but it's not like the idea is complete without merit.
If everybody tried a little bit harder to see things from the point of view of other folks, we'd have way fewer problems.
If everybody tried a little bit harder to see things from the point of view of other folks, we'd have way fewer problems.
> Are you completely unable to see it from the perspective of an arresting officer?
Of course I can see it from the officer's perspective. The officer is perfectly rational in wanted to be well armed and well supported, to increase his own security. But when that officer is deliberately doing what these officers were doing, I value the security of the victims far more than the security of the perpetrators.
Of course I can see it from the officer's perspective. The officer is perfectly rational in wanted to be well armed and well supported, to increase his own security. But when that officer is deliberately doing what these officers were doing, I value the security of the victims far more than the security of the perpetrators.
Ah okay sorry, yeah I agree with that. I didn't realize what you were saying.
If the historical purpose of the second amendment is to have a citizenry capable of defending itself from unjust government force, and the government is increasingly using unjust force; How does it follow that the citizens need to concede anything?
No kidding. There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws.
What a pointless waste of life. Police need to go back to basics.
What a pointless waste of life. Police need to go back to basics.
> There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws.
There have? Could you please cite them? In reading the Author's book, mentioned at the end of the article, I was lead to believe that the castle doctrine has pretty much eroded to the point that one has a reasonable sense of privacy in one's own home, buy if you're suspected of illegal activity you basically forfeit that right.
There have? Could you please cite them? In reading the Author's book, mentioned at the end of the article, I was lead to believe that the castle doctrine has pretty much eroded to the point that one has a reasonable sense of privacy in one's own home, buy if you're suspected of illegal activity you basically forfeit that right.
Sure, here:
http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_549b0586-cefc-53a...
Can't see any others at the moment, sorry.
You might be right about forfeiting the right in illegal activities, I don't know.
http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_549b0586-cefc-53a...
Can't see any others at the moment, sorry.
You might be right about forfeiting the right in illegal activities, I don't know.
How do those situations play out such that the homeowner lives to see themselves vindicated?
It's not a debate in a vacuum... The problems people have with the Second Amendment often arise from citizen-on-citizen shootings...both the shooting-rampage variety, and the There's-not-enough-money-to-fund-the-police-so-criminals-go-rampant kind.
I'm not saying gun rights should be abolished or limited...I guess I'm just despondently pointing out difficult (and money-based) of an issue it is.
I'm not saying gun rights should be abolished or limited...I guess I'm just despondently pointing out difficult (and money-based) of an issue it is.
> The Second Amendment has made it very difficult for police to casually come in and slap you around
The police justified their military tactics by saying they expected some residents to be armed.
The police justified their military tactics by saying they expected some residents to be armed.
Aren't there dozens of more appropriate forums and audiences for this kind of thing?
Upvotes decide content. If you don't it belongs here, don't upvote it.
[deleted]
I would say that this falls squarely into the consciousness of this forum. On this forum there is non-stop debate on the NSA surveillance and this, while not part of spying, demonstrates the over-reach of government law enforcement.
I'm finding more long, well written, and significant comments in this submission than most others on HN. As a bonus, the top post isn't someone saying "Yeah that's great but here is my controversial opinion about this one minor part of your blog post" that derails the discussion. =)
There is an interesting convergence amongst the hard left, libertarians and old right on police. Really, it's mostly neo-cons and blue-collar dems that are left in the instinctively pro-cop camp, and blue-collar dems are getting decimated by the ongoing economic crisis.
Interesting.
Interesting.
It's probably still worthwhile to analyze the different proposed solutions from the hard left and libertarians.
[deleted]
Was under impression that strongest supporters of police state are 'suburban soccer moms'.
Your analysis would be stronger if you differentiated between "police state" and "police services"
At a 'town hall' in Golden about 10 years ago, someone from Tom Tancredo's office indicated that was willing to accept lethal collateral damage in the regular course of law enforcement, including mistakes leading to application of the death penalty.
His reasoning was that people who find themselves faced with no-knock warrants, or falsely implicated in capital crimes, are probably guilty of something even if they are innocent of the matter of present concern.
I find that sentiment difficult to comprehend, but I imagine that citizens who only experience the 'services' of police tend to forget that people living a few blocks away may have a very different relationship with law enforcement.
His reasoning was that people who find themselves faced with no-knock warrants, or falsely implicated in capital crimes, are probably guilty of something even if they are innocent of the matter of present concern.
I find that sentiment difficult to comprehend, but I imagine that citizens who only experience the 'services' of police tend to forget that people living a few blocks away may have a very different relationship with law enforcement.
[deleted]
As I said yesterday[1], I think we've reached the point where better enforcement of laws harms more than it helps. A big reason for this is that "crime" is a very broad subject, covering everything from vagrancy to murder. Measures that might make sense against violent crime end up being used for minor violations.
Similar to how firefighters, EMTs, and police are separate agencies with different uniforms and vehicles, I wish police were split into violent and non-violent crime departments. It would solve quite a few problems. First, we could have something more nuanced than the typical "cops are bad"/"cops are good" debate. Second, we might see decreases in some types of crime, since minor criminals wouldn't fear informing the Department of Homicide. (Similar to how nobody fears calling the fire department if there's a fire.) Lastly, it would make it obvious where budgets were being spent. Most taxpayers are fine with throwing money at law enforcement, because they think it's preventing violent crime. If they saw how much was going to the Department of Vice, they might have other ideas.
Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are too big to change in any reasonable time frame.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7172857
Similar to how firefighters, EMTs, and police are separate agencies with different uniforms and vehicles, I wish police were split into violent and non-violent crime departments. It would solve quite a few problems. First, we could have something more nuanced than the typical "cops are bad"/"cops are good" debate. Second, we might see decreases in some types of crime, since minor criminals wouldn't fear informing the Department of Homicide. (Similar to how nobody fears calling the fire department if there's a fire.) Lastly, it would make it obvious where budgets were being spent. Most taxpayers are fine with throwing money at law enforcement, because they think it's preventing violent crime. If they saw how much was going to the Department of Vice, they might have other ideas.
Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are too big to change in any reasonable time frame.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7172857
I like this on an instinctive level, so I'd like to try to take it apart.
1. Would you still have a police commissioner at the top?
2. Does this kind of thing already exist in any form?
...okay, I am bad at coming up with these. Help?
1. Would you still have a police commissioner at the top?
2. Does this kind of thing already exist in any form?
...okay, I am bad at coming up with these. Help?
>Sadly, I doubt this will ever happen. These agencies are huge and there's just too much inertia to change them.
This is the power of a 3rd party winning the presidency. All of this force falls under the executive branch whose policy can be changed in an instant.
Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot.
This is the power of a 3rd party winning the presidency. All of this force falls under the executive branch whose policy can be changed in an instant.
Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot.
It's possible, but extremely unlikely due to the game theory of Plurality Voting or IRV (in countries/regions which have switched to that) both of which are bad, yet overwhelmingly used for single-winner elections (like, for selecting a president, or in some countries for selecting a single representative per voting district).
http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html
There's a political science term called a realigning election, but it involves a radical change to a party, or the displacement of at least one of the two dominant parties with a new party, after which elections go back to a two-party-dominated playing field for a while; a persistent 3-or-more party system is not viable without changing voting systems.
http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html
There's a political science term called a realigning election, but it involves a radical change to a party, or the displacement of at least one of the two dominant parties with a new party, after which elections go back to a two-party-dominated playing field for a while; a persistent 3-or-more party system is not viable without changing voting systems.
"IRV which are bad"
Did you mean first past the post (FPTP) aka winner takes all?
In election reform circles, IRV refers to instant runoff voting.
Did you mean first past the post (FPTP) aka winner takes all?
In election reform circles, IRV refers to instant runoff voting.
PV is the same as FPTP. IRV is very nearly as bad, and perhaps worse due to monotonicity. See http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
[deleted]
And like rangevoting.org mentions, Range Voting technically may give you the least regretful results, but its a great deal more complicated than Approval Voting, which is dead simple and nearly as good.
http://rangevoting.org/Approval.html
http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
> Don't think of it as impossible, 20 years ago Ross Perot received around 20% of the vote. All it takes is someone 3 times more "popular" than Ross Perot.
Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind.
Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind.
"Right after that, the two factions of the big-business party collaborated to ensure that no other party could mount a serious challenge. This involved forming the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) in 1987, which re-wrote the debate rules to effectively block challengers from participating. Out of sight, out of mind."
Incredible. After Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, they traveled back in time to form CPD in 1987. Amazing story.
Incredible. After Ross Perot ran for president in 1992, they traveled back in time to form CPD in 1987. Amazing story.
I sure screwed up my recollection on that one.
I confused the CPD taking over from the League of Women Voters in '87 and greatly dumbing down the format with the CPD raising standards for party inclusion in the debates in 2000.
I confused the CPD taking over from the League of Women Voters in '87 and greatly dumbing down the format with the CPD raising standards for party inclusion in the debates in 2000.
The power of TV is at its lowest point in recent history. Any candidate could have a fulltime youtube channel where they are gathering supporters everyday.
Gary Johnson posted tons of videos to his YouTube channel, had online debates with Jill Stein and other third party candidates when they were all shut out of the CPD debates, did several Reddit AMAs, spliced his own responses into CPD debate footage and posted them on his YouTube channel, and generally had a very active online presence.
The sad fact is that even though the power of TV is diminishing, it's still by far where the majority of voters get their information from and if you don't get on the televised debate you don't stand a chance. Unfortunately democracy at this level means you are ruled by the low-information voter.
The sad fact is that even though the power of TV is diminishing, it's still by far where the majority of voters get their information from and if you don't get on the televised debate you don't stand a chance. Unfortunately democracy at this level means you are ruled by the low-information voter.
Interestingly enough, the number of non voters in 2012 was higher than the number of votes for either Obama or Romney.
So if all the people that didn't vote (many because they feel that their vote doesn't change things anyway) voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would win without having to take a single vote from either of the two main party candidates.
So if all the people that didn't vote (many because they feel that their vote doesn't change things anyway) voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would win without having to take a single vote from either of the two main party candidates.
Third parties don't win, but they do affect outcomes. If Perot hadn't gotten back in in 1992, Bush would probably have been re-elected. No Clinton presidency, no impeachment, no Hillary. Would be quite a different political landscape by now.
That candidate would win the popular vote, but that doesn't mean they'd win the electoral vote. All people who's votes counted voted in the last election...
Policing is a state issue.
No executive order is going to solve this problem.
No executive order is going to solve this problem.
The executive in each state controls statewide police, in smaller jurisdictions either sheriffs are elected or appointed by the executive.
This is true, but rather undermines the original point about the POTUS doing it.
State governors and city mayors tend to be a lot more willing to do things like this, but you'd still have to get the political will. I'd expect you'd need someone to successfully get elected on a platform of doing it, and for the opposition to not find it reasonable to attack that item on the platform.
State governors and city mayors tend to be a lot more willing to do things like this, but you'd still have to get the political will. I'd expect you'd need someone to successfully get elected on a platform of doing it, and for the opposition to not find it reasonable to attack that item on the platform.
My memory is fuzzy but wasn't he winning for a while? I remember him kind of going kooky towards the end of the campaign and lost a lot of votes. Is that accurate?
Back in the day, non-violent crimes were handled by peace officers and violent crimes handled by specialists.
But budgeting, training, progress, and influx of war abundance has merged and blurred the two.
We could end up with a Judge Dredd scenario.
Or we could end the war on terror, which in turn reduces the urgency we have now of eroding privacy, and we can also end the war on drugs, which in turn reduces the incentive for police forces to invade homes and seize property for profit.
I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die.
But budgeting, training, progress, and influx of war abundance has merged and blurred the two.
We could end up with a Judge Dredd scenario.
Or we could end the war on terror, which in turn reduces the urgency we have now of eroding privacy, and we can also end the war on drugs, which in turn reduces the incentive for police forces to invade homes and seize property for profit.
I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die.
> I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die.
What prevents a new crop of "crappy old people" from simply taking their place?
What prevents a new crop of "crappy old people" from simply taking their place?
HN's generations will take power believing they are so much smarter, and would not call themselves crappy
The next generation. Cycle refreshes constantly.
Isn't that just as likely to mean that the cycle will produce more of the same? Why do the Baby Boomers have a monopoly on self-serving, harmful policy? "The old generation got it wrong. We'll get it right" is a very common refrain. Pretty much every generation has said it. And with each cycle, you get the same sorts of people in political power.
The sorts of qualities that attract someone to a life in politics, if not the very qualities that make someone successful in politics, tend to be the same qualities that lead to corruption, pandering, opportunism, and all the other vices. It's not a generational thing; it's a human-nature thing. Before long, the next generation will be looking at us and hoping things get better when we finally get off the stage.
I don't mean to be cynical. I'm just attempting to be realistic. I'm hopeful we can do better -- and if I didn't believe that, I'd be pretty damned depressed -- but I'm not basing that hope on the idea that we'll break a mold as old as politics itself.
The sorts of qualities that attract someone to a life in politics, if not the very qualities that make someone successful in politics, tend to be the same qualities that lead to corruption, pandering, opportunism, and all the other vices. It's not a generational thing; it's a human-nature thing. Before long, the next generation will be looking at us and hoping things get better when we finally get off the stage.
I don't mean to be cynical. I'm just attempting to be realistic. I'm hopeful we can do better -- and if I didn't believe that, I'd be pretty damned depressed -- but I'm not basing that hope on the idea that we'll break a mold as old as politics itself.
Why do the Baby Boomers have a monopoly on self-serving, harmful policy?
What's kind of funny is that a good many of the Boomers were of the peace-and-love dope-smoking hippy '60s. They saw first-hand the results of Vietnam.
You'd think they would be the ones to spearhead gay rights and legalization of drugs and avoiding wars of interventionism. But by the '80s is was clear that all that youthful optimism and charity was but a phase.
As the saying goes, people become conservative the minute they have something to conserve.
What's kind of funny is that a good many of the Boomers were of the peace-and-love dope-smoking hippy '60s. They saw first-hand the results of Vietnam.
You'd think they would be the ones to spearhead gay rights and legalization of drugs and avoiding wars of interventionism. But by the '80s is was clear that all that youthful optimism and charity was but a phase.
As the saying goes, people become conservative the minute they have something to conserve.
It's because it is not about generation. It's a matter of social classes, if I may call it that. Most HN's folks are not going to do politics. The ones who end up in political power groups have been through different education and developed mindsets closer to the ones already there, who became their models.
tl;dr: time won't make thing better, we need refactoring
tl;dr: time won't make thing better, we need refactoring
"I firmly hold the belief all that will happen when the current crop of crappy old people in power die."
It isn't the people. It's the financial incentives, which will outlive the demise of their current beneficiaries and welcome their replacements.
It isn't the people. It's the financial incentives, which will outlive the demise of their current beneficiaries and welcome their replacements.
Have a look at the documentary "Growing up in America".
It is about the activists of the 60s, how they thought they could change the world, and what had happened by the 80s.
There was also this idea that everything would improve once the old generation would be dead, but it did not happen.
https://archive.org/details/Timothy_Leary_Archives_019.dv
https://archive.org/details/Timothy_Leary_Archives_019.dv
To be replaced by a new crop of crappy old people in power.
Right, but this crop of crappy old people will have learned that the wars on terror/drugs were mistakes bred of fear and ignorance. They'll sweep them off the board and clear space to make new and interesting mistakes out of fear and ignorance.
The war on drugs has been around since the 1930s; there have been MANY crops of crappy old people keeping it going. The police constitute a concentrated interest group in favor of the power they get from the various Wars so the policy survives for much the same reason crop subsidies survive. Any policy that bestows concentrated benefits to a small group and widely distributes costs to everyone else is hard to stop once it gets started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles come to mind. It's a British idea -- that police officers are citizens in uniform and police by consent of their fellow citizens.
In some areas, there is a distinction between local PD and the Sheriff's office. The former are general first responders to emergencies(using force if necessary) while the latter generally perform bureaucratic duties(summons, evictions, etc).
Budget cuts, take a look at Detroit.
As Bill de Blasio put it, "you can't break the law to enforce the law".
The question is, how will you take immediate action to confront this injustice when you wake up tomorrow morning?
I suggest, as a starting point, that we distribute the contact information for the members of the Iowa police department in question (available online) to start a targeted messaging campaign aimed at their households.
I suggest, as a starting point, that we distribute the contact information for the members of the Iowa police department in question (available online) to start a targeted messaging campaign aimed at their households.
Anybody got a youtube link? My ad blockers are telling me this is not kosher.
Disable it?
I think SOME of the cause of the militarization is due to the increased availability of military grade PRODUCTS police has access to.
These products are often derivatives of military grade products. The makers of the military grade products need to increase revenue and diversify, which leads to the corporation intensely marketing to the police departments.
And once the police depts buy the new shiny toys, they need to have an excuse for using them some how...
Just a personal observation.
These products are often derivatives of military grade products. The makers of the military grade products need to increase revenue and diversify, which leads to the corporation intensely marketing to the police departments.
And once the police depts buy the new shiny toys, they need to have an excuse for using them some how...
Just a personal observation.
Not to mention former military in their leadership ranks. Or people who couldn't cut it in the military and wanting to make up for lost time (at least one guy I met in my town, I'd be terrified to encounter him at night for a speeding violation based on the attitude he presented to me while off-duty).
The military also sells plenty of surplus equipment to police departments, often at significant discounts (i.e. cost to the taxpayer).
I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. The average citizen should have just as much contact (if not more) with the local officers than the average criminals. Police are the most likely to move up the political ladder, and the ones who are to protect the local community. If something is wrong or problems are occurring in a state or federal context, these are the people who will be with or against you. People will be less likely to fuck you, if they know you're on their side (looking to protect the community).
Reminds me of scenes from a Russian TV series about life in Moscow under Stalin. At any moment a bunch of guys dressed in black could burst in, arrest people, cart away papers etc. and there was no recourse. This was the NKVD, later called the KGB.
Unfortunately, eventually the criminal gangs discovered that they could do the same thing, and since their victims thought they were cops, the criminals got away with murder, intimidation, etc. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these criminals became known as the Russian Mafia and exported their criminal operations to more lucrative countries like the USA where they still operate today.
How hard is it for modern criminals to get a hold of uniforms and vehicles to impersonate a police SWAT team?
Unfortunately, eventually the criminal gangs discovered that they could do the same thing, and since their victims thought they were cops, the criminals got away with murder, intimidation, etc. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these criminals became known as the Russian Mafia and exported their criminal operations to more lucrative countries like the USA where they still operate today.
How hard is it for modern criminals to get a hold of uniforms and vehicles to impersonate a police SWAT team?
The underground movie 'Faces of Death' had a scene in which the authorities showed up to a small village household . In the Eighties, in a eastern block country (unnamed) .Took the head of household out, and drag & quartered the guy in front of his family. I forgot the amount ,taxes owed but it was low.Due to political pressure from the West,the actions were halted.
It was less than $2 USD.
I can believe that, especially since NKVD was and Russian Mafia is to this day mostly Jewish.
This is still seen in countries like Mexico. Just last week the NYTimes mentioned mafia dressed as Italian policemen dumping toxic waste ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/world/europe/beneath-south... ) The uses are for more than violence.
The fact that 2 people were arrested on charges makes me think these people are playing dumb. Would they have been arrested if they knocked first. No expectation was given to way she was housing 2 criminals. Also, the whole "if they saw me with the gun they would of shot me" thing is bullshit. SWAT teams deal with armed criminals all the time and never shoot first (especially since it's a pistol and their wearing bulletproof everything).
I can't really comment on if the force they used was too great, as they didn't say what they thought they were up against. Assuming they were justified in their force and paid all damages, I do not see an issue with this.
I can't really comment on if the force they used was too great, as they didn't say what they thought they were up against. Assuming they were justified in their force and paid all damages, I do not see an issue with this.
Swat teams never shoot first? Wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizon...
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/21/connecticut-swat-team-r...
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-r...
http://rt.com/usa/swat-teenage-girl-hughley-906/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizon...
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/21/connecticut-swat-team-r...
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-r...
http://rt.com/usa/swat-teenage-girl-hughley-906/
> Would they have been arrested if they knocked first. No expectation was given to way she was housing 2 criminals.
This is not a complete thought. Please gather yourself and try again.
This is not a complete thought. Please gather yourself and try again.
It seems like posing as the police would be an effective way to execute home invasions, as people that might otherwise defend themselves would put down their weapons.
Opposition to turning our police into paramilitary troopers looks like this: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/08/were-building-a-domes...
After a decade long (non-)war, the US government has a lot of surplus military-grade equipment they no longer need. By heavily discounting it through DHS grants, they are allowing small town american sheriffs to buy Fallujah-grade armored personel carriers. You know, for the teens smoking a joint and the two murders a year that happen in your 'burbs.
That's what the marine corp colonel in the above video is speaking out against:
> I saw a picture in the Boston Globe during the Marathon Bombing where there was a state police officer– Actually, there were two officers. They both had identical helmets, flak jackets, weapons, everything I wore in Iraq, only it was all blue. The officer on one side had a big patch on his back that said “MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE.” Another officer next to him, his patch said “BOSTON POLICE.”
> And so what we’re doing here, and let’s not kid about it, we’re building a domestic army...
Any decent person wants a police force. But when the police force starts to look and behave like paramilitary storm troopers, that's when you start asking if this is really the land of the free.
After a decade long (non-)war, the US government has a lot of surplus military-grade equipment they no longer need. By heavily discounting it through DHS grants, they are allowing small town american sheriffs to buy Fallujah-grade armored personel carriers. You know, for the teens smoking a joint and the two murders a year that happen in your 'burbs.
That's what the marine corp colonel in the above video is speaking out against:
> I saw a picture in the Boston Globe during the Marathon Bombing where there was a state police officer– Actually, there were two officers. They both had identical helmets, flak jackets, weapons, everything I wore in Iraq, only it was all blue. The officer on one side had a big patch on his back that said “MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE.” Another officer next to him, his patch said “BOSTON POLICE.”
> And so what we’re doing here, and let’s not kid about it, we’re building a domestic army...
Any decent person wants a police force. But when the police force starts to look and behave like paramilitary storm troopers, that's when you start asking if this is really the land of the free.
It's all out of scale. You probably know our prison population is 10X to 50X larger per-capita than most industrialized nations. But upstream of that are the police, federal agents, and prosecutors. It takes a huge supply chain to fill that many prisons.
There are 100 Assistant US Attorneys in Massachusetts, a relatively sane place where the mayor of Boston came out against putting military carbines in every police car. No wonder they had the time and resources to drive Aaron Swartz to suicide. Upstream of them there are hundreds of thousands of armed agents of various federal agencies. That's equivalent to 10 division of soldiers. That's insane. In most municipalities, police are the #2 expense after schools. Not recreation. Not road crews. Not anything else.
There are 100 Assistant US Attorneys in Massachusetts, a relatively sane place where the mayor of Boston came out against putting military carbines in every police car. No wonder they had the time and resources to drive Aaron Swartz to suicide. Upstream of them there are hundreds of thousands of armed agents of various federal agencies. That's equivalent to 10 division of soldiers. That's insane. In most municipalities, police are the #2 expense after schools. Not recreation. Not road crews. Not anything else.
As one of hundreds of thousands of combat vets with PTSD...
Let's just say I would die in a raid like that and it scares the shit out of me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizon...
Let's just say I would die in a raid like that and it scares the shit out of me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizon...
Is there any reason the cops who pulled down or covered up cameras shouldn't be immediately fired? Is there ANY rational excuse that could be given for that sort of behavior? Pulling down an outside camera seems like vandalism, pure and simple; covering an interior one suggests the desire to commit other crimes unobserved.
Don't worry, he probably wrote in the report that it was for "security" purposes.
This would be true.
They would have to work on the assumption that someone was inside, watching them, so they could plan an attack.
I would think this would be standard operating procedure, regardless of the reason they were there
They would have to work on the assumption that someone was inside, watching them, so they could plan an attack.
I would think this would be standard operating procedure, regardless of the reason they were there
Why wouldn't it work the other way? If the cops are present with overwhelming force, somebody who can SEE them coming is much less likely to resist, more likely to give up without a fight. Also less likely to think it's a bunch of burglars breaking in. In just about every movie ever, cutting off the surveillance video is something the BAD guys do - the GOOD guys know they're in the right so they shouldn't mind being seen.
The story portray the poor family as the victims but it should be remembered that this is a guy who takes a gun to the bathroom.
If you point a gun at a SWAT team they will likely shoot you, if you don't have reflexes to drop the gun then that's Darwinian evolution in action. I have little sympathy for someone that keeps a loaded gun with them in such a paranoid fashion.
If you point a gun at a SWAT team they will likely shoot you, if you don't have reflexes to drop the gun then that's Darwinian evolution in action. I have little sympathy for someone that keeps a loaded gun with them in such a paranoid fashion.
He had it holstered. Likely was wearing it and happened to need to take a piss or shit, why would he remove the holster and gun or unholster the gun for what's likely a 30 second event in his day?
Not to mention, based on most Army and Marine vets I've met over the past few years, I'd wager the majority carry a gun (barring state/local restrictions) outside their home, and a significant number keep it holstered from about the time they dress until they go to bed. SWAT teams should seriously reconsider violating the law when conducting a raid if they want to avoid being target practice for a trained soldier.
Not to mention, based on most Army and Marine vets I've met over the past few years, I'd wager the majority carry a gun (barring state/local restrictions) outside their home, and a significant number keep it holstered from about the time they dress until they go to bed. SWAT teams should seriously reconsider violating the law when conducting a raid if they want to avoid being target practice for a trained soldier.
Lots of people carry in their homes to prevent their kids from accidentally getting hold of the firearm. It's prudent to maintain control of your sidearm on your person unless it's locked up - you'd know that if you had any non trivial hands on experience with firearms yourself.
I'd say that sounds a little paranoid too, but then it turns out that his door gets busted down by a bunch of people with guns, so all the sudden it's not that paranoid. Just happened in this case to be the police, and not some other aggressor.
Not like it's any of your business what he does in his home anyway.
Not like it's any of your business what he does in his home anyway.
Notice the key word here: "Terrorized"
USA is worst than taliban....
"this was over stolen property"
That (slightly misquoted) statement is the crux of the matter; the level of response, from situations like this, to pepper-spraying college students sitting on the ground, has spiraled out of control in recent years.
There needs to be a nation-wide effort to retrain police forces in "old fashioned" methods of crisis management, instead of battle armor & bulldoze.
That (slightly misquoted) statement is the crux of the matter; the level of response, from situations like this, to pepper-spraying college students sitting on the ground, has spiraled out of control in recent years.
There needs to be a nation-wide effort to retrain police forces in "old fashioned" methods of crisis management, instead of battle armor & bulldoze.
Breaking News: White person now 'totally terrified' of police
Balko's book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" is a great read about this exact subject. In it he addresses the issue with many examples and some ideas on how police forces can (and some have) changed somewhat to use less violent tactics and more community policing resulting in less crime. That's blasphemy to any politician of course who cannot be seen as "soft on crime."
The reality is, the "us vs. them" mentality of many citizens nowadays is likely beyond fixing. That is not to say that there aren't a multitude of ideas that could work. Indeed, there are many solutions to these problems, but such solutions will not be pursued.
At least they (I assume) got the address right this time. And the son in the bathroom should buy a lottery ticket. Perhaps his divine luck in staying alive (and luck is all that it was) will make him rich as well.