Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

[fastpat]

The growing police state has been well and truly documented in this article by the Cato Institute. At some point, we Americans will have to prohibit military veterans from serving in the police, too dangerous until they've been documented as deprogrammed from their military training by competant healthcare professionals, or simply prohibited altogether. There's something inherrently wrong about a man learning military skills, who wants to continue to bear arms against his fellow human beings.

Executive Summary
Americans have long maintained that a man’s home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

This paper presents a history and overview of the issue of paramilitary drug raids, provides an extensive catalogue of abuses and mistaken raids, and offers recommendations for reform.
The article

The botched raid map.

[Joeaksa]

Well, one thing is correct here. It will be the SWAT teams who come to get you in your bunker.

If they read about 10% of your posts here at least they will have one thing right, and it will not be going after an innocent bystander when they knock the door down at your place.

[widgeon13]

too dangerous until they've been documented as deprogrammed from their military training by competant healthcare professionals, or simply prohibited altogether.

"competant healthcare professionals" such as yourself I would presume.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by widgeon13
too dangerous until they've been documented as deprogrammed from their military training by competant healthcare professionals, or simply prohibited altogether.

"competant healthcare professionals" such as yourself I would presume.

No, that's not my field of expertise. If I were the sole judge, I'd have them find more productive work in a calm environment.

The upshot of this is that we don't need soldiers as policemen.

[Jeff Higgins]

So you folks are comfortable with unannounced raids against U.S. citizens? I guess if it's mostly those evil drug dealers for now, most folks are fine with that. Everybody knows they are scum and deserve it anyway, right? Oh well, I guess if nothing else, the government's "War on Drugs" propoganda machine has been effective. Now go back 60-70 years, to Germany. Another propoganda machine, another targeted group; same tactics. Same public acceptance.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
So you folks are comfortable with unannounced raids against U.S. citizens? I guess if it's mostly those evil drug dealers for now, most folks are fine with that. Everybody knows they are scum and deserve it anyway, right? Oh well, I guess if nothing else, the government's "War on Drugs" propoganda machine has been effective. Now go back 60-70 years, to Germany. Another propoganda machine, another targeted group; same tactics. Same public acceptance.

Spot on, Jeff. One wonders what would have happened to the Americans of Japanese ancestry that were put into concentration camps had the Battle of the Coral Sea, or several subsequent encounters, turned out differently for the US government. The howls of those wishing for vengence would have been deafening, and killing people that are disarmed and in concentration camps is so easy for governments.

[}{arlequin]

i'm fairly certain that there are lots of "freedom fighter" lawyers just rubbing their hands w/ anticipation waiting for that innocent raidee to come to them so they can sue everyone involved- rodney king style.

like i said, i'm not worried. if you're getting $hit, it's b/c you was doin' $hit. if not, then get a pitbull lawyer (that's what they're there for) and make yourself rich. do THAT enough times, and change will come about much quicker than yapping on a porsche website would accomplish.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by }{arlequin
i'm fairly certain that there are lots of "freedom fighter" lawyers just rubbing their hands w/ anticipation waiting for that innocent raidee to come to them so they can sue everyone involved- rodney king style.

like i said, i'm not worried. if you're getting $hit, it's b/c you was doin' $hit. if not, then get a pitbull lawyer (that's what they're there for) and make yourself rich. do THAT enough times, and change will come about much quicker than yapping on a porsche website would accomplish.

Of the several problems with your personal morality about guilty until proven innocent, notable in that it's a european socialist concept, the cost to America is very high, in healthcare of the wounded, cost in law suits, and the cost in making the law even more of a joke than it already is.

In short, your position is costly and wrong.

[id10t]

I don't have an issue wiht no-nock military like raids to serve warrants, etc - as long as the info used to obtain the warrant was correct, *and* they raid the correct address. Dangerous job, wouldn't want to second guess anyone, but when the SWAT teams are ending up in the wrong house/apartment ....

[widgeon13]

So you identified what your believe is a problem, what is the solution? Other than not hiring military personnel for law enforcement, what do we need to do as a society to stem the rise in crime in this country? Since a fair amount of the bad behavior seems to be driven by drug problems, I suppose you would say legalize drugs?

One of the most significant problems today in America is home meth labs, lethal, dangerous to everyone in the immediate vacinity and extremely difficult to identify. What is the solution if you do not have teams capable of going into locations once given probable cause?

Are you saying that if you reduce police presence and police authority that you will see a corresponding drop in crime because the bad guys are really just good guys who like to misbehave on occasion?

I'd like to hear some constructive comments on what needs to be done to improve the situation not just cut and paste BS.

[}{arlequin]

Originally posted by fastpat
Of the several problems with your personal morality about guilty until proven innocent, notable in that it's a european socialist concept, the cost to America is very high, in healthcare of the wounded, cost in law suits, and the cost in making the law even more of a joke than it already is.

In short, your position is costly and wrong.

there's nothing socialist nor european about my views. they're pragmatic at best. like i said, you gimmie a call when they mistakenly bust your door, oh-kay?

you act like no one in the ******* universe ever made a mistake. everyone makes them. the courts, the gvts, the enforcers, the meter maids, even grocery store owners when they give you a $10 change and you only gave them a $5. these wrongful no-knock entrys are just that, mistakes.

the whole point w/ such lawsuits IS to make the law a joke even more! that's about the only thing that will put it up for ridicule and get it to be changed. don't you see?- you bring enough police departments to their knees w/ lawsuits, and the mistakes, along w/ the laws will change or disappear completely. unless you think chatting here is a better solution to change

while 'costly and wrong', at least i've given you a picture of a solution that is most likely to work. (besides, don't you know?- you get what you pay for. are you the 'frugal' type?) why don't you give me your solution that's 'cheap and right' instead?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by widgeon13
So you identified what your believe is a problem, what is the solution? Other than not hiring military personnel for law enforcement, what do we need to do as a society to stem the rise in crime in this country?

There is no "rise of crime" in America. The crime that there is has a center; in the population percentage of young men, of specific ethnicity, and a direct relationship of making certain "things" illegal. Had there not been a "War on (some) Drugs", the duplicate of the Prohibition Era rise in crime during the 1960's and 1970's would not have existed. Essentially, the crime wave of the 60's-70's was government's fault. With the increase in age of those involved in those crimes during those decades, together with the decrease in the percentage of the population under 25 years of age is mostly responsible for the crime REDUCTION of the last 15 years.

Since a fair amount of the bad behavior seems to be driven by drug problems, I suppose you would say legalize drugs?

Those crimes aren't related to the drugs directly, they're related to the uncontrolled availability of them, and the fact that government has made them illegal. When you prohibit a thing, you remove control of that thing entirely. There is no known scientific rationale for making any drug illegal.

One of the most significant problems today in America is home meth labs, lethal, dangerous to everyone in the immediate vacinity and extremely difficult to identify. What is the solution if you do not have teams capable of going into locations once given probable cause?

How and why did meth labs come into existence? Because the government made easily obtainable, safer drugs illegal. Again, government is the root of these problems, not the drugs or their availability.

Are you saying that if you reduce police presence and police authority that you will see a corresponding drop in crime because the bad guys are really just good guys who like to misbehave on occasion?

Since we have prior experience that says yes, this is the case, and that's recreational Alcohol Prohibition; my answer is yes, all available evidence, that's proven facts, indicate that government prohibition is completely and utterly responsible for drug related problems.

I'd like to hear some constructive comments on what needs to be done to improve the situation not just cut and paste BS.

Right, don't trouble you with the facts, just pull things out of thin air.

[widebody911]

It could be worse - they could send Shaq to bust down your door...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061024-8062.html

[widgeon13]

Well that was certainly productive. Guess I'm looking at the world through rose colored glasses.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by widgeon13
Well that was certainly productive. Guess I'm looking at the world through rose colored glasses.

More like either blue colored glasses, or blindfolded.

The facts are out there, you have a duty to learn them.

[Grady Clay]

I’ll have to stand with fastpat here.

I think most will agree that “no-knock” raids by police are over used and too often lead to innocent people killed. That situation could use far more oversight. In fact I dislike SWAT for another reason – the black garb and hoods smack of criminals. I would like to see the dress more appropriate. Dark “official” blue with name and badge number in place over the body armor. No hoods and a running personal video/audio/time/GPS recorder (like most cell phones).

I think what fastpat is objecting to is (perish the thought that I should speak for him) the military attitude that is brought to civilian law enforcement. I think this a worthwhile concern.

I will expand that thought somewhat.

Is there a connection with our government permitting (encouraging) torture and secret detention of “terrorists” by Federal agents and US military and the attitude of civilian law enforcement. A “trickle down effect” so to speak.

If it is OK for a Fed to do this; what is the message that sends to an FBI agent, the SS, our State Police, my County Sheriff or even the college library security guard (who Tasered a student three times for not having his library card).


The military experience has been wonderful for most. I think it is great that our ex-military are trained for a life in civilian world. I have to agree with fastpat that similar effort used training for the military needs to be applied on returning to civilian life. We don’t need soldier attitude as policemen – or anywhere else in civilian life.

Best,
Grady

[Moneyguy1]

We have the right to defend our homes, right?

The government has the power to knock down your door unannounced, right?

I see dead people on both sides of the door.

That is what the founding fathers had in mind?

Be careful what you ask for, guys....

[Grady Clay]

Noah,

Colorado has a “Make-my-day” law permitting deadly force against an intruder. Fortunately it hasn’t (yet) been applied to a warrant no-knock situation. I suspect if the SWAT have the wrong address (or any imperfection in the warrant), the use of deadly force against the police would be upheld. A sad state.

State Immunity is another issue worth addressing. I don’t think the concept was ever meant to cover wrongdoing. Clearly jurisdictions are paying out millions of our tax dollars daily to victims of official mistakes and misconduct. Am I correct that the burden is for a victim to overcome some very significant legal obstacles? That should change and people should be held personally accountable.


I think it is unfortunately necessary to have SWAT. I think the problem is with the use (and over use). This may be the “If you have it you need to use it” funding justification. There needs to be greater judicial oversight when a warrant is issued. Perhaps a public advocate should be able to argue counter to law enforcement when a warrant is proposed. The critical aspect is with supervision and accountability.


A few years ago I had the occasion to discuss SWAT with a team leader in our local county sheriff’s department. Basically I listened and asked non-judgmental and even supportive questions. I was absolutely appalled.

At first I thought this was a rouge cop with some personal agenda. Not so. It turned out that he was the person responsible to attend national training of some sort and bring that back to training in our local sheriff’s organization. The most frightening aspect was he had absolutely no respect for the law – even constitutional rights. He even admitted that the hoods and black garb (not personally identifiable) were there to protect his and his men’s identity and not be held accountable for their actions.

My reaction was “How could such an obvious Nazi/SS/Gestapo be in this position in MY community?” Needless to say I didn’t say that out loud.

I wrote a carefully worded letter with positive suggestions to my County Sheriff Sullivan (an elected position). I got back a letter that didn’t address anything. I had the occasion to bring up the subject personally and he changed the subject three times.


Who here has had SWAT training?

I may ask our County Sheriff to permit me to observe the training and actions - for a positive and supportive article of course.


Back to the Militarization of our police.”
Aside from the obvious (to me) issues with SWAT, what are the more insidious aspects of the police becoming more militarized?

Best,
Grady

[fastpat]

Woman, 92, dies in shootout with police

[}{arlequin]

i'm too lazy to look up links to articles where the militia are shooting at the authorities