[Jeff Higgins]

In the relationship between law enforcement and the citizenry, societies have always struggled with a balance between the rights of its people and the authority of its law enforcement officers. The United States is supposed to be a country wherein we err on the side of citizens' rights, while doing our best to at least ensure officer safety in the daily performance of their duties. We have historically granted officers the benefit of the doubt in all cases where force is used, even deadly force. I believe that is how it should be, how it must be.

However, I think the recent proliferation of military-like SWAT teams has pushed that understanding between the citizenry and its police past the breaking point, past the boundaries of reason. SWAT teams were (in their early inception), undeniably needed in the areas and situations in which they were deployed. They saved officers' lives, they apprehended or eliminated some very unsavory characters, and they continue to do so today. My hat is off to them, and I sincerely thank them for the dangerous work they do. I do believe, however, that it is all starting to go wrong, and has been for some time.

The problems really only started with their proliferation into areas in which they are not needed, and when they started being deployed for all the wrong wrong reasons. It seems every little podunk police force thinks they need one. They are encouraged to think they need one by all manner of special funding, matching funding, and whatnot that sends money their way. The money is most often justified as being used to fight the "war on (some) drugs" (TM) or the equally dubious "war on terror". Either way, that doesn't really matter - what the departments, the mayors, the councilmen see is an influx of money to shore up what are typically underfunded police forces. Even the big cities, who legitimately need these teams, have fallen for the allure of such "easy money". Their hearts are in the right place, funding their police, but...

The problem with this money is that is does come with some strings - departments must demonstrate some "need" for these units and their fancy, expensive equipment. Since the vast majority of departments have no more need for a SWAT team than a rooster has for a bicycle, they find themselves in somewhat of a pickle. They resort to deploying these units under circumstances that no one would have ever considered in the past, prior to all the "free money" that comes with having one. They resort to using them for such mundane tasks as serving warrants to petty criminals for non-violent offenses. There is a very real "use 'em or lose 'em" situation these departments have fallen into, so with little other choice (in their minds), they find ways to use them. By way of justification, police trump up and exaggerate the dangers involved in what their forebears took on as routine police work. That was clearly the case in the specific situation discussed in this thread.

Add to that unsavory situation the fact that within these departments, there are no shortage of volunteers chomping at the bit to get into these units. There is a lot of status associated with being on a SWAT team, a lot of swagger potential the guys writing speeding tickets just don't get. There is the potential for some real excitement, some real "kick ass and take names" excitement. The "reluctant hero" picture our resident officer would like to paint may be true for some, but an equal number are impatiently waiting for their chance to "get some". Great attitude in battle, or even when raiding a violent felon's lair, but no so great when serving warrants to petty offenders with no violent history.

The inevitable result of these factors converging is the proverbial "perfect storm". Take a department that is in a continual "use them or lose them" budget battle, toss in some bored, over-eager team members just itching for some action, spice it up with judges all too quick to sign off on no-knock warrants (influenced by these departments, mayors, and a desire to appear "tough on crime"), and inevitably we find the dead body of an innocent citizen on the floor every once in awhile. And, somehow, incredibly, that is o.k. with these people. No one's fault, just the cost of doing business.

In every single instance of this to date, it seems they find ways to blame the dead guy - we have seen more than ample evidence of that right here in this thread. In their eyes, no one on their side is to blame - they all followed procedure - it's the dead guy that didn't, so it must be his fault. In this case in particular (and other similar cases) he should have known better, should have known their procedures, should have been able to process the overwhelming sensual overload of a full-on military invasion into his home (in mere seconds), and understand exactly what was happening before he even saw around the corner. The penalty for being bewildered for a few seconds, for being unable to pull off this super human feat? His life.

And, incidentally, we, the citizenry, are perceived as "stupid" by these very folks because we do not understand their procedures, tactics, command structure, and all of that. If we are unlucky enough to get in the way, why, that's our own damn fault, and the post-action debrief will spare no effort to demonstrate that while we were not the intended target, it's just as well - we deserved it anyway, for whatever other bad habits we may have had. Or, if for no other reason, we were simply too "stupid" to pick up on their game quickly enough. Life's tough, tougher if you're stupid - get over it.

Well, we should not have to understand any of their tactics, policies, rules, command structure, or any of that. All we have to understand is how we, as the ultimate authority in this land, would like to be policed. We see the dead body of an innocent man on the floor and understand quite clearly that something went gravely wrong. We understand that that is not acceptable under any circumstances, that there are no excuses for this outside of a battle field. In sharp contrast, we hear from the other side of the "thin blue line" that this sort of "collateral damage" is perfectly acceptable and, moreover, because we have not walked that mile in their shoes, we are not even qualified to render an opinion on this. We simply need to trust them, and not worry our pretty little heads. They have it handled. We are too stupid to understand.

Sorry, but that is not how it is supposed to work in this country. It's long past time to introduce some "adult supervision" into this situation. The police have demonstrated time and time again that they do not have the maturity, judgement, and perhaps most importantly of all, the compassion and empathy to be trusted with their deadly new toy known as the "SWAT" team. Again, I agree there will always be a time and place for such teams - I'm simply saying the police are not the ones to decide when and where that time and place is. We have trusted their judgement on this, and the innocent bodies are mounting too quickly. Our mistake. They have proven incapable of showing enough restraint, of being able to discern the difference between policing a civilian population and engaging an enemy on the battlefield.

So, yes, citizens' review boards would be a viable tool to use in an effort to start reigning these folks back in. Not just post-action, but as a continuing presence reviewing not only SWAT activity, but any and all citizens' complaints and concerns. And no, no one has to go through their academy to be qualified to determine how we would like to be policed. Upstanding, reputable members of the community are eminently qualified to "police the police".

As an aside, we actually had such a review board right here in Seattle up until a few short years ago. It was Mayor Nickels's response to growing citizen concerns over Seattle police behavior. Men and women on this review board were former Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and other such "pillars of the community" (yeah, I know - they were politicians, but let's leave wisecracks about that aside for now). This review board only lasted a few years before they quit en masse, in disgust over the stonewalling, lies, obfuscation, and abject lack of cooperation from the Seattle Police Department and its chief. They held a news conference where they read an open letter to the mayor, the chief of police, the police, and the citizens of Seattle. It wasn't pretty; they did not mince words.

Anyway, to go full circle, we see the dead body of an innocent man laying on the floor and reach the quite logical conclusion that something went horribly wrong, that someone made a horrible mistake, or a number of someones made a series of horrible mistakes. In sharp contrast, the police, the D.A., and others in authority simply shrug their shoulders and say "meh, it happens...". They don't care. They don't have to in today's environment, and they won't care until we give them a reason to, until we make it a practice to hold each and every one of them involved responsible for the death of that innocent man. So, with no real consequences for their "mistakes", real financial incentives tied to their use, and overzealous Rambos looking to "get some" staffing them, it's no wonder these SWAT teams kill innocents. It's time we put an end to it.