Militarized Police Departments

[fossten]

Anybody seen the movie The Negotiator? Think about the level of militarization the police had in that film.

Here's a copy of testimony recently given before Congress:

Our Militarized Police Departments
Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime

Radley Balko | July 2, 2007

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.

But that’s exactly what we’re doing. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.

We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.

Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.

SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.

But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.

This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.

But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option.

Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, estimates we’ve seen a startling 1,500 percent increase in the use of SWAT teams in this country from the early 80s until the early 2000s. And the vast majority of these SWAT raids are for routine warrant service.

These violent raids on American homes, when coupled with the imperfect, often ugly methods used in drug policing, have set the stage for disturbingly frequent cases of police raiding the homes not only of recreational, nonviolent drug users, but the homes of people completely innocent of any crime at all.

Take a look at the map on the monitor (http://www.cato.org/raidmap). This is a map of the botched paramilitary police raids I found while researching a paper for the Cato Institute last summer. It is by no means inclusive. It only includes those cases for which I was able to find a newspaper account or court record. Based on my research, I’m convinced that the vast majority of victims of mistaken raids are to afraid, intimidated, embarrassed, or concerned about retaliation to report what happened to them.

Pay particular attention to the red markers on the map. Those are the approximately 40 cases where a mistaken raid resulted in the death of a completely innocent American citizen.

The most recent example of course is the drug raid in Atlanta last fall that killed 92-year old Kathryn Johnston. Ms. Johnston mistook the raiding police officers for criminal intruders. When she met them with a gun, they opened fire and killed her. The police were acting on an uncorroborated tip from a convicted felon.

I’d estimate I find news reports of mistaken raids on Americans homes about once a week. If you’re wondering, yes, there was one just this week. This past Saturday, in Durango, Colorado, police raided the home of 77-year-old Virginia Herrick. Ms. Herrick, who takes oxygen, was forced to the ground and handcuffed at gunpoint while officers ravaged through her home.

They had the wrong address. In just the last month, there have been mistaken raids in New York City; Annapolis, Maryland; Hendersonville, North Carolina; Bonner County, Idaho; and Stockton, California.

In each case, innocent American citizens had the sanctity of their homes invaded by agents of the government behaving more like soldiers at war than peace officers upholding and protecting our constitutional rights.

800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Congress consider ending the federal incentives that are driving this trend, and that the Congress reign in the copious use of SWAT teams and among federal police agencies.

There are appropriate uses for these kinds of tactics. But the bulk of the dramatic rise in paramilitary police operations is attributable to inappropriate use of SWAT teams for routine warrant service.

It’s time we stopped the war talk, the military tactics, and the military gear. America’s domestic police departments should be populated by peace officers, not the troops of an occupying military force.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121169.html

 

[Calabrio]

...so perhaps we should let them go out without body armor armed with night sticks?

There's no denying that it is a tricky problem balancing government power with security. But to analyze this "problem" without also noting the increased problems within society and the increased violence, quality of equipment, and ruthlessness of criminals, is futile.

 

[fossten]

No, we should stop allowing corrupt judges to give cops blank, unsigned warrants, and we should define the rules of engagement regarding SWAT operations. I can think of a handful of movies off the top of my head that showed excessive militarization by police: The Negotiator, The Fugitive, and Shooter.

Just keep in mind that police forces both local and federal are given far more firepower than the citizens whose rights they are supposed to be upholding. All it takes is a corrupt cop or department and you have a police state. Also remember that we the citizens of this country are not allowed to use most of the equipment that our "public servants" get to play with.

 

[rmac694203]

It's cliche, but the police have a 'do as I say not as I do' mentality. Do you ever watch those A&E shows, Dallas SWAT, KC SWAT, etc.? I'm often surprised at the force which they enter homes. They pull up, throw tow ropes over gated doors and windows, rip them off, go in guns blazing, make arrests, then afterwards you see the charges. One particular show cracked me up. "One man was released without being charged and the other was charged w/ possession of marijuana." Wow, way to waste your time and endanger alll those citizens for a measley possession arrest. I hope no one turns me in for occasionally having a small amount of weed. Hopefully my house never gets raided, and my family endangered. Don't forget the flash grenades they aimlessly throw into windows. What if one landed near my infant son? Stuff is rediculous.

 

[fossten]

I have watched that show Dallas SWAT. You are exactly right. Can't even add anything other than:
/\
||
||

WHAT HE SAID.

 

[Calabrio]

Again, you're ignoring the fact that use of force ultimately saves lives. Both of those who protect us, and most of the time, those upon whom they will be enforcing the law.

Bursting down the door in a strike fashion, overwhelming (arguably disproportionate) force is to reduce the loss of life.

If you want to take issue with the judicial branch, that's fine. But to attack the police or law enforcement is foolish. When they have reason to believe that a violent criminal is behind a door, why would you want to deny them the element of surprise or overwhelming force? Giving the suspect time to load and aim?

I'll give Fossten the benefit of the doubt and presume he just wants to see a more responsible use of this force. IE- not using a battering ram to bust a small time pot dealer. But to say that the mere fact the police often utilize this power when attempting to take the most reprehensible criminals off the street (including drug dealers, killers, terrorists, ect) is short sighted. And I don't want to see any cops killed because they were unprepared, unarmed, or out numbered.

 

[rmac694203]

Yes, but at what point does it become too much force? No one wants to see police needlessly harmed, but they swore an oath to protect and serve. These innocent victims didn't.

 

[Calabrio]

Yes, but at what point does it become too much force? No one wants to see police needlessly harmed, but they swore an oath to protect and serve. These innocent victims didn't.

At what point does it become too much force?? Never. Because, what you're failing to note is that while this huge presence might be called upon, most of the time deadly force is not used.

It's terribly inconvenient when a mistake is made, but rarely does it involve the loss of innocent life. As bad as it may seem when an old lady gets hand cuffed, she's not dead.

...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly. But those are rare exceptions. Ultimately, whenever people are involved, mistakes are sometimes made, and bad people sometimes find them self in a place of power. I recognize this.

I also get annoyed when I hear people make comments like yours "They took an oath to protect and serve....." that doesn't mean they should be expected to take absolutely needless risk that prevent hem from ever returning home to their families.

And if the police didn't have these swat teams, who would deal with the high threat crisis situations that they deal with? The military IS NOT permitted to function like that, so now what? Should the police also stop hiring sharp shooters? And how many times have you seen or heard of a hostage situation and wished they could just end the situation with a well placed shot from a sharp shooters Remington 700?

The police and law enforcement are constantly put in a bad position. These are men and women who have valiantly and nobly put themselves between us the predators in society. They don't do it for the money. And as criminals become more sophisticated, more violent, and better armed, they also have to fight a public that is more jaded, more ungrateful, more hostile, and lawyered up.

 

[shagdrum]

U go into a potentially life or death situation, u would be stupid not to use overwhelming force if it is an option. "playing fair" is for fools.

Besides, the police just enforce the laws. If u are worried about a "police state" worry that the laws they are enforcing are going overboard. the police state fear can be a legitimate one , (in certian places) but know where the blame should fall. Getting mad at the police is like getting mad at a Kwik shop clerk for the price of gas...

 

[MonsterMark]

...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly.

I disagree. There are way too many instances where police decide to use lethal force where it wasn't warranted. Literally thousands of cases where the police used lethal force in a situation that could have been resolved without the loss of life. But their 'training' doesn't allow for those instances where less-than-lethal would be appropriate. In most instances I consider it legalized murder on behalf of the police.

Case in point. I guy standing 5 feet away that supposedly "lunges" at a police officer who then shoots the guy 5 times point blank in the chest.

Please!

One shot to the leg would have solved the situation. Unfortunate, but the police on too many occasions 'choose" to end a life instead of save one.

Thousands of other examples can be provided if necessary to prove my point.

 

[Marcus]

Take a look at the map from the article. There are your examples:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

While it heartens me to see that a few of you right-wingers see the dangers of "enhanced" police powers, you're only talking about cases of physical entry into homes. I consider wire-tapping and other forms of government collection of information on citizens to be just as intrusive and just as susceptible to mistakes and outright abuse. You may trust the current administration with these powers (I certainly do not) but do you really want some gun-grabbing Democratic administration reading your email, examining your credit card statements, and listening in on your phone calls? Is this still the land of the free and the home of the brave? Please, for the love of all that is Good and all that is American, quit living in fear and say NO to this!

 

[fossten]

Take a look at the map from the article. There are your examples:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

While it heartens me to see that a few of you right-wingers see the dangers of "enhanced" police powers, you're only talking about cases of physical entry into homes. I consider wire-tapping and other forms of government collection of information on citizens to be just as intrusive and just as susceptible to mistakes and outright abuse. You may trust the current administration with these powers (I certainly do not) but do you really want some gun-grabbing Democratic administration reading your email, examining your credit card statements, and listening in on your phone calls? Is this still the land of the free and the home of the brave? Please, for the love of all that is Good and all that is American, quit living in fear and say NO to this!

Tommy, I AGREE WITH YOU. The cops have too much power, especially WRT getting stacks of blank signed warrants for wiretaps and home searches. And if you have the means to defend yourself in court, they freeze your bank accounts and assets so you cannot use those means. Then you're stuck with a public defender making a plea deal and your life is history.

 

[Calabrio]

One shot to the leg would have solved the situation. Unfortunate, but the police on too many occasions 'choose" to end a life instead of save one.

Thousands of other examples can be provided if necessary to prove my point.

That's not a good example. And I know that you know enough about firearms to know that it would needlessly jeopardizes the safety of the officer to ask him to target a limb in a high stress situation like that. And it's also not an effective way to quickly drop and aggressor and eliminate the risk to the officer and those around.

Furthermore, if an officer uses lethal force, that means the aggressor is within a just a few steps away, and a bullet to the limb will be ineffective at preventing him from reaching the officer.

But even this problem is being addressed as police forces increasing supply their force with non-lethal weapons such as tazers and sprays.

 

[fossten]

That's not a good example. And I know that you know enough about firearms to know that it would needlessly jeopardizes the safety of the officer to ask him to target a limb in a high stress situation like that. And it's also not an effective way to quickly drop and aggressor and eliminate the risk to the officer and those around.

Furthermore, if an officer uses lethal force, that means the aggressor is within a just a few steps away, and a bullet to the limb will be ineffective at preventing him from reaching the officer.

But even this problem is being addressed as police forces increasing supply their force with non-lethal weapons such as tazers and sprays.

I agree with the part about not shooting at limbs. Can often cause crippling injuries and leave people as invalids.

I disagree with the premise that tasers are non-lethal. It is a fact that many people who have been tasered have died.

We must reconcile due process and the 4th amendment with the EXTREME militarization of the police and federal agencies. Everybody's got helicopters and tanks now except for citizens. Why in the world should the police need a tank or a gunship, or even fixed-wing aircraft for that matter?

 

[Calabrio]

I agree with the part about not shooting at limbs. Can often cause crippling injuries and leave people as invalids.

If you're charging a cop, I'm less worried about paralysis than I am the fact that a limb shot usually doesn't drop a motivated assailant and at that range it wouldn't prevent them from being able to reach the officer and assault him.

I disagree with the premise that tasers are non-lethal. It is a fact that many people who have been tasered have died.

It is also a fact that thousands of people have been tasered and are perfectly fine.

People can die for any number of reasons. Tasers are considered safe enough so that many forces require their police officers to experience a shot with a taser during training.

We must reconcile due process and the 4th amendment with the EXTREME militarization of the police and federal agencies. Everybody's got helicopters and tanks now except for citizens. Why in the world should the police need a tank or a gunship, or even fixed-wing aircraft for that matter?

So in a hostage situation or something major like that, would you like to have a bunch of British bobbies running around with sticks?

After the 1997 bank robbery in LA, where two assailants were walking the streets covered, head to toe, in body armor, wielding multiple machine guns and semi-automatic handguns, and extra ammo- did you think it was good that the officers who were trying to stop them were primarily unarmored armed with .38 revolvers?

What police force has a tank? Or do you mean armored vehicles but use the misleading imagery of a tank because it has a huge machine gun and howitzer on it?

And what police force uses a gunship?

And why wouldn't they use airplanes? Are helicopters bad too? Should we deny law enforcement technology and let the criminals in society exploit technology alone?

How far do you take it? Should the cops during the 20s and 30s been able to arm themselves with BAR rifles? Were semi-auto handguns too much? How about repeating rifles when most people were still using single shot, barrel loaded weapons?

Are you anticipating some kind of violent repression of rights where the local PD, the guy who lives down the street from you, is going to suppress the city with the local police station's MP5?

Or will your next thread be about how superior the MILITARY weapons are compared to what even the police and civilians have access too? Would you like to make it legal to install surplus Soviet SAM missile launchers in areas zones commercial?

Using technology to protect law enforcement makes sense. You end up with chaos and harm to society when the criminal element is better armed than law enforcement. History shows us that. So taking issue with the gear is foolish.

 

[fossten]

Calabrio,
I attempted to offer you an olive branch and encourage discussion of how we could reconcile the problem that I see with the problem you see. Instead of accepting my offer, you have lashed out in attack mode. If that's the way you want it, then we will never get anywhere. I actually think there are solutions to this problem, so it's too bad.

I'm amazed at the way you attempt to wriggle out of my taser comment. Your argument is that since many people DON'T die, it doesn't really matter that many DO? That's an argument more typical of Johnny, not you.

Your British bobbies with sticks comment is a straw dog, designed to make my comment look absurd. The problem is that I never said anything of the sort. That is you putting words in my mouth.

I really don't have time to answer every point that you made, although most of your points were really rhetoric designed to distract from the real issue raised by the article I posted, which you have glossed over and excused.

You are looking at a very one-sided view of this. You refuse to address the issues with the 4th Amendment, even so far as to debunk them by pre-empting any discussion of violations with a "...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly. But those are rare exceptions."

That statement is false. These are not rare exceptions; they happen EVERY DAY in this country. You really should go to badcops.com and check it out.

If you want to discuss this rationally and point by point, then fine. But all you're trying to do now is bury me in rhetoric.

But I can do the same thing:

Is the 4th Amendment important to you? Do you believe that law and order are to be preferred over personal liberty? Do you support the Constitution as it is written? Do you believe the 2nd amendment is for all citizens, and if so, do you believe that all citizens should have the personal firearm technology that the state has, or should we all just have ball muskets?

Do you not know about the millions of people who have been murdered by their own governments AFTER the governments passed laws restricting the level of firearms ownership? The number is in the hundreds of millions. Do you really believe naively that this could never happen here? Do you not remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Ken Ballew?

Do you care more about the rights of police, who are our public servants, than you do about the rights of the citizens of this country, who pay the salaries of those who oppress them?

Do you have a close family member in "law enforcement" and as such take all discussions of this nature personally?

Have you ever read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross? If not, would you consider reading it to obtain the perspective of the other side, a perspective you obviously do not agree with?

 

[Marcus]

It's an old maxim that the government should fear the people, not the other way around.

 

[Calabrio]

I'm amazed at the way you attempt to wriggle out of my taser comment. Your argument is that since many people DON'T die, it doesn't really matter that many DO? That's an argument more typical of Johnny, not you.

Tasers are safe. There are isolated incidences where a person with a pre-existing medical condition does suffer cardiac arrest as a result of the stimulus, but this is rare. Clearly, the instrument is safe enough so that each officer is tasered at least once during their training.

If you think that tasers are too severe, what alternative do you leave law enforcement? Having to wrestle a hostile down? Lethal force is the escalation of force past this. Those are much more dangerous.

And the MISUSE of the taser does need to be watched. It shouldn't be used as punishment. It is to be used only when a person presents a danger to the officer or them self.

Again, do you wish to put law enforcement in a position where they are unable to defend themselves? Clearly, ABUSES of power are unacceptable. But to deny the guy on the street the tools necessary to be safe is unacceptable as well.

Your British bobbies with sticks comment is a straw dog, designed to make my comment look absurd. The problem is that I never said anything of the sort. That is you putting words in my mouth.

It's the extreme. Where do you want to draw the line? If you think that the bobbies are going to far, should we limit law enforcement to simply using .38 revolvers? Limit the amount of ammo they can carry?

I really don't have time to answer every point that you made, although most of your points were really rhetoric designed to distract from the real issue raised by the article I posted, which you have glossed over and excused.

No, I did not miss the point of the article. I repeatedly have said, the author and some of the posters in this thread are attacking the wrong issue. The "militarization" of the police, really based on appearance, is as foolish as attack assault rifles because they look scary. It's the not the equipment that is the issue, it's the way the force is used.

I want the police department and law enforcement to have every tool and piece of hardware necessary to keep them safe and confident. I want the the restrictions on the guys in suits and ivory towers, far away from the streets.

If you want to discuss limiting the power of government, that's great. If you want to make the focus the appearance and equipment provided to guys like you and I who might make the sacrifice to dedicate our life to the community in law enforcement, I take great issue.

You are looking at a very one-sided view of this. You refuse to address the issues with the 4th Amendment, even so far as to debunk them by pre-empting any discussion of violations with a "...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly. But those are rare exceptions."

Because someone will inevitably bring up Ruby Ridge or some story about the police bursting into an old ladies house thinking it's a crack den doesn't mean you castrate the police department.

I haven't addressed the constitutional aspect of this argument. I haven't addressed the policies associated with search warrants and seizures. I have focused only on the equipment.

That statement is false. These are not rare exceptions; they happen EVERY DAY in this country. You really should go to badcops.ORG and check it out.

There are over 800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S.
The fact that you can find horror stories on a website dedicated to finding horror stories is no surprise.

If you want to discuss this rationally and point by point, then fine. But all you're trying to do now is bury me in rhetoric.

There's no rhetoric. I'm pretty much single issue in this thread. Whether police have access to an MP5 or just a .38 is not the issue. And by making that the focus, by the author opting to attempt to rely on an intimidating visual, rather than a strong constitutional argument, he loses the debate.


The 4th Amendment is important.
I believe that law and order and personal liberty, by their very nature, are at odds with each other. Anarchy and Law & Order are in stark contrast. There is a balance that has to be reached. Democratic process, local government, and social contracts find that balance.
I support the constitution as it is written.
I actively support the 2nd amendment.

Now you ask if citizens should have the some technology as the state. The implication of the author is to the contrary. I took it to mean, NOT that the citizens should have greater access to weapons, but that we should DISARM the police.
I do think that the public should have greater access to weapons. But are you asking if I should be allowed to buy a nuclear submarine? Or if I should be able to buy a retired F-14 from the Middle East armed with Phoenix missiles?

I'm well aware of the consequences of disarming the population and I'm passionately opposed to such actions.

Do you really believe naively that this could never happen here? Do you not remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Ken Ballew?

Again, I'm not arguing this case. In principle we're not in disagreement on these issues.

Do you care more about the rights of police, who are our public servants, than you do about the rights of the citizens of this country, who pay the salaries of those who oppress them?

As repeatedly states, I think it's critical that the police are properly equipped. The POLICIES of the force have little to do with their equipment. Four bad officers, or officers acting on bad policy, can shoot a guy coming out of shower just as easily with a .38 revolver as they can with a 9mm with a laser sight.

In fact, overwhelming power might have SAVED the life of Ballew. A lightning strike might have caught him off guard, avoiding the confusion, and resulted in no shots being fired. Had it been done right, no one would have been killed. In fact, had those guys been WELL TRAINED they wouldn't have burst into the wrong house. They wouldn't have gone in so poorly organized, roughed up the family, or given Ballew time to get an old revolver and stumble upon them.

Ruby Ridge as well. Better trained, better equipped, better organized LE officers would have prevented the loss of life.

Do you have a close family member in "law enforcement" and as such take all discussions of this nature personally?

You put "law enforcement" in quotes, as though you have disdain for the men and women who jeopardize their lives to keep the streets safe. The next irrational step would be putting some painting about the "Fascist" cops and submitting them to a San Fransisco exhibition.

Have you ever read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross? If not, would you consider reading it to obtain the perspective of the other side, a perspective you obviously do not agree with?

And to clarify, my focus through the thread has not been the employment or interpretation of the constitution in this thread. I have been focused on the visual created by the author, using the "scary" visual of a militarized police force to persuade his reader. What the hell is militarized mean? Good equipment and training? Does it serve anyones interest to hire the Keystone Cops? The focus of his article shouldn't have been what they have, if anything it should HOW IS IT USED or the policy direction.

Should we roll back restrictive gun control legislation. Absolutely
Should the police force have every tool available. Yes

But criminals always try to use technology to their advantage and government is always slow to respond. So I do not think we should disarm the police or civilian law enforcement because they have access to better stuff than the public. At the same rate, the public should have more access as well.

 

[Calabrio]

It's an old maxim that the government should fear the people, not the other way around.

That can only happen when the people are not DEPENDENT upon the Government for both their livelihood and personal security.

American liberalism is destroying that independence. When the average person looks to Washington for their health care, their retirement, for their insurance, for their income, and for their personal protection, the government has nothing to fear. Otherwise we are no stronger than a 6 year old kid threatening to run away from home yelling "I hate you, I wish you were dead" to their parents.

 

[fossten]

At what point does it become too much force?? Never. Because, what you're failing to note is that while this huge presence might be called upon, most of the time deadly force is not used.

It's terribly inconvenient when a mistake is made, but rarely does it involve the loss of innocent life. As bad as it may seem when an old lady gets hand cuffed, she's not dead.

I wonder how you feel about this story, Cal. It was, as you put it, "terribly inconvenient." But I guess it's best for cops to err on the side of THEIR OWN SAFETY ALWAYS, right? And the hell with the citizens they are supposed to protect?

This story was posted on another forum.

A "Quality" Arrest & Prosecution.

This story is first hand from my best friend's wife. One of her clients lives use to live on a couple of acres in county jurisdiction a few hundred yards beyond city limits. They used to enjoy a lifestyle that include activities not allowed within the city limits.

A month or so ago, early on Saturday morning, they awoke to some crows making a ruckus outside their bedroom window. The husband steps out with his shotgun and blows a crow to Hell then he returns to bed. A couple hours later, while the husband was taking a shower and the wife still in bed, a full SWAT team from the CITY POLICE bust in through the front door! After violently attacking and handcuffing the couple (both naked) the police proceeded to toss the entire house. They took all the firearms along with the soapy naked husband and didn't allow the woman to dress until on their way out when they removed her handcuffs. He was arrested for discharging a firearm within city limits along with a dozen other violations like disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and so on.

After the handcuffs were on them both, the entire event turned very jovial for the cops whom appeared to take a lot of pleasure from tossing the house in front of the naked owners. They placed a postal scale from the home office and a kitchen scale from the counter top together in front of the wife while questioning her about how these are used, (because these are both "drug paraphernalia"!) There were other things similar to this but the scales really bother me because I have and use both for their intended purposes.

After a weekend in jail the following Monday morning the man goes before the judge who hears the charges. Then the judge asks the man 'what were you thinking?' The man tells the judge he lives in county jurisdiction and may shoot guns on his property as he wishes and the city cops do not authority there! The judge turns back to the prosecutor who then tells the judge, 'the city of ******, CA, annexed that area effective Friday @ midnight therefor it was within city jurisdiction for about six hours at the time of the violation.' The judge asks our man how long he knew about the annex, the answer is 'this is the first I heard of it'. The judge is not impressed with the prosecutor, however, the best he can do is set bond for $20,000. This costs our victim $2,000 in non-refundable hard cash.

Next step is legal help. The lawyer needs $4,000 up front and he requests all relevant documents from both the city & county as well as sending out subpoenas for every authority figure all the way down to the dog catcher and bus driver. At the preliminary hearing the defense attorney doesn't have any of the documents requested, however, he does have a stack of letters from everyone subpoenaed pleading ignorance & requesting dismissal. The judge hears the charges and turns to the defense. The defense suggests a phone call to the home owner and mailing a ticket would have been a much better use of resources - not to mention all the risks the SWAT operation elevated.

As before, the judge is not impressed and throws out the entire case. He also gives a severe tongue lashing to the prosecution then orders the city & county to notify everyone in the area that was annexed of the change in status and how it will affect them. Later, the lawyer tells his client this got so out of hand because the event (shooting a crow) was witnessed by a cop which raises the "Quality" status to a nearly guaranteed conviction!

Our violated couple are out at least $6,000 and still haven't had their firearms returned (it has been a couple weeks now). However, both are getting frequently stopped for perceived traffic violations and detained an unusually long duration (20 - 30 minutes) each time. This is very unique because they run a business from their home and don't have any regular destinations, it is like every time they go to the gym or market they are followed by the police!

Their neighbors also notice an unusually high volume of traffic driving slowly past their home and have called the police about this. One neighbor took video because the same few cars kept driving by slowly at all hours after dark. The Sony night vision video camera clearly shows faces and license plate numbers. Only after the police got news of a video did they respond - to take the video! Fortunately, the good neighbor made a copy first and later showed it to our violated couple. At least one of the men in the video is a cop and the car he is driving is his personal car. WTF? They have gone back the the lawyer for further help with this harassment & stalking issue.

Just terribly inconvenient, eh? Yeah, they should be glad they aren't dead, right? </sarcasm>

The police and law enforcement are constantly put in a bad position. These are men and women who have valiantly and nobly put themselves between us the predators in society. They don't do it for the money. And as criminals become more sophisticated, more violent, and better armed, they also have to fight a public that is more jaded, more ungrateful, more hostile, and lawyered up.

Re-read your words. The police should not be in the position of "fighting the public." Nor should police ever attack citizens with machine guns and hand grenades (Waco). Did you ever think that the reason the public is jaded is because of the loss of freedom perpetrated by the police, who are the ENFORCEMENT ARM of the corrupt government officials? What should we be grateful for? Nanny state Feds and SWAT teams that "ensure our safety" while stripping (literally in this case) our liberties from us?

If bad guys have too much firepower, then the military should be used. Don't give me that crap about the military not being permitted. The National Guard was used extensively to keep the peace in New Orleans in 2005, and they have been used before to quell rebellions.

 

[Joeychgo]

I disagree. There are way too many instances where police decide to use lethal force where it wasn't warranted. Literally thousands of cases where the police used lethal force in a situation that could have been resolved without the loss of life. But their 'training' doesn't allow for those instances where less-than-lethal would be appropriate. In most instances I consider it legalized murder on behalf of the police.

Case in point. I guy standing 5 feet away that supposedly "lunges" at a police officer who then shoots the guy 5 times point blank in the chest.

Please!

One shot to the leg would have solved the situation. Unfortunate, but the police on too many occasions 'choose" to end a life instead of save one.

Thousands of other examples can be provided if necessary to prove my point.

I couldnt agree more.

US Capitol Police Officer Today:

Chicago Polics officer of the past:

 

[Calabrio]

I wonder how you feel about this story, Cal. It was, as you put it, "terribly inconvenient." But I guess it's best for cops to err on the side of THEIR OWN SAFETY ALWAYS, right? And the hell with the citizens they are supposed to protect?

A "Quality" Arrest & Prosecution.

Just terribly inconvenient, eh? Yeah, they should be glad they aren't dead, right? </sarcasm>[/quote]

First off, in a country of 300,000,000 million people, the fact that you can find isolated incidences of bad judgement by law enforcement doesn't surprise me.

Second, I'm highly suspicious of the details provided in any "first hand account" pulled off the internet. You routinely post stories like this that omit critical information from the reader. While this could be a completely transparent story, for some reason when I investigate these stories further, I learn that the family in question had a long history of problems with police. That they were under federal investigation for illegal arms sales, or drugs. There's always something else that the authors fail to note in these stories.

But, if everything is transparent in this story, something is clearly wrong in this county. Unfortunately all names have been omitted from the story. Even the name of the county is missing. But, if everything is true, these people, working within the system will undoubtedly be suing the county and there will be some consequence to those responsible for the poor decision making. No county, backwards and militaristic or not, likes cutting six figure checks.

By the way, what kind of arse-hole blindly shoots at crows outside their window? That alone seems odd to me. But,since your story, once again, is so critically lacking in pertinent details, so I'll assume that it's acceptable where ever that happens to be, I guess?

Re-read your words. The police should not be in the position of "fighting the public."

....clearly, I'd have been better phrased that as the police are fighting a criminal element within our society, who PREY on the public, that is increasing jaded....."

Nor should police ever attack citizens with machine guns and hand grenades (Waco). Did you ever think that the reason the public is jaded is because of the loss of freedom perpetrated by the police, who are the ENFORCEMENT ARM of the corrupt government officials?

No. And the police are not eroding our freedoms. They are, overwhelmingly, loyal, noble, and honorable men and women, who dedicate themselves to the community and protect those very freedoms you hold dear.

Do you personally know ANY police officers? Are they all lunatics in your opinion?

You're conspiratorial paranoia is getting really bizarre and alarming. We do not live in a police state. Police officers are the guys in blue who form a line and protect you from chaos. They are noble people serving in a thankless job.

What should we be grateful for? Nanny state Feds and SWAT teams that "ensure our safety" while stripping (literally in this case) our liberties from us?

We should be grateful that there are smart and honorable people who are willing to take a dangerous job with a starting salary of about $25k a year. We should be thankful that there are smart and noble people who are willing to commit themselves to protecting and serving the public, despite it sometimes being politically beneficial to offer them up as sacrificial lambs and scapegoats.



If bad guys have too much firepower, then the military should be used. Don't give me that crap about the military not being permitted. The National Guard was used extensively to keep the peace in New Orleans in 2005, and they have been used before to quell rebellions.[/QUOTE]

 

[MERIJONS97LSC]

Wow! where do I begin...everyone seems to bring up good pionts on the pros and cons of this issue. your piont of view changes, when some thug has a gun in your face and his buddy is starting to rape your daughter....but then again your point of view changes, when a family member or friend accidently is shot or killed by one of those police raids.....As for me I can honestly can say I don't know...I guess it depends on which side of the news cast your on,The subject or the audience!"The first priority of a policeman is at the end of his shift to go home alive" (Sean connery-The untouchables) ..And as far as the national guard..I'd rather be protected by a Kmart security guard! It's about the same level of expertise! Right or wrong I'll still take the police!

 

[fossten]

You're conspiratorial paranoia is getting really bizarre and alarming. We do not live in a police state. Police officers are the guys in blue who form a line and protect you from chaos. They are noble people serving in a thankless job.

The coarseness of your rhetoric is getting out of character for you. I'm actually surprised. You sound defensive and you're calling names. I, on the other hand, am anything but bizarre. More people think like I do than you realize. Don't start casting aspersions on the gun culture when you know absolutely nothing about it.

If I were to respond in kind, I would say that you are living either in ignorance or denial. Just take a look at New York City these days. They are going to install 3,000 cameras on street corners. Helllooooo! Did you ever see the movie 1984?

Anybody who still thinks we live in a free country is a member of the sheeple. Have you ever read any of the books by John Ross, Matthew Bracken, Claire Wolfe, Vin Suprynowicz? If not, I suggest that you do. As a matter of fact, if you haven't read Unintended Consequences by John Ross (I KNOW you haven't), I'll offer you this challenge: Buy it and read it, and if it doesn't transform your thinking, I'll buy it from you for your entire cost. No risk to you. I'll even escrow the thirty bucks with MonsterMark if you want. Do we have a deal?

By the way, my wife's son is a federal agent, so yes I do know people in that line of work personally, and I know that they are not all corrupt; however, I believe that when push comes to shove, they will obey their superiors and protect their careers no matter what orders they are given. If the higher ups tell them to go around confiscating guns, LIKE THEY DID IN NEW ORLEANS, they will do it. If the higher ups tell them to arrest gun owners, they will do it. They will rationalize this in their own minds by thinking like you: "Hey, they will get their day in court, and they can always sue." Meanwhile, the victims who have done nothing wrong have had their lives turned upside down.

And I'm getting a little tired of your lame attempts to minimize the abuses by cops across this country. This kind of thing happens EVERY WEEK in this country. So stop acting like it's once a decade unless you have evidence to back up your statement. My contention is that it is a growing trend, despite the numbers of good law enforcement in this country. Regardless of your opinion, you have yet to acknowledge that they are our public servants, not the other way around.

Do you have a conceal carry permit? Do you know anybody who does? Do you know how out of control cops get when they realize somebody they've pulled over for speeding has a gun? Don't tell me they don't overreact.

Ever hear of gun rights activists being harassed by the police? Google "Shaun Kranish" and see what comes up.

Here's the money quote FROM THE POLICE CHIEF:

Cherry Valley Police Chief Gary Maitland disagrees with the judge’s ruling.

“This is not the Old West,” he said. “I’m not advocating banning handguns. But I’m not aware of any police officer who would advocate more handguns on the street. [There's that John Kerry "but" again. We all know what that means - whatever he said before the word is a LIE.] When they start taking their weapons out of their home and walking around with them strapped to their hip, bad things can happen.” [Well, certainly bad things can happen to THEM if the cops have anything to say about it, right?]

There you have it - it's institutional according to Maitland - cops don't want citizens armed on the streets. And he acknowledges that this is not the Old West. He prefers ONLY COPS to be armed on the streets. What is that, if not a police state?

You really believe that somebody who shoots a bird on his own property should be attacked and bound naked by a SWAT team? If that's your vision of America, then you really need to start re-reading the writings of Jefferson, Paine, and Hamilton.

 

[Calabrio]

The coarseness of your rhetoric is getting out of character for you. I'm actually surprised. You sound defensive and you're calling names. I, on the other hand, am anything but bizarre. More people think like I do than you realize. Don't start casting aspersions on the gun culture when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Don't make yourself a victim here and stop mischaracterizing everything I say as some kind of personal attack and thus avoiding the substance of everything else I've said.

The mere fact that there are "more people that think like you" than I may or may not realize is absolutely meaningless. There are more socialists and anarchists than I may realize, but that doesn't strengthen their argument.

Additionally, what aspersions am I casting on the "gun culture." I am a trained and licensed fire arm and handgun owner. I'm extremely familiar and active within the gun owning community. The only culture I may not be knowledgeable about would be the conspiratorial loony types that act outside of the legal system while developing ridiculous conspiratorial plots involving black helicopters and evil jack-booted police officers.

If I were to respond in kind, I would say that you are living either in ignorance or denial. Just take a look at New York City these days. They are going to install 3,000 cameras on street corners. Helllooooo! Did you ever see the movie 1984?

Many cities have installed cameras on their streets. It's been deemed to be constitutional because it's a public space. Whether you think that this is a good or bad thing is not related to whether or not you think that the police and law enforcement officers are dangerous thugs hell bent on denying civil rights to the gun owning meth addicts who's half-stories so often find their way to the internet.

Anybody who still thinks we live in a free country is a member of the sheeple.

Do we need to be constantly vigilant when protect our constitutionally protected rights? Absolutely. Does that having anything to do with your so-called "militarization" of the Police Department, when it's defined by good gear and tactical efficiency. No.

How are out rights better protected when the police resemble the Keystone Cops?

I'll offer you this challenge: Buy it and read it, and if it doesn't transform your thinking, I'll buy it from you for your entire cost. No risk to you. I'll even escrow the thirty bucks with MonsterMark if you want. Do we have a deal?

Not necessary. Given my understanding of that book, I expect myself to be in agreement with it. I've yet to read it, but do intend to.

By the way, my wife's son is a federal agent, so yes I do know people in that line of work personally, and I know that they are not all corrupt;

Then we are in agreement.

however, I believe that when push comes to shove, they will obey their superiors and protect their careers no matter what orders they are given.

And now we aren't. Federal law enforcement officers are not robots. They don't lose their humanity. Nor do soldiers or local cops. You take a job like that to PROTECT the constitution, not suppress it.

Again, there are always exceptions. Bad people sometimes slip through. But given how difficult the screening and application process is, this isn't common. And this whole sale indictment of nearly a million of some of the best Americans is offensive and ignorant. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a job with the FBI, Secret Service, or any other federal law enforcement position? Or the nearly six months of intense training they also often require?

If the higher ups tell them to go around confiscating guns, LIKE THEY DID IN NEW ORLEANS, they will do it. If the higher ups tell them to arrest gun owners, they will do it. They will rationalize this in their own minds by thinking like you: "Hey, they will get their day in court, and they can always sue." Meanwhile, the victims who have done nothing wrong have had their lives turned upside down.

Again, how does this have anything to do with local law enforcement using flash bangs before entering a gang leaders home?

But what is your suggestion? Eliminating all law enforcement officers because they might function to enforce bad laws? Are you saying they should be so poorly armed and equipped that they will be easy to shoot if they attempt to enforce a bad law?

Don't you think it'd be better ot work within the system to ELIMINATE those bad laws, not leave law enforcement so poorly prepared they are basically offered for sacrifice to actual criminals?

And I'm getting a little tired of your lame attempts to minimize the abuses by cops across this country. This kind of thing happens EVERY WEEK in this country.

Over eight hundred Thousand law enforcement officers.

Again, you're solution is what? Disarm law enforcement? I'm not building a straw man here, what's your point? Give them night sticks alone? You can kill a man with a night stick, so how about whiffle ball bats? What's your goal? Not only do you mistrust the government, the politicians, you're venting on the regular normal guy who choses a thankless, dangerous career, with the intention of just helping people.

So stop acting like it's once a decade unless you have evidence to back up your statement. My contention is that it is a growing trend, despite the numbers of good law enforcement in this country.

..do you have any evidence to back up that the law enforcement abuses are actually proportionately increasing? Noting that the population has grown, as have the numbers of law enforcement, are the stats really getting worse? I'd actually expect to see some increase given the increased likelihood of the public to report them and the litigious society we live in. But is that even the case?

Regardless of your opinion, you have yet to acknowledge that they are our public servants, not the other way around.

What do you mean by public servants? I've stated that these are men and women who serve the community, that they dedicate themselves to a thankless job with the intention of helping out other people, people they probably don't even know. You seem to think that public servant means that they should be our whipping boys and victims. That they should be cannon fodder for scum bag criminals. And that they should be viewed suspiciously and as though they are our enemy.

To the contrary, I think of law enforcement as an ally. To someone who is trying to improve the quality of the neighborhood. Someone I work with, not against.

Do you have a conceal carry permit? Do you know anybody who does? Do you know how out of control cops get when they realize somebody they've pulled over for speeding has a gun? Don't tell me they don't overreact.

Yes and I've never had a problem.
But, have you ever been in a line of work where it's very possible someone will shoot you in the chest because they've been pulled over for speeding and they have a pending arrest warrant.

Ever hear of gun rights activists being harassed by the police? Google "Shaun Kranish" and see

Political activists, among them Shaun Kranish, use civil disobedience to generate attention to the issue. He accomplished that.

If anyone is reading this thread, Kranish was ultimately arrested for carrying a holstered, unarmed, weapon in a mall. He argued that the holster constituted a recognized carry case. I believe he just won the case a few days ago. It will be interesting to see what kind of precedent that this ruling has.

There you have it - it's institutional according to Maitland - cops don't want citizens armed on the streets. And he acknowledges that this is not the Old West. He prefers ONLY COPS to be armed on the streets. What is that, if not a police state?

You have the public statement of one man. The police chief is a political position. So you have now quotes the public statement from a politician. Every police officer I know encourages responsible adults to own and train with fire arms. All of them. But I'm not friends with that Police Chief.

You really believe that somebody who shoots a bird on his own property should be attacked and bound naked by a SWAT team?

Of course not. However, I do get the distinct impression that story is either bullcrap or missing some crucial information. Regardless, if reality is as the story was presented, that was a horrible abuse of power,reckless abandoning of better judgment, and horrible allocation of resources.

But, if posted a true story about the heroic deeds of a police officer, would that counter your single negative story? What if I matched every negative story you can find with three stories of bravery and nobility? What if I matched it with five? or ten? Would that prove something to you?

What about the sixty police officers who died at the World Trade Center attempting to save people on 9/11? Or the police officers who routines dive into icy water to save children. Who form human chains to pull people out of rushing waters. The ones who throw themselves in harms way to protect innocents from enraged gunmen?

You keep reminding us of the exceptions and you wholesale dismiss the quality and character of the vast majority of those people who dedicate their lives to public service. You denigrate them, you equate them to mind number, brainwashed, robots who simply lust for power.

This is not the case.