PDA

View Full Version : Militarization of the police in the United States



citanon
20 Jul 13,, 02:40
Rise of the Warrior Cop - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)



Rise of the Warrior Cop
Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?

By
RADLEY BALKO


On Jan. 4 of last year, a local narcotics strike force conducted a raid on the Ogden, Utah, home of Matthew David Stewart at 8:40 p.m. The 12 officers were acting on a tip from Mr. Stewart's former girlfriend, who said that he was growing marijuana in his basement. Mr. Stewart awoke, naked, to the sound of a battering ram taking down his door. Thinking that he was being invaded by criminals, as he later claimed, he grabbed his 9-millimeter Beretta pistol.

The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom.

The police found 16 small marijuana plants in Mr. Stewart's basement. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart, a U.S. military veteran with no prior criminal record, was selling marijuana. Mr. Stewart's father said that his son suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and may have smoked the marijuana to self-medicate.

Early this year, the Ogden city council heard complaints from dozens of citizens about the way drug warrants are served in the city. As for Mr. Stewart, his trial was scheduled for next April, and prosecutors were seeking the death penalty. But after losing a hearing last May on the legality of the search warrant, Mr. Stewart hanged himself in his jail cell.

The police tactics at issue in the Stewart case are no anomaly. Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.

The acronym SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. Such police units are trained in methods similar to those used by the special forces in the military. They learn to break into homes with battering rams and to use incendiary devices called flashbang grenades, which are designed to blind and deafen anyone nearby. Their usual aim is to "clear" a building—that is, to remove any threats and distractions (including pets) and to subdue the occupants as quickly as possible.
The Saturday Essay

The country's first official SWAT team started in the late 1960s in Los Angeles. By 1975, there were approximately 500 such units. Today, there are thousands. According to surveys conducted by the criminologist Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University, just 13% of towns between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a SWAT team in 1983. By 2005, the figure was up to 80%.

The number of raids conducted by SWAT-like police units has grown accordingly. In the 1970s, there were just a few hundred a year; by the early 1980s, there were some 3,000 a year. In 2005 (the last year for which Dr. Kraska collected data), there were approximately 50,000 raids.

A number of federal agencies also now have their own SWAT teams, including the Fish & Wildlife Service, NASA, the Consumer Products Safety Commission and the Department of the Interior. In 2011, the Department of Education's SWAT team bungled a raid on a woman who was initially reported to be under investigation for not paying her student loans, though the agency later said she was suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program.

The details of the case aside, the story generated headlines because of the revelation that the Department of Education had such a unit. None of these federal departments has responded to my requests for information about why they consider such high-powered military-style teams necessary.

Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe's emperors and monarchs.

The idea for the first SWAT team in Los Angeles arose during the domestic strife and civil unrest of the mid-1960s. Daryl Gates, then an inspector with the Los Angeles Police Department, had grown frustrated with his department's inability to respond effectively to incidents like the 1965 Watts riots. So his thoughts turned to the military. He was drawn in particular to Marine Special Forces and began to envision an elite group of police officers who could respond in a similar manner to dangerous domestic disturbances.

Mr. Gates initially had difficulty getting his idea accepted. Los Angeles Police Chief William Parker thought the concept risked a breach in the divide between the military and law enforcement. But with the arrival of a new chief, Thomas Reddin, in 1966, Mr. Gates got the green light to start training a unit. By 1969, his SWAT team was ready for its maiden raid against a holdout cell of the Black Panthers.

At about the same time, President Richard Nixon was declaring war on drugs. Among the new, tough-minded law-enforcement measures included in this campaign was the no-knock raid—a policy that allowed drug cops to break into homes without the traditional knock and announcement. After fierce debate, Congress passed a bill authorizing no-knock raids for federal narcotics agents in 1970.

Over the next several years, stories emerged of federal agents breaking down the doors of private homes (often without a warrant) and terrorizing innocent citizens and families. Congress repealed the no-knock law in 1974, but the policy would soon make a comeback (without congressional authorization).

During the Reagan administration, SWAT-team methods converged with the drug war. By the end of the 1980s, joint task forces brought together police officers and soldiers for drug interdiction. National Guard helicopters and U-2 spy planes flew the California skies in search of marijuana plants. When suspects were identified, battle-clad troops from the National Guard, the DEA and other federal and local law enforcement agencies would swoop in to eradicate the plants and capture the people growing them.

Advocates of these tactics said that drug dealers were acquiring ever bigger weapons and the police needed to stay a step ahead in the arms race. There were indeed a few high-profile incidents in which police were outgunned, but no data exist suggesting that it was a widespread problem. A study done in 1991 by the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute found that less than one-eighth of 1% of homicides in the U.S. were committed with a military-grade weapon. Subsequent studies by the Justice Department in 1995 and the National Institute for Justice in 2004 came to similar conclusions: The overwhelming majority of serious crimes are committed with handguns, and not particularly powerful ones.

The new century brought the war on terror and, with it, new rationales and new resources for militarizing police forces. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Department of Homeland Security has handed out $35 billion in grants since its creation in 2002, with much of the money going to purchase military gear such as armored personnel carriers. In 2011 alone, a Pentagon program for bolstering the capabilities of local law enforcement gave away $500 million of equipment, an all-time high.

The past decade also has seen an alarming degree of mission creep for U.S. SWAT teams. When the craze for poker kicked into high gear, a number of police departments responded by deploying SWAT teams to raid games in garages, basements and VFW halls where illegal gambling was suspected. According to news reports and conversations with poker organizations, there have been dozens of these raids, in cities such as Baltimore, Charleston, S.C., and Dallas.

In 2006, 38-year-old optometrist Sal Culosi was shot and killed by a Fairfax County, Va., SWAT officer. The investigation began when an undercover detective overheard Mr. Culosi wagering on college football games with some buddies at a bar. The department sent a SWAT team after Mr. Culosi, who had no prior criminal record or any history of violence. As the SWAT team descended, one officer fired a single bullet that pierced Mr. Culosi's heart. The police say that the shot was an accident. Mr. Culosi's family suspects the officer saw Mr. Culosi reaching for his cellphone and thought he had a gun.

Assault-style raids have even been used in recent years to enforce regulatory law. Armed federal agents from the Fish & Wildlife Service raided the floor of the Gibson Guitar factory in Nashville in 2009, on suspicion of using hardwoods that had been illegally harvested in Madagascar. Gibson settled in 2012, paying a $300,000 fine and admitting to violating the Lacey Act. In 2010, the police department in New Haven, Conn., sent its SWAT team to raid a bar where police believed there was underage drinking. For sheer absurdity, it is hard to beat the 2006 story about the Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas while visiting America on a peace mission. In Iowa, the hapless holy men were apprehended by a SWAT team in full gear.

Unfortunately, the activities of aggressive, heavily armed SWAT units often result in needless bloodshed: Innocent bystanders have lost their lives and so, too, have police officers who were thought to be assailants and were fired on, as (allegedly) in the case of Matthew David Stewart.

In my own research, I have collected over 50 examples in which innocent people were killed in raids to enforce warrants for crimes that are either nonviolent or consensual (that is, crimes such as drug use or gambling, in which all parties participate voluntarily). These victims were bystanders, or the police later found no evidence of the crime for which the victim was being investigated. They include Katherine Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed by an Atlanta narcotics team acting on a bad tip from an informant in 2006; Alberto Sepulveda, an 11-year-old accidentally shot by a California SWAT officer during a 2000 drug raid; and Eurie Stamps, killed in a 2011 raid on his home in Framingham, Mass., when an officer says his gun mistakenly discharged. Mr. Stamps wasn't a suspect in the investigation.

What would it take to dial back such excessive police measures? The obvious place to start would be ending the federal grants that encourage police forces to acquire gear that is more appropriate for the battlefield. Beyond that, it is crucial to change the culture of militarization in American law enforcement.

Consider today's police recruitment videos (widely available on YouTube), which often feature cops rappelling from helicopters, shooting big guns, kicking down doors and tackling suspects. Such campaigns embody an American policing culture that has become too isolated, confrontational and militaristic, and they tend to attract recruits for the wrong reasons.

If you browse online police discussion boards, or chat with younger cops today, you will often encounter some version of the phrase, "Whatever I need to do to get home safe." It is a sentiment that suggests that every interaction with a citizen may be the officer's last. Nor does it help when political leaders lend support to this militaristic self-image, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did in 2011 by declaring, "I have my own army in the NYPD—the seventh largest army in the world."

The motivation of the average American cop should not focus on just making it to the end of his shift. The LAPD may have given us the first SWAT team, but its motto is still exactly the right ideal for American police officers: To protect and serve.

SWAT teams have their place, of course, but they should be saved for those relatively rare situations when police-initiated violence is the only hope to prevent the loss of life. They certainly have no place as modern-day vice squads.

Many longtime and retired law-enforcement officers have told me of their worry that the trend toward militarization is too far gone. Those who think there is still a chance at reform tend to embrace the idea of community policing, an approach that depends more on civil society than on brute force.

In this very different view of policing, cops walk beats, interact with citizens and consider themselves part of the neighborhoods they patrol—and therefore have a stake in those communities. It's all about a baton-twirling "Officer Friendly" rather than a Taser-toting RoboCop.

Mr. Balko is the author of "Rise of the Warrior Cop," published this month by Public Affairs.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

zraver
20 Jul 13,, 03:27
100% agree. Just as troubling is the number of victims (many who turn out to be innocent) shot by SWAT teams who die because SWAT delays medical treatment claiming they need to clear the scene.

bonehead
20 Jul 13,, 04:55
Unfortunately breaking down the front doors is the trend. I already hashed this out with my neighbor and local cop. "Hey I have a wife and kids at home and I do not want them to get hurt. If you got a warrant give me a call and I would me most happy to come down to the station. If you beat down my front door unannounced and I don't know you are cops....bring body bags because you guys will have created a deadly situation."

Monash
20 Jul 13,, 05:27
"The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom."

Not a good outcome for everyone involved. Still while the article goes on at great lengths about SWAT Teams it doesn't actually say the entry team involved were part of a tactical Operations Unit as opposed to plain cloths detectives. If they were uniformed and equipped at SWAT then based on the above it would appear the engagement continued for some time - which begs the question exactly why did Mr Stewart failed to recognize them as Police officers? I mean 6 or 7 burly guys (and girls) dressed in dark blue tactical overalls, equipment vests, body armor, helmets and carrying M-4's or MP-5 etc are sought of hard to mistake for anything else - no matter how soundly you are sleeping when they come a' knocking!

zraver
20 Jul 13,, 05:45
which begs the question exactly why did Mr Stewart failed to recognize them as Police officers? I mean 6 or 7 burly guys (and girls) dressed in dark blue tactical overalls, equipment vests, body armor,

Not for a combat vet with PTSD used to fighting men wielding automatic weapons. he's dead now, but we don't know if he fought those cops in his home, or if in his mind he was fighting Hajis or Mujids in some mud brick shit house.

citanon
20 Jul 13,, 05:55
which begs the question exactly why did Mr Stewart failed to recognize them as Police officers? I mean 6 or 7 burly guys (and girls) dressed in dark blue tactical overalls, equipment vests, body armor,

Not for a combat vet with PTSD used to fighting men wielding automatic weapons. he's dead now, but we don't know if he fought those cops in his home, or if in his mind he was fighting Hajis or Mujids in some mud brick shit house.

Not to mention the tactics of the SWAT team are designed to confuse and disorient the suspect. You can't use tactics designed to confuse and then expect the homeowner to have perfect clarity about who he's up against. In this case the home owner reverted to his combat training and experience amidst the confusion, resulting in tragedy all around.

Gun Grape
20 Jul 13,, 06:21
[QUOTE=Monash;923965] which begs the question exactly why did Mr Stewart failed to recognize them as Police officers? I mean 6 or 7 burly guys (and girls) dressed in dark blue tactical overalls, equipment vests, body armor,

Not for a combat vet with PTSD used to fighting men wielding automatic weapons. he's dead now, but we don't know if he fought those cops in his home, or if in his mind he was fighting Hajis or Mujids in some mud brick shit house.

Or if he was trying to protect the illegal marijuana plants that he was growing in the basement. 16 plants goes way above "Personal Use". Guess he didn't notice the police cars either when he exited the house and went to his shed either.

And thats a prime example of why cops have to go in heavy. Mans growing dope in his home and shoots the cops as they enter. Another scumbag off the streets. Glad he saved the taxpayers money by hanging his self. And the "former combat vet" crap doesn't carry water. If he was doing the right thing he wouldn't have been in the situation.

zraver
20 Jul 13,, 06:22
Not to mention the tactics of the SWAT team are designed to confuse and disorient the suspect. You can't use tactics designed to confuse and then expect the homeowner to have perfect clarity about who he's up against. In this case the home owner reverted to his combat training and experience amidst the confusion, resulting in tragedy all around.

The police, attacking from surprise fired 250 rounds and got 2 hits. Mr. Stewart, reacting to a surprise attack fired 31 rounds and got at least 6 hits.... Not sure if The Ogden PD should be ashamed of itself, or was this guy an operator?

zraver
20 Jul 13,, 06:33
[QUOTE=zraver;923969]

Or if he was trying to protect the illegal marijuana plants that he was growing in the basement. 16 plants goes way above "Personal Use". Guess he didn't notice the police cars either when he exited the house and went to his shed either.

And thats a prime example of why cops have to go in heavy. Mans growing dope in his home and shoots the cops as they enter. Another scumbag off the streets. Glad he saved the taxpayers money by hanging his self. And the "former combat vet" crap doesn't carry water. If he was doing the right thing he wouldn't have been in the situation.

I don't know how much each plant is likely to produce or how much he smoked so I don't know.

As for the combat vet... We'll what ever other mistakes he made, his combat training didn't fail him... He was in during GW1, airborne qualified base don his army photo.

Blademaster
20 Jul 13,, 06:37
Or if he was trying to protect the illegal marijuana plants that he was growing in the basement. 16 plants goes way above "Personal Use". Guess he didn't notice the police cars either when he exited the house and went to his shed either.

And thats a prime example of why cops have to go in heavy. Mans growing dope in his home and shoots the cops as they enter. Another scumbag off the streets. Glad he saved the taxpayers money by hanging his self. And the "former combat vet" crap doesn't carry water. If he was doing the right thing he wouldn't have been in the situation.

I strongly disagree with you on the cops going in heavy and having 16 pots is above personal use. If you want to use marijuana, you need more than one plant because you have to stage the plants in different stages of growth, nurturing, and harvesting to have a steady supply year round. I am not a pot smoker and never smoked pot but I do know what it is like to grow herbal plants and try to have a steady year round supply of herbs.

As for the cops going in heavy, I disagree. You only go in heavy if you think you are going to encounter heavy resistance. They had no proof whatsoever that this guy was packing weapons. His former girlfriend ought to be ashamed of herself. She is culpable in his suicide. She's a bitch. Anyway back to topic, they had no proof that he was packing weapons or was a violent person. They just assumed that he was a violent person. I do not buy the argument that a cop's live triumph over the live of a civilian. the cops are not above the law and no special from any other person. Like you said former combat vet doesn't carry water, neither the uniform of a cop carry water. It is high time that the cops be brought down from their lofty position and hard.

zraver
20 Jul 13,, 07:15
Laoclly,

Arkansas State Police Lieutenant Sedrick Reed, 43, of Hope, was arrested on drug charges Thursday afternoon by federal marshals at state police headquarters in Little Rock.

Reed, assistant commander of Troop A, was held without bond in Pulaski County jail pending arraignment Friday afternoon in US District Court with Judge J. Thomas Ray presiding.

Civilian Lamont M. Johnson, 45, of Little Rock, was also arrested at his home Thursday in connection with the case.

A summary of the charges on the federal court website

Updated: Feds arrest ASP lieutenant on drug charges | TheCabin.net - Conway, Arkansas (http://thecabin.net/latest-news/2013-07-19/feds-arrest-state-trooper-drug-charges#.UeocSvJt7vs)


Armed suspect, highly trained and wearing body armor...... arrested at work, no shootout no problem. No need for a flashbangy swat team.

Monash
20 Jul 13,, 08:08
Gentlemen point of order (1):


Not to mention the tactics of the SWAT team are designed to confuse and disorient the suspect. You can't use tactics designed to confuse and then expect the homeowner to have perfect clarity about who he's up against. In this case the home owner reverted to his combat training and experience amidst the confusion, resulting in tragedy all around.

Firstly as far as Police Tactical Operations are concerned "confusion and disorientation" are bi-products of an operation. The prime intention is to contain/neutralize any possible threat to the safety and welfare of all persons involved including the occupants (more often that not other persons will be in the premises not just the target). For this reason the prime tools of SWAT type operations are speed and force which are combined to make what is called a dynamic entry. The idea is that all adults in the premises are on the floor and cuffed within a few seconds of the breach. Yes this causes confusion and disorientation but you want them on the floor and safe first - then they can confused and disorientated to their hearts content. Confused and disorientated suspects who are not safely contained aren't generally able to follow simple orders and instructions so you definitely don't want anyone confused, up and mobile. If the operation itself is "confused" and suspect is able to take advantage of it - then you have what is technically referred to as a "cluster fuck" and the debrief afterwards is not something you would want to be part of.

Monash
20 Jul 13,, 08:24
Point of order (2)


As for the cops going in heavy, I disagree. You only go in heavy if you think you are going to encounter heavy resistance. They had no proof whatsoever that this guy was packing weapons. His former girlfriend ought to be ashamed of herself. She is culpable in his suicide. She's a bitch. Anyway back to topic, they had no proof that he was packing weapons or was a violent person. They just assumed that he was a violent person. I do not buy the argument that a cop's live triumph over the live of a civilian. the cops are not above the law and no special from any other person. Like you said former combat vet doesn't carry water, neither the uniform of a cop carry water. It is high time that the cops be brought down from their lofty position and hard.

The above statement makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes the Police went in without first doing at least a basic intel assessment and STP. I'm not saying they did prepare an STP but it is normal procedure in most Police forces I know of to do so. Any such assessment should have revealed his military service and details of same, any criminal history and any reports intel reports indicating propensity to violence, mental health issues etc . It also assumes that the "bitch", sorry ex girlfriend only mentioned marijuana plants and not the fact that the suspect had a hand gun - not saying she did know just that it was a definite possibility.

So assuming the Police involved knew they were dealing with an armed military veteran then you have an elevated threat profile - hence the SWAT Team (if they were SWAT).

snapper
20 Jul 13,, 08:32
So whoever shot the unarmed 'suspected accomplice' (because we're all innocent until proved guilty no?) of the Boston bombers - one of their college pals - six times in the body and once in the top of the head was worried about his safety?

Monash
20 Jul 13,, 08:37
Point of order (3)



Arkansas State Police Lieutenant Sedrick Reed, 43, of Hope, was arrested on drug charges Thursday afternoon by federal marshals at state police headquarters in Little Rock.
A summary of the charges on the federal court website

Armed suspect, highly trained and wearing body armor...... arrested at work, no shootout no problem. No need for a flashbangy swat team.

Overlooking the fact that 99.9 % of arrests don't involve the use of SWAT Teams ....

Well yes -now if we could arrange for all suspects to work in a Police building, safely cordoned and contained away from the general public, surrounded by other armed officers, while working on a roster and work schedule that tells you exactly where they will be at any particular time of the day so that they can be approached while they are sitting at their desk in their own office behind a closed and locked door then yes SWAT Teams would be redundant.

Monash
20 Jul 13,, 08:56
So whoever shot the unarmed 'suspected accomplice' (because we're all innocent until proved guilty no?) of the Boston bombers - one of their college pals - six times in the body and once in the top of the head was worried about his safety?

Wouldn't know - that's a different scenario to the one being discussed here. With some knowledge of the tactical situation in the Boston shooting I might be able to make an educated guess but that's all it would be - a guess. Besides which I have no interest in becoming an apologist for every Police shooting reported in the media. Most will likely be proven justifiable, some will be accidental and some criminally negligent - in each case it will depend on the facts that applied at the time.

There is of course a simple answer to the issue of the Police shootings, take their guns off them. And good luck getting that one to fly, especially in the US.

Blademaster
20 Jul 13,, 14:36
Point of order (2)



The above statement makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes the Police went in without first doing at least a basic intel assessment and STP. I'm not saying they did prepare an STP but it is normal procedure in most Police forces I know of to do so. Any such assessment should have revealed his military service and details of same, any criminal history and any reports intel reports indicating propensity to violence, mental health issues etc . It also assumes that the "bitch", sorry ex girlfriend only mentioned marijuana plants and not the fact that the suspect had a hand gun - not saying she did know just that it was a definite possibility.

So assuming the Police involved knew they were dealing with an armed military veteran then you have an elevated threat profile - hence the SWAT Team (if they were SWAT).

Ok if he was such an elevated threat profile, would it not be easy to wait him out until he leaves the place and set a unit on him while the cops raid the place while he is not home? Where was the urgency of raiding the place? When he is out of the house, he is exposed and may not be packing a gun and it would be far easier to take him down. that way, the cops' lives are not at danger.

Monash
20 Jul 13,, 16:14
Ok if he was such an elevated threat profile, would it not be easy to wait him out until he leaves the place and set a unit on him while the cops raid the place while he is not home? Where was the urgency of raiding the place? When he is out of the house, he is exposed and may not be packing a gun and it would be far easier to take him down. that way, the cops' lives are not at danger.

Firstly I'm not saying he was assessed as a high level threat, just that it is SOP to conduct threat assessments before executing warrants. I have no idea what threat levels would trigger SWAT involvement in a warrant in that particular jurisdiction. There may well be standard threat levels adopted by local PDs across the US but if so I'm not aware of what they are/how they were developed etc. (I might have to do some on-line research unless another WAB member already has already done so.) It might be the case that this particular PD was more risk adverse and so tends to deploy tactical units more often than other jurisdictions, maybe not, again I don't know. It is of course still an open question as to whether or not SWAT officers were involved at all.

Secondly, as a rule Police tend to prefer executing proactive arrests i.e. arrests planned in advance where the location & identity of the suspect is known under controlled conditions. This usually means indoors where possible because it reduces the risk exposure of nearby civilians - the suspect is contained inside 4 walls and as a result his escape options and the risk to the public are minimized. It also means they can go in at a time when he most likely to be off his guard/asleep and therefore less likely to offer resistance. So yes they could have arrested him outside the house when he was in the open and "exposed" as you put it but then anyone else on the street at that time would also have been "exposed". Plus he would also have had additional escape options/routes handed to him should he become aware of the Police presence. In this case assuming Police were aware that the suspect had a handgun they would have had to allow for the possibility that he would be carrying it if/when they tried to arrest him outside his house. As you yourself pointed out he "may not" be carrying when he left but "may not" simply wouldn't be good enough. A street arrest therefore carries more risk for all concerned.

So in summary the Police involved in this operation would have been obliged to at least consider arresting him when he was at home because by doing so they would be minimizing the risk factors referred to above. In this case the job obviously did not work out as planned and tragedy resulted. All I can say is that in an ideal world Police would always be able to enter a house and safely detain a suspect before they had a chance to resist or hurt anyone - assuming of course they were inclined to do so in the first place. We don't live in an ideal world.

Lastly Police are generally obliged to present the best possible evidence when launching a criminal prosecution. In the case of drug matters one of the primary issues contested by defense lawyers is possession and control of the drugs in question. In this instance arresting him when he alone in the house strengthens the argument that he had physical vs constructive possession of any drugs found there. As silly as it sounds defense lawyers can and will try argue that drugs found in a particular property were not in the "possession" of the owner/occupier of the house if they are found when he or she is absent from the property at the time the warrant is executed. Police can and often do overcome such arguments but it is a complication they will seek to avoid whenever possible. So the short answer is finding a drug dealer at home with his drugs is generally regarded good police practice.

I hope I have addressed the issues you raised.

P.S. why blademaster? - just curious.

TopHatter
20 Jul 13,, 16:35
A couple of random thoughts:

I don't see criminals getting any less well-armed. Why should the police?

People love to bash the police for "going in heavy". Of course, when cops haven't gone in heavy and the situation develops into several cop or other funerals because of it, people scream at police incompetence.

In this day and age, you never know what's going to be behind that door...no matter your intel.

And of course, there will always be the Monday morning quarterbacks telling you what you did wrong.

Blademaster
20 Jul 13,, 18:43
I hope I have addressed the issues you raised.

P.S. why blademaster? - just curious.

You have and thanks for your insight. However there are some policing units that do not need SWAT teams such as the Wildlife police. What is up with that? Are they scared of hunters?

As for Blademaster, it was my call sign on other forums and I was 18 or 19 (I was a geeky kid at that time and it was 17 years ago) at that time and I took that name out of a fantasy novel I was reading and I thought the name Blademaster was cool. And there were a couple posters that moved to WAB and I kept the name just because it was easier to identify myself than change it so those posters would know who I was. And it was easier to have one name than have multiple names and remember them all and put passwords associated to each name. One other thing, I have no knowledge of wielding swords or such and never professed to be knowledgeable about sword handling.

Blademaster
20 Jul 13,, 18:45
A couple of random thoughts:

I don't see criminals getting any less well-armed. Why should the police?

People love to bash the police for "going in heavy". Of course, when cops haven't gone in heavy and the situation develops into several cop or other funerals because of it, people scream at police incompetence.

In this day and age, you never know what's going to be behind that door...no matter your intel.

And of course, there will always be the Monday morning quarterbacks telling you what you did wrong.

Ok do you want it at the expense of civil liberties? And the drug dealers being well armed is a non-sequitur when research shows that the majority of drug crimes were committed with handguns (most likely a pistol type of thing which makes sense because pistols are easier to conceal), not assault rifles.

Gun Grape
20 Jul 13,, 18:56
However there are some policing units that do not need SWAT teams such as the Wildlife police. What is up with that? Are they scared of hunters?


Don't know about the rest of the country but in Florida, FWC definitely does need SWAT. People in the woods growing large amounts of weed, producing large amounts of meth and those that are killing endangered/threaten species don't normally go along peacefully.

And it is known that the people that they usually run up against (hunters) are armed.

bonehead
20 Jul 13,, 22:38
"The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom."

Not a good outcome for everyone involved. Still while the article goes on at great lengths about SWAT Teams it doesn't actually say the entry team involved were part of a tactical Operations Unit as opposed to plain cloths detectives. If they were uniformed and equipped at SWAT then based on the above it would appear the engagement continued for some time - which begs the question exactly why did Mr Stewart failed to recognize them as Police officers? I mean 6 or 7 burly guys (and girls) dressed in dark blue tactical overalls, equipment vests, body armor, helmets and carrying M-4's or MP-5 etc are sought of hard to mistake for anything else - no matter how soundly you are sleeping when they come a' knocking!

On Jan. 4 of last year, a local narcotics strike force conducted a raid on the Ogden, Utah, home of Matthew David Stewart at 8:40 p.m.


It is dark by that time and with the lights off you have to admit it is rather difficult to tell who is storming your house or what they are wearing. It is not like the SWAT team is going to give the guy any time for proper introductions.

bonehead
20 Jul 13,, 22:41
Don't know about the rest of the country but in Florida, FWC definitely does need SWAT. People in the woods growing large amounts of weed, producing large amounts of meth and those that are killing endangered/threaten species don't normally go along peacefully.

And it is known that the people that they usually run up against (hunters) are armed.



In Oregon the state police takes up the wildlife enforcement and they have very few issues with armed hunters. When they raid a drug operation they enlist a lot of help....with damned good reason.

zraver
20 Jul 13,, 23:38
A couple of random thoughts:

I don't see criminals getting any less well-armed. Why should the police?

More accurately, the criminals don't seem to be getting any better armed, so why are the police?


People love to bash the police for "going in heavy". Of course, when cops haven't gone in heavy and the situation develops into several cop or other funerals because of it, people scream at police incompetence.

The police have a lot of innocent blood on thier hands from going in heavy. It would be one thing if they were held to account but they are not. They have administrative reviews by other cops who have a vested interest in protecting the state and the badge.


In this day and age, you never know what's going to be behind that door...no matter your intel.

End the war on drugs and you would not need nearly so many paramilitary strike teams.


And of course, there will always be the Monday morning quarterbacks telling you what you did wrong.

such is life...

Monash
21 Jul 13,, 01:00
One other thing, I have no knowledge of wielding swords or such and never professed to be knowledgeable about sword handling.

Dam, I was hoping you had fenced at some time in your life. It was one of the sports I enjoyed growing up - foil and sabre.

Monash
21 Jul 13,, 02:16
Last thoughts on this particular matter. Nothing in my previous posts was meant to imply that the officers involved in the warrant were without blame. It's possible that one or more officers were negligent, failed to follow SOPS or simply made wrong judgement call etc. It is also possible however that they did everything by the book and things still went bad, as even the best planned ops can go sour. This is of course the reason why post operational reviews are conducted and it is also the reason why every warrant is or should be regarded as a learning opportunity - what went well, what did we miss and what can we do better next time etc. Law enforcement is no different from any other trade or profession in this regard - they all carry risk sets. The best you can do is try your hardest to identify potential risks in advance, avoid them when you can and learn from them when you don't.

In this case none of us know what really happened, all we have to go is a single and IMO biased news article. Get several detailed articles from different sources together or better yet a copy of an official report/legal judgement and then we would be better placed to start making judgements.

zraver
21 Jul 13,, 02:27
Want to end bad shoots?

1. Every police shooting should be treated as a criminal event in that witnesses including cops need to be seperated and questioned immediately, all the players and physical evidence needs to identified, be cataloged and in the case of evidence be secured.

2. Mandate that police wear video and audio devices that gets downloaded daily into a database (many already do).

3. Put review of police shootings and brutality claims in the hands of citizen panels made up of stakeholders and empower them as and along the lines of a grand jury.

Not only would these steps protect the citizen, they would protect the police from unsubstantiated claims and serve as digital witnesses when there is violence on a police officer. Every time in our nations history we have asked law enforcement to step up and get more professional they have.

troung
21 Jul 13,, 02:36
Want to end bad shoots?

4. Make the settlement/payoff come out of the pension fund.

Monash
21 Jul 13,, 04:20
Want to end bad shoots?

1. Every police shooting should be treated as a criminal event in that witnesses including cops need to be seperated and questioned immediately, all the players and physical evidence needs to identified, be cataloged and in the case of evidence be secured.

2. Mandate that police wear video and audio devices that gets downloaded daily into a database (many already do).

3. Put review of police shootings and brutality claims in the hands of citizen panels made up of stakeholders and empower them as and along the lines of a grand jury.

Not only would these steps protect the citizen, they would protect the police from unsubstantiated claims and serve as digital witnesses when there is violence on a police officer. Every time in our nations history we have asked law enforcement to step up and get more professional they have.

So much for last thoughts.

1) All Police shootings are treated as potential crime scenes irregardless of whether or not anyone is killed. Statements are taken and witnesses (Police included) are separated while the area is or should be canvassed for further independent witnesses. Evidence is photographed insitu and if required ballistic and other forensic tests tests are conducted. The shooter is also obliged tto participate in a tape recorded record of interview with a shooting team (usually what you call II investigators). Note the use of therm obliged they don't have a right to remain silent in such cases unless they are being placed under arrest.

2) Cameras are useful but only to a limited extent - they have a limited range and field of view, don't show you what is occurring off camera and obviously don't record what, if anything happened immediately prior to drawing of the firearm or activation of the camera. Reviewing all the video footage of an event taken by all camera at the scene just adds to the picture you are building up via the steps outlined in point (1) above.

3) They already have citizen panels - they're called juries. And in any event a "citizen" panel would have to be presented with a formal report prepared by experts before they cold even begin to make an assessment. Unless of course your just suggesting citizen panels just conduct their own inquiry and review in which case do I need to point out that there is a good reason why for example medical review boards and military review boards are staffed by experts.

Zraver, you are/were? in the military how about I suggest civilian or military deaths in Afganistan gets reviewed by a panel of civilians who get to make up their own minds as to who was responsible absent any input from professionals?

zraver
21 Jul 13,, 04:34
So much for last thoughts.

1) All Police shootings are treated as potential crime scenes irregardless of whether or not anyone is killed. Statements are taken and witnesses (Police included) are separated while the area is or should be canvassed for further independent witnesses. Evidence is photographed insitu and if required ballistic and other forensic tests tests are conducted. The shooter is also obliged tto participate in a tape recorded record of interview with a shooting team (usually what you call II investigators). Note the use of therm obliged they don't have a right to remain silent in such cases unless they are being placed under arrest.

Evidence may be collected as if it was a crime scene, but it is not treated as a crime scene. Departments will often declare the evidence and statements are protected work product and hide them away.


2) Cameras are useful but only to a limited extent - they have a limited range and field of view, don't show you what is occurring off camera and obviously don't record what if anything happened immediately prior to drawing of the firearm or activation of the camera. Reviewing all the video footage of an event taken by all camera at the scene just adds to the picture you are building up via the steps outlined in point (1) above.

If each and every individual uniformed and plains clothes police officer is constantly under video and audio monitoring and it helps both the police and the citizen.


3) They already have citizen panels - they're called juries.

That is the problem, the police have a vested interest in protecting their own.


And in any event a "citizen" panel would have to be presented with a formal report prepared by experts before they cold even begin to make an assessment.

Not true, untrained experts are asked to evaluate the law and actions of people under the alw all the time- they are called juries.


Unless of course your just suggesting citizen panels just conduct their own inquiry and review in which case do I need to point out that there is a good reason why for example medical review boards and military review boards are staffed by experts.

And what good reason is that? A panel could for example have a representative of the county sheriff and the counties largest municipal police force and then 3 citizens one each from each of the counties largest ethnic groups.


Zraver, you are/were? in the military how about I suggest civilian or military death in Afganistan gets reviewed by a panel of civilians who get to make up their own minds as to who was responsible absent any input from professionals?

Were

We do, its called congress.

But as to your wider point, why not? Expecting better performance usually leads to better performance. You'll never meet a winning team that complains about how hard it is to beat the other side unless they have an un-level playing field. I've never gotten the law enforcement's fear of civilian oversight. it's almost like they have something to hide.
Right now the playing field is stacked against John Q Public, that is wrong and undermines our republic.

Monash
21 Jul 13,, 06:05
Evidence may be collected as if it was a crime scene, but it is not treated as a crime scene. Departments will often declare the evidence and statements are protected work product and hide them away.

Here and presumably in the US there are always formal shooting reviews even when no one has been injured because they are mandated by OH&S and insurance requirements.So the who, what, when where and why is captured and officially recorded - if the matter is being dealt with professionally.


If each and every individual uniformed and plains clothes police officer is constantly under video and audio monitoring and it helps both the police and the citizen.[/QUOTE]

Cant be done -24/7 firstly recording the cops means you are also recording everyone they speak with and meet so you would need the permission of every citizen you meet during the course of the day before you can record them. Some will only talk off the record if at all, some will be informants and some stuff such as Police methodologies is subject to legal privilege.etc. As it is when recording devices are activated upon approaching a member of the public that person is warned that what they say and do is being recorded. Plus there would be some things accidentally recorded in the locker room and mens room that no human should have to see!



That is the problem, the police have a vested interest in protecting their own.

No more or less than any other profession.Doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean there is vast conspiracy afoot to decisive the public either.




Not true, untrained experts are asked to evaluate the law and actions of people under the alw all the time- they are called juries.

Using evidence presented in court i.e. formal reports, statements and forensics prepared by Police. They still need and heed Police professional input from officers on the scene in addition to whatever evidence the other side may produce.



And what good reason is that? A panel could for example have a representative of the county sheriff and the counties largest municipal police force and then 3 citizens one each from each of the counties largest ethnic groups.





Were

We do, its called congress.

But as to your wider point, why not? Expecting better performance usually leads to better performance. You'll never meet a winning team that complains about how hard it is to beat the other side unless they have an un-level playing field. I've never gotten the law enforcement's fear of civilian oversight. it's almost like they have something to hide.
Right now the playing field is stacked against John Q Public, that is wrong and undermines our republic.

zraver
21 Jul 13,, 07:11
Here and presumably in the US there are always formal shooting reviews even when no one has been injured because they are mandated by OH&S and insurance requirements.So the who, what, when where and why is captured and officially recorded - if the matter is being dealt with professionally.

Because the perception based on what information the public has is that the police are more interested in protecting fellow cops than in revealing the truth. There is police shooting case after shooting case where what is known publicly about the suspect or victim just doesn't add up and jive with what the police say. When police do face charges, they generally get much lighter sentences.



Cant be done -24/7 firstly recording the cops means you are also recording everyone they speak with and meet so you would need the permission of every citizen you meet during the course of the day before you can record them. Some will only talk off the record if at all, some will be informants and some stuff such as Police methodologies is subject to legal privilege.etc.

No one has an expectation of privacy in public, not in the US. CI's and cops working undercover should rightfully be excluded from what I said and if someone wants to talk off the record it easy enough for the officer to officially sign off so the blank spot in the data is accounted for and the audio will have captured the other parties request to go off the record. Methodologies should not, they play an important role in any rights violations.

many departments are already use this technology, its just not public record and it should be. At least as so far as defense attorneys would know that ever officer had created a digital and audio recording of the event and that such recording were denied work product privileges often claimed now to hide evidence.


As it is when recording devices are activated upon approaching a member of the public that person is warned that what they say and do is being recorded.

No such warnings in the US because there is no expectation of privacy.


Plus there would be some things accidentally recorded in the locker room and mens room that no human should have to see!

Naked isn't exactly in uniform, where are they going to hang the camera?


No more or less than any other profession.Doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean there is vast conspiracy afoot to decisive the public either.

Its illegal and in the case of protecting cops from the consequences of a bad shoot is illegal. If the public believes that the cops only protect and serve other cops, then the cops are the enemy. Contrast this to community policy which relies on relationships and beat walking to make the cop part of the community. LAPD switched from a paramilitary approach to a community policing approach following the LA Riots and saw a lot of success with it.

Monash
21 Jul 13,, 10:55
Sorry Z - got called away and didn't get to finish my last response, hence the incomplete and poorly edited reply.

In summary - It might be your perception that "the police are more interested in protecting fellow cops than in revealing the truth" but IMO this is not a perception generally shared by most of the general public. They know there are "bad/corrupt" cops out there but when pressed on the issue will admit even if reluctantly that they themselves haven't dealt with any directly (getting a ticket may colour their view of local law enforcement but it doesn't count as a "bad cop" experience). Also Congress isn't strictly "independent" because at the end of the day it is included in the direct chain of command (for want of a better term) and has a role in authorizing/approving and over-sighting any military action initiated by the President of the U.S. So it is responsible for the actions of the military and in any case relies (in large part) on reports provided by US commanders relating to the military matters regardless of what information it receives from other sources. Finally Congress certainly reviews general policy settings and strategic decisions made by the US defense forces. They certainly don't dissect individual G.I. combat "live fire incidents on a case by case basis!

As far as your "panel" idea is concerned. No problem, bring it on. Just remember you are the one who has to pay for it via taxes. Our force already obliges officers to document and report every time they "use force". This means that every time they draw their handcuffs, battens, OC spray, tazers, firearms or lay hands on a suspect they have to document and report the circumstances. Please note I said draw not use. The act of simply removing a force option from it's utility pouch counts as "use of force" because it can be perceived by the citizen involved as "threatening", that's right just removing it from it's pouch or holster, not utilizing the force option itself. Fire a shot and you have a crime scene and a formal investigation even if you didn't hit anyone. This process already generates costs before the member of the public involved even decides to lodge a complaint and since I've done my stint in I.I. I know how much that process costs.

So go ahead by all means implement the committee system. It might well work but know this, once you create it and it becomes widely known it will be used by any member of the public with a gripe. This means every time a complaint is lodged an officer will be taken off my line in the roster. Firstly to prepare the paperwork, then to attend the review. That's one more officer I don't have on my Team and that's before court commitments, leave, training and all the other down time. Worse if the "committee" finds the officer used excessive force of any type, even on one occasion then presumably (unless you initiating a "three strikes and your out policy") he's gone and needs to be replaced. There are small county PD's in the US that will be crippled by your idea unless the local community authorizes significantly more recruitment, so pony up your hard earned dollars - I have a new use for them.

Oh and PS the guy with the camera doesn't have to be naked he just has to be passing through and I don't know about you but over here we don't strip off before going to the toilet.

zraver
21 Jul 13,, 15:46
Sorry Z - got called away and didn't get to finish my last response, hence the incomplete and poorly edited reply....Worse if the "committee" finds the officer used excessive force of any type, even on one occasion then presumably (unless you initiating a "three strikes and your out policy") he's gone and needs to be replaced.

Do you see the problem with that part of your reply? You would keep an officer that uses excessive force, or want a system that is stacked against the citizen so you can keep him with a wink and a nod...

If the life and liberties of the most nameless citizen are worth less than a cop the system is broken. It is not the citizens job to protect and serve, but the cops. The cop offers up his life to service. In trade he is given special powers and protections. But when he then takes special liberties with the law there is a major problem.


There are small county PD's in the US that will be crippled by your idea unless the local community authorizes significantly more recruitment, so pony up your hard earned dollars - I have a new use for them.

Or like most human endeavors when the bar is raised, performance raises to match it. Proffesional players in sports are professional because of training and dedication. More is expected of them so they deliver.

Typical protect the establishment fear mongering iIMO.


Oh and PS the guy with the camera doesn't have to be naked he just has to be passing through and I don't know about you but over here we don't strip off before going to the toilet.

The cameras on as soon as the cop enters a duty area etc. Regardless there are ways it can be done because many departments already do it, they just don't release the information without a lawsuit even to defense teams- they claim protected claim product.

zraver
21 Jul 13,, 20:25
Example

FirstVu HD Body Cam Officer-Worn Video System (http://www.digitalallyinc.com/HD-body-cam.html)

16 hours of record time cannot be edited. Cop turns it on, inserts memory stick when they go enter the duty area and download it, swap out memory stick end of shift.

These type of systems protect everyone including the cops.

Anyway, some stuff has come up, will be scarce for a bit.

cyppok
21 Jul 13,, 20:26
In about 20-30 years* we will have broad based re-printable energy weapons. All this enforcement of gun control, raiding peoples' homes and cops thinking they have more rights then the general public will end. Very abruptly.

When the general population is better armed then the 'law' they consent to then it is true consent. When the law enforces itself on the general population and those cannot rebel against it and only have forced consent pushed upon them that is slavery at the point of the gun.

When you need laws to allow you to 'film' people whom break it but are 'upholders' of it by the gov't we breach the 1st amendment. Why can't you publish the truth and need 'permission' which can be denied because said person still has two more shots to break the law and perhaps some of it can be scrubbed under the rug because he is an OFFICIAL. At that point nobody has to follow the law because it is not theirs... If you make stuff up and pretend its real others will do the same and enforce it to their ability.
Technology will eventually make that premise equal in standing even when you rob those people via taxes and buy new stuff for the official, but the aggregate will always outnumber the selected in numbers.

* I am assuming all those energy lasers that are being mounted on ships right now (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system/)
we will get progressive miniaturization and probably energy conservations with fuel cell expansion etc... I assume

bigross86
21 Jul 13,, 21:22
Someone once told me the cops in the US are subjected to an automatic double maximum. If they are ever convicted of anything, they are immediately sentences to double the maximum fine applicable. Is this true, or is it complete nonsense?

zraver
21 Jul 13,, 22:44
Someone once told me the cops in the US are subjected to an automatic double maximum. If they are ever convicted of anything, they are immediately sentences to double the maximum fine applicable. Is this true, or is it complete nonsense?

Complete nonsense for the most part. The ony place cops are really held to a higher standard than the public is knowledge of the law. If a cop does end up on trial he has far fewer procedural defenses.

Monash
22 Jul 13,, 12:14
Do you see the problem with that part of your reply? You would keep an officer that uses excessive force, or want a system that is stacked against the citizen so you can keep him with a wink and a nod...

No, the problem seems to be that you have failed to grasp the point I was trying to make which is that term "force". Firstly the mere act of drawing a use of force option is regarded as a "use of force" and secondly that force as it applies in Police operations is a spectrum rather that a binary/on or off concept. As I clearly stated officers have a range of "force" options available to them when dealing with members of the public. These range from verbal commands through gentle "hands on" e.g. a hand on the arm/shoulder to lead someone away, through hard hands (wrist locks, strikes kicks etc) to cuffs, batons. OC, tazers (if available) and finally lethal force. Furthermore the use of these options is not linear i.e. you don't go through each option in progression but rather alternate in a dynamic and fluid fashion depending on how the confrontation escalates or deescalates. The goal is always (or should always) be deescalation.

So yes depending on what sought of "excessive force" we're talking about I would seriously consider keeping him/her in the force. If one of your "committees" decides that an officer should not have cuffed someone but instead used soft hands or should have used his OC not his tazer, or should have struck the offender once only with his batten, not three times then we have an "excessive force" incident and as you would have it the officer would lose his job. Presumably this would occur even if the arrest was justified and the offender later convicted of whatever offense it was he was arrested for!

Under your remit I would lose an asset that had cost the public tens of thousands of dollars to train even where the incident in question did not result in any significant physical injury to the member of the public concerned! As I said simply drawing a baton can be technically regarded as a use of force. If the problem can be addressed with training and a formal caution then yes I would take that option. Remember also that use of force incidents involving death or serious injury are rare events, for every arrest involving death/serious injury there are literally hundreds of arrests where some degree of force is used, even if it is just putting on handcuffs. So unless you confine your comittees to a very small subset of events you are going to end up with a conga line of officers outside your doors waiting to see if they keep their job.


If the life and liberties of the most nameless citizen are worth less than a cop the system is broken. It is not the citizens job to protect and serve, but the cops. The cop offers up his life to service. In trade he is given special powers and protections. But when he then takes special liberties with the law there is a major problem.

Where did I imply that the "life and liberties of a citizen are worth less than a cops" ?"



Or like most human endeavors when the bar is raised, performance raises to match it. Professional players in sports are professional because of training and dedication. More is expected of them so they deliver. Typical protect the establishment fear mongering iIMO.


I'm all all in favor of improving performance in my profession as in others but you seem to persist in ignoring the economics of the situation. Professional sports men and women are "professional" because they get paid for it. If they didn't they would be amateurs. Your committees would cost time and money to run, they would require support staff, record systems and office space, communities would have to pay for extra training as their local forces tried to make sure their officers were capable of meeting the impeccable standards you appear to be demanding and higher pay would have to be offered to attract officers willing to meet them. Market forces apply in law enforcement as well as everywhere else, you want Rolls Royce service you have to pay Rolls Royce prices! I'm not fear mongering - I'm handing you the invoice for the service you just ordered, so pay up.



The cameras on as soon as the cop enters a duty area etc. Regardless there are ways it can be done because many departments already do it, they just don't release the information without a lawsuit even to defense teams- they claim protected claim product.

You say potato, I say potarto.... you want always on with suspension as required. I want always off with activation as required. Battery life is longer my way and you don't need to do hours of editing to get the bits you want. If you don't activate when it could be reasonably expected that you should have any charge you might want to lay gets questioned and you better have a good reason for not activating your camera, simple. I've also got no problem with recording video evidence, we do it all the time, but I to have have right to privacy and so to do all the people I meet every day on the street who shouldn't have to (and don't want to) be filmed just because they happen to be in the presence of a police officer for the most innocent or mundane of reasons - like giving directions or buying a cup of coffee. I would not like my every conversion recorded and neither would you or most other people.

Finally I fail to see how you can reconcile the idea of recording every conversation your citizens have with a LEO (all of which will be stored and indexed) ready for use at a later date by "Big Bother" with your oft stated opposition to a police state.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go polish my jackboots.

gunnut
22 Jul 13,, 20:03
No more or less than any other profession.Doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean there is vast conspiracy afoot to decisive the public either.

The difference is the cops have an inside track regarding enforcing the law. Other professions do not.

Much like the public employees unions and with whom they bargain. They bargain with the people they elect. Other unions don't bargain with people they put in power.

Chogy
25 Jul 13,, 17:16
Let's call the "war on drugs" a stalemate, and 95% of these raids would simply go away.

I've objected to the militarization of the police for years now. A police officer should wear a recognizable uniform and carry a handgun. I have no inherent objection to having SWAT trained and available, but I do object to their willy-nilly use on some guy with a few pot plants.

SWAT should be used for hostage scenarios, terrorists, or taking down major criminal redoubts. Not on everyday citizens suspected of a crime.

bonehead
25 Jul 13,, 18:25
Let's call the "war on drugs" a stalemate, and 95% of these raids would simply go away.

I've objected to the militarization of the police for years now. A police officer should wear a recognizable uniform and carry a handgun. I have no inherent objection to having SWAT trained and available, but I do object to their willy-nilly use on some guy with a few pot plants.

SWAT should be used for hostage scenarios, terrorists, or taking down major criminal redoubts. Not on everyday citizens suspected of a crime.

Mostly I agree. However many of those with even a couple of plants are armed and more than willing to defend them so police have been shot and killed serving such warrants. My line of thinking is that the police are no longer doing much investigative work and are using SWAT teams to make up for that. Sure Tommy weed grower might be armed while in the home but he also goes to the local 7-11 every Tuesdays and fridays to pick up munchies. He also has a job at the local car wash. Wouldn't those be better places to nab him? Nah just send out the SWAT team and have done with it.
There are a couple of other considerations. First cops really like swinging their dicks. They love the concept that if they see you as a perp they can nab you anyplace anywhere and at the home is more personal for some extra sting. Secondly, A SWAT team carries some extra expense on the budget so the police force has to justify that expense....usually by sending the SWAT team out more often and artificially creating a "need".

zraver
25 Jul 13,, 18:50
So yes depending on what sought of "excessive force" we're talking about I would seriously consider keeping him/her in the force. If one of your "committees" decides that an officer should not have cuffed someone but instead used soft hands or should have used his OC not his tazer, or should have struck the offender once only with his batten, not three times then we have an "excessive force" incident and as you would have it the officer would lose his job. Presumably this would occur even if the arrest was justified and the offender later convicted of whatever offense it was he was arrested for!

You of course realize that excessive force would likely be a criminal act, battery or assault depending if a civvie did it, it should be for a cop as well.


Under your remit I would lose an asset that had cost the public tens of thousands of dollars to train even where the incident in question did not result in any significant physical injury to the member of the public concerned! As I said simply drawing a baton can be technically regarded as a use of force. If the problem can be addressed with training and a formal caution then yes I would take that option. Remember also that use of force incidents involving death or serious injury are rare events, for every arrest involving death/serious injury there are literally hundreds of arrests where some degree of force is used, even if it is just putting on handcuffs. So unless you confine your comittees to a very small subset of events you are going to end up with a conga line of officers outside your doors waiting to see if they keep their job.

If no one was harmed, no foul unless we are talking menacing with a firearm where a reasonable fear of serious injury or death is created. But where there is injury- don't just fire prosecute.


Where did I imply that the "life and liberties of a citizen are worth less than a cops" ?"

When you'd excuse a cop using excessive force on a citizen.


I'm all all in favor of improving performance in my profession as in others but you seem to persist in ignoring the economics of the situation. Professional sports men and women are "professional" because they get paid for it. If they didn't they would be amateurs. Your committees would cost time and money to run, they would require support staff, record systems and office space, communities would have to pay for extra training as their local forces tried to make sure their officers were capable of meeting the impeccable standards you appear to be demanding and higher pay would have to be offered to attract officers willing to meet them. Market forces apply in law enforcement as well as everywhere else, you want Rolls Royce service you have to pay Rolls Royce prices! I'm not fear mongering - I'm handing you the invoice for the service you just ordered, so pay up.

Not a problem, take it out of the swat budget, stop buying so many battle rifles and stop making every cop car look like an f'ing spaceship. Hell a single license plate scanner is $2500.... Police departments spend a lot of money that could be slimmed down.


You say potato, I say potarto.... you want always on with suspension as required. I want always off with activation as required. Battery life is longer my way and you don't need to do hours of editing to get the bits you want. If you don't activate when it could be reasonably expected that you should have any charge you might want to lay gets questioned and you better have a good reason for not activating your camera, simple.

And what happens when a cop who just put a beat down on a citizen, who is claiming brutality says oops i forgot to turn it on.... If its always on, no oops.


I've also got no problem with recording video evidence, we do it all the time, but I to have have right to privacy and so to do all the people I meet every day on the street who shouldn't have to (and don't want to) be filmed just because they happen to be in the presence of a police officer for the most innocent or mundane of reasons

No you don't, not in the US and neither do they. There is no right to privacy in public- period full stop. Nor do government officials in the conduct of their "public" duties have any expectation of privacy.


- like giving directions[/qquote]

if its a citizen coming up to the patrol car, they are already being audio recorded....

[quote]or buying a cup of coffee.

You on the stores CCTV


I would not like my every conversion recorded and neither would you or most other people.

Its not about like, its about protecting the public. You have no expectation of privacy in public.


Finally I fail to see how you can reconcile the idea of recording every conversation your citizens have with a LEO (all of which will be stored and indexed) ready for use at a later date by "Big Bother" with your oft stated opposition to a police state.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go polish my jackboots.

There is no expectation of privacy in public. I want privacy in my private life, behind my curtiledge and under my roof. In public it is a different set of rules.

Oh BTW, are they hobnailed?

tuna
26 Jul 13,, 14:01
I've seen several arrests where the police have all drawn their weapons. I'm told by several friends of mine who happen to be LEOs that this is common.

When I went through the required training as part of begging for permission to carry a firearm, I was told that the mere act of displaying or drawing my firearm is deadly force - as in, if you're not cleared to shoot, you're not cleared to draw.

Just one instance of the double standard. And the acceptance of this leads to tragedy after tragedy.

I kind of like the UK's idea of cops not being armed. The cops have proven time after time that firearms should only be left to civilians who are properly trained in their use.

Doktor
26 Jul 13,, 14:48
UK has armed police for those situations where firepower is needed. Well, US has SWAT teams formed with the same premise in mind, just it seems they are not so special anymore.

omon
26 Jul 13,, 15:17
yet in related news, gangs have increased 40% since 2008, legal gun ownership is getting sticks in its wheels. who exactly are they getting militarized against?

Gingrich: Gangs Have Increased By 40 Percent Since Obama Was Elected | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/21/gingrich_gangs_have_increased_by_40_percent_since_ obama_was_elected.html)

zraver
26 Jul 13,, 16:07
Just over the past couple of days from the police misconduct reporting site run by CATO. Nor are thes eeven close to all of them, just some tasy tidbits going back to about July 11.

PoliceMisconduct.net | The Cato Institute's National Police Misconduct Reporting Project (http://www.policemisconduct.net/)


Varnell, Georgia: An officer pleaded guilty to first-degree vehicular homicide and reckless driving. He was off-duty when he slammed his police cruiser at 104 mph into a newspaper delivery car and killed the man using it. He was given 10 years probation, 300 hours of community service and a $2,500 fine. ZR- kill someone through wanton disregard/ careless and endangered and get community service...

North Charleston, South Carolina: A police officer pleaded guilty to a charge of misconduct in office. He was ordered to pay a $750 fine for the incident. The officer wrongfully detained and then physically assaulted a man before leaving him stranded. Former North Charleston cop fined $750 for misconduct in office - WMBFNews.com, Myrtle Beach/Florence SC, Weather (http://ow.ly/n8cK3) ZR- Note if a civie did that it would be felony kidnapping

Corpus Christi, Texas: A police officer, who was suspended, has retired. He had been suspended for using excessive force on a prisoner already in handcuff: ZR- he got to retire on the tax payers dime instead of a cell on the taxpayers dime....


New Rochelle, New York (First reported 11-12-12): A police officer was sentenced to 5 years “shock probation” on charges related to disseminating indecent material to a minor. He has a sex offender hearing coming up. He is alleged to have given videos of himself engaged in a sexual act to what he believed to be a 15-year-old girl. ow.ly/mSByVs and then lying to internal affairs about what happened. ow.ly/n5MJq ZR- he brutalized a citizen and now gets a tax payer funded retirement ZR- probation for a sex predator because he was a cop.....

Some stats for 2010- 232 officers (14.7%) were involved in firearm-related excessive force complaints resulting in 91 fatalities. But cops also beat/choked 19 people to death ad killed 11 more with tazers in 2010...

tuna
26 Jul 13,, 20:36
Before someone talks about that stats above just being the "bad apples" that you find in any bunch, these may be the bad (or rotten) apples, but they have been protected by "the thin blue line" for so long that the whole bunch is bad. I'm more angry at those who enable this type of action by looking the other way, helping out a brother or outright lying than I am at those who do these actions.

I really don't think I'm jaded when I say that I believe that 5% of cops give the rest a good name.

zraver
26 Jul 13,, 21:45
This cop was fired for doing that, now claims he was emotionally scarred and needs workmens comp...

His action is obviously an assault on all those people, his own department with its vested interest in ruling against the people it claims to protect fired him after all..... Yet he is facing NO CHARGES. I dare a citizen to unleash a pepper spray assault on a bunch of college students without cause and not catch charges.

bonehead
27 Jul 13,, 01:10
This cop was fired for doing that, now claims he was emotionally scarred and needs workmens comp...

His action is obviously an assault on all those people, his own department with its vested interest in ruling against the people it claims to protect fired him after all..... Yet he is facing NO CHARGES. I dare a citizen to unleash a pepper spray assault on a bunch of college students without cause and not catch charges.

That beats releasing the hounds on them. Any details of this incident?

cyppok
27 Jul 13,, 01:31
Mostly I agree. However many of those with even a couple of plants are armed and more than willing to defend them so police have been shot and killed serving such warrants. My line of thinking is that the police are no longer doing much investigative work and are using SWAT teams to make up for that. Sure Tommy weed grower might be armed while in the home but he also goes to the local 7-11 every Tuesdays and fridays to pick up munchies. He also has a job at the local car wash. Wouldn't those be better places to nab him? Nah just send out the SWAT team and have done with it.
There are a couple of other considerations. First cops really like swinging their dicks. They love the concept that if they see you as a perp they can nab you anyplace anywhere and at the home is more personal for some extra sting. Secondly, A SWAT team carries some extra expense on the budget so the police force has to justify that expense....usually by sending the SWAT team out more often and artificially creating a "need".

The guy who grows a few plants has to go out and shop for food its far easier to take him outside the home then inside. Why raid the house with guns drawn where he has the most chance of defending himself? Its not just stupid it draws casualties on both sides.

Whomever decides to storm the house is responsible for the blood shed not the guy defending his house. It does not matter if what he is doing is legal or illegal that is not for the SWAT or Cops to decide, its for the Courts... Playing Judge Dread (Judge Jury Executioner) games leads to scenarios where people militarize themselves in response so much that all these raids lead to progressively asymmetric responses. I can totally see somewhere in the future a SWAT team busting into a house that is mined for protection and being blown to smitherines, because they thought it was wiser than presenting a warrant by someone somewhere safe. Justifying even more aggression after that fact won't make their job safer, easier, or more lawful according to constitution.

P.S. In some sense I feel the SWAT teams are competing for Darwin awards

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 01:49
That beats releasing the hounds on them. Any details of this incident?

Peaceful non-violent protest by the occupy movement.

Gun Grape
27 Jul 13,, 03:18
Just over the past couple of days from the police misconduct reporting site run by CATO. Nor are thes eeven close to all of them, just some tasy tidbits going back to about July 11.

PoliceMisconduct.net | The Cato Institute's National Police Misconduct Reporting Project (http://www.policemisconduct.net/)


Varnell, Georgia: An officer pleaded guilty to first-degree vehicular homicide and reckless driving. He was off-duty when he slammed his police cruiser at 104 mph into a newspaper delivery car and killed the man using it. He was given 10 years probation, 300 hours of community service and a $2,500 fine. ZR- kill someone through wanton disregard/ careless and endangered and get community service...

Maybe because thats what the family of the victim asked for. It was done in a plea deal. Not some evil "Thin blue line " looking out for each other.

Try to research the case instead of getting snippets from a "Bad Cop" site.


"[Thurman's] family did not want him to go to prison," said Conasauga Circuit District Attorney Bert Poston, who prosecuted the case.

Instead, Smith will serve 10 years' probation, do 300 hours of community service, pay a $2,500 fine and court fees -- and won't ever work in law enforcement again. That's under a ruling Thursday by Whitfield County Superior Court Judge Cindy Morris after Smith pleaded guilty to first-degree vehicular homicide and reckless driving.

"It was a negotiated plea between the two sides based on the family's request that it be resolved that way," Poston said.

So it has nothing to do with him being a cop

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 03:48
Maybe because thats what the family of the victim asked for. It was done in a plea deal. Not some evil "Thin blue line " looking out for each other.

Try to research the case instead of getting snippets from a "Bad Cop" site.

So it has nothing to do with him being a cop

Citizens don't get that chance...

The families of the victims are not supposed to have a role in the prosecution for all sorts of sound legal and ethical reasons. Family involvement was a smoke screen.

Gun Grape
27 Jul 13,, 04:06
Citizens don't get that chance...

Yes they do. It depends on what state you live in as to how far it goes.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin7/2.html


n at least 22 states, the victim’s right to confer with the prosecutor requires a prosecutor to obtain the victim’s views concerning the proposed plea.6 Whereas the laws in some of these states do not address how victims will make their concerns known, others specifically provide for written input. In Georgia, a victim’s impact statement “shall be attached to the case file and may be used by the prosecuting attorney . . . during any stage of the proceedings against the defendant involving . . . plea bargaining.”7 State’s attorneys in Illinois are required, where practical, to both consult with the victim and consider a written impact statement, if one has been prepared, before entering into a plea agreement.8 South Dakota victims also are permitted to provide their views both orally and in writing.9 Not only do victims have the right to offer written input into whether a plea bargaining agreement is proper, but also prosecutors must make a reasonable effort to provide them the opportunity to comment on the agreement terms. In New Jersey, victims have the right to assistance with preparing and submitting to the prosecutor a written statement outlining the impact of the crime and any sentencing recommendations they feel are appropriate.

Funny how you get up in arms about cops using pepper spray but think that a private citizen killing an unarmed kid because he got his nose broke is just fine.

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 04:13
Yes they do. It depends on what state you live in as to how far it goes.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/bulletins/legalseries/bulletin7/2.html

Families should not direct the prosecution and that is from your source.




Funny how you get up in arms about cops using pepper spray but think that a private citizen killing an unarmed kid because he got his nose broke is just fine.

The cops was fired... after review and union intervention and all the other layers of protection he enjoyed in California he was shit canned for going way too far. Yet he wasn't charged with multiple counts of felony assault...

An unarmed kid with a history of organized fights and violent outbursts shot in the midst of committing a violent felony against a person who had been thrashed and disabled, where even the states witness admits he was motivated by criteria that elevated his attack to that of a hate crime....

See the connection? I don't really care what bad things happen to people who commit felony assault on other people.

erik
27 Jul 13,, 04:16
Since I am training to be a police officer, I have bias, but here is my take:

I agree that SWAT teams should not be so militarized. More specifically, I do not like the fact that some departments have their SWAT teams wearing military camouflage uniforms such as the Marine MARPAT or the Army's Camo that is new and issued for deployments to Afghanistan. I think it should stick to the blue, black, or olive drab colors.

This:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_boston_swat_dm_130416_wblog.jpg

No


This:

http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2013/03/01/srx_swat_t620.jpg?161ad8e426d1312361ed5892fdc121cd f327258d

Yes


I do believe that SWAT teams are needed. Just look at the Hollywood Shootout. .40 cal and shotguns just don't cut it against criminals who are armed with 7.62 or 5.56 and body armor. I was on a SWAT raid once and the place we raided was being run by 3 guys from Detroit and Flint who were cooking their own mix of drugs (pills, meth, crack, heroin) putting them into needles (used and new) and selling them around the neighborhood and area. What was their choice of protection for their house (that had the girlfriend's name under everything possible) from anyone? Ak-47. You can't just expect to go against someone with an AK with pistols and shotguns and expect a good outcome. I also talked to an officer who killed a man with his police issued AR-15 and said if it wasn't for the range of the AR, he probably wouldn't be talking to me now. The story behind that one is that the man was beating his wife to death to get officers to come and respond and was sitting on his porch with his hunting rifle waiting for the police to come to shoot at them. Suicide by Police.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rDOPcCxHOI

Monash
27 Jul 13,, 04:18
You of course realize that excessive force would likely be a criminal act, battery or assault depending if a civvie did it, it should be for a cop as well.

If no one was harmed, no foul unless we are talking menacing with a firearm where a reasonable fear of serious injury or death is created. But where there is injury- don't just fire prosecute.

Z - firstly you have to define what you mean by "excessive" and then you have to outline examples of situations where it might apply or this particular discussion will go nowhere. I keep pointing out that any use of force now matter how slight can be regarded as "excessive" from different perspectives. Merely touching someone on the shoulder (say move them away from the vicinity of a an accident is technically battery if the person touched does not give at least tacit consent. As a result an "excessive use of force" complaint could be lodged against the officer concerned and not just by the person touched, the complaint can come from anyone who witnessed the incident.

Furthermore when it comes to the arrest process itself it is bordering on impossible not to inflict some minor degree of injury even when the person involved is basically compliant. If you'd ever been handcuffed (other than for fun of course - real cuffs don't have fur linings :)) you would know that it is very hard to get them on someone without inflicting at least some minor injury. Add even the slightest degree of resistance which incidentally doesn't have to be aggression, just fear/nervousness/intoxication etc and you will often inflict small cuts, abrasions or localized swelling on the person being cuffed. Add any degree of proper physical resistance and it becomes extremely difficult to cuff someone by yourself without injuring them. When full resistance is used it is impossible to cuff someone by yourself unless you use a force option to incapacitate the POI. I know because we practice on each other during training and even at 50% effort it its dam near impossible to cuff someone without assistance and we end up injured when we role play as the suspect.

So force is force and it ranges from simple physical contact through to a bullet and people can and will complain about any degree of force employed by LEO's even if they were bystanders and not victims of the incident. None of the above means I'm advocating some kind of blanket proscription against UOF complaints nor am I suggesting officers are never guilty of using excessive force. What I am saying is that unless you have either :

a) a clear and persistent pattern of minor UOF complaints against one particular officer; or
b) evidence of some kind of significant physical injury (e.g something requiring at least a check-up by an medical professional)

Then firing a LEO for inflicting any kind of injury under any circumstances where someone complains will mean that eventually you would lose all your officers - unless they never choose to arrest anyone.


When you'd excuse a cop using excessive force on a citizen.

I'm not excusing anything. I have in the past and will again (if required to) investigated matters where the final recommendation has been that the officer concerned be fired/dismissed. And there a host of matters they can go down for - not just for excessive use of force complaints, officers can be and are fired for failing to follow procedure, dishonesty/theft ,giving false evidence (including lying to me or a colleague while under investigation) and drug related matters. If there is enough evidence to warrant criminal charges then they get the "double dip" (i.e. lose their jobs and get a criminal conviction).

Most citizens don't realize how many officers do get dismissed because the process is done in private (like any dismissal). They usually only become aware of it when criminal charges are involved as well. It may be stating the obvious but the number of times Police suspect someone might have committed a crime has no bearing on if/how often they are charged. You need to be able to prove (or expect to prove) that a person has committed a criminal offence before you can charge them. The same rule applies to Police officers, you can only charge if you have the evidence and it is just as hard to prove a charge against them as it is against anyone else. So in some cases you fire them for disciplinary breaches you can prove even if you suspect they might have committed a criminal offense. You want better than that then I suggest you click your heels together three times and move to OZ.

What I do want is good clear evidence of the type of force involved and the circumstances in which it was applied before I potentially ruin someones career and reputation. You on the other hand seem to be demanding perfection when it comes to professional standards in PD's and are setting the bar so high no-one could be expected to get over it unless they just stayed in the office. I would at the very least think you would be consistent and would demand those same high standards from every other trade/profession and person you might meet in your local community - there are lots of jobs out there that can kill someone if not done properly.


Not a problem, take it out of the swat budget, stop buying so many battle rifles and stop making every cop car look like an f'ing spaceship. Hell a single license plate scanner is $2500.... Police departments spend a lot of money that could be slimmed down.

Wouldn't even begin to cover the cost, tactical ops share of any modern PD's total HR and capital budgets is tiny. Keeping one cop on the road can cost 100K or more a year . I could outfit him and give him time off to train for a fraction of that, especially since only a small % of LEOs need to be trained up to SWAT level (and there are different levels of tac ops training which make it even cheaper depending on the type/level of ops you are expecting equip/train them for.)


And what happens when a cop who just put a beat down on a citizen, who is claiming brutality says oops i forgot to turn it on.... If its always on, no oops.

By "beat down" I assume you mean inflicted serious injuries upon? I would expect the PD he worked for to be professional - "oops" wouldn't cut it. Give a valid reason that can be corroborated or face the consequences. If you dropped the ball while in the army and someone got injured would you expect to get away with "oops"? well neither do most PO's I know of.




I want privacy in my private life, behind my curtiledge and under my roof. In public it is a different set of rules.

Well under your rules you wouldn't get it. If I show up on your property even if it's only canvassing the neighborhood for information about a crime in the local area and you have no info - you and yours are going to be recorded. If you take your family to the beach - your kids are going to get videoed as well unless you start marking out special "exemption zones" and then watch how quickly they multiply. Your way is to messy, complicated and to intrusive. I'll turn my camera on when and where I need it for evidence and I am not going to be some kind of walking surveillance post monitoring my neighbors and fellow community members.

Mind you if Zimmerman had been rigged up with a permanently "on" camera we'd all know what really happened wouldn't we? Although I guess you would counter that only Police officers carrying firearms need to be monitored - civilians can of course be trusted to do always do the right thing when carrying a gun in public can't they?


Oh BTW, are they hobnailed?

No they've got taps - so I can dance around the truth when I'm in court :rolleyes:

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 04:25
Since I am training to be a police officer, I have bias, but here is my take:

I agree that SWAT teams should not be so militarized. More specifically, I do not like the fact that some departments have their SWAT teams wearing military camouflage uniforms such as the Marine MARPAT or the Army's Camo that is new and issued for deployments to Afghanistan. I think it should stick to the blue, black, or olive drab colors.

Do they need so many guns.... the guys in black have double stacked mags going into an assumedly residential area....




I do believe that SWAT teams are needed. Just look at the Hollywood Shootout. .40 cal and shotguns just don't cut it against criminals who are armed with 7.62 or 5.56 and body armor. I was on a SWAT raid once and the place we raided was being run by 3 guys from Detroit and Flint who were cooking their own mix of drugs (pills, meths, crack, heroin) putting them into needles (used and new) and selling them around the neighborhood and area. What was their choice of protection for their house (that had the girlfriend's name under everything possible) from anyone? Ak-47.

Is there a role for rifles- yes. I don't think anyone is against the police having rifles if needed, of body armor or robots or what not... but double stacked mags indicate a mindset that is dangerous. The number of suspects in particular innocents who die via bleeding out is also a problem. deadmen tell no tales....


You can't just expect to go against someone with an AK with pistols and shotguns and expect the a good outcome. I also talked to an officer who killed a man with his police issued AR-15 and said if it wasn't for the range of the AR, he probably wouldn't be talking to me now. The story behind that one is that the man was beating his wife to death to get officers to come and respond and was sitting on his porch with his hunting rifle waiting for the police to come to shoot at them. Suicide by Police.

so he didn't really want to kill cops, he wanted to be killed by them.....

video- bahahaha....

erik
27 Jul 13,, 04:43
Do they need so many guns.... the guys in black have double stacked mags going into an assumedly residential area....


All I see are 2 AR-15s and issued sidearms. Anyone can own double stacks, why not police? Hell, you can get drums and 60 round mags.




Is there a role for rifles- yes. I don't think anyone is against the police having rifles if needed, of body armor or robots or what not... but double stacked mags indicate a mindset that is dangerous. The number of suspects in particular innocents who die via bleeding out is also a problem. deadmen tell no tales....

I don't see a problem with double stack mags when anyone can own them. However, I'm not sure which Department SWAT team that is, but not every SWAT team has AR's, double stacks, etc. etc. Every SWAT team is different and has their own equipment.




so he didn't really want to kill cops, he wanted to be killed by them.....

Well, yeah he did. He was yelling on the porch that he was killing any police that approach him. As the officer got behind a thick tree and got a line of sight on him, he announced he is a police officer and said to drop the weapon. He didn't drop the weapon (I believe is was a 30.06 rifle) and raised his rifle towards the officer. He was gonna go down shooting if he could.


video- bahahaha....

:D

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 04:54
Z - firstly you have to define what you mean by "excessive" and then you have to outline examples of situations where it might apply or this particular discussion will go nowhere. I keep pointing out that any use of force now matter how slight can be regarded as "excessive" from different perspectives. Merely touching someone on the shoulder (say move them away from the vicinity of a an accident is technically battery if the person touched does not give at least tacit consent. As a result an "excessive use of force" complaint could be lodged against the officer concerned and not just by the person touched, the complaint can come from anyone who witnessed the incident.

An action not necessary to the performance of duties that would get a citizen arrested.


Furthermore when it comes to the arrest process itself it is bordering on impossible not to inflict some minor degree of injury even when the person involved is basically compliant. If you'd ever been handcuffed (other than for fun of course - real cuffs don't have fur linings :)) you would know that it is very hard to get them on someone without inflicting at least some minor injury. Add even the slightest degree of resistance which incidentally doesn't have to be aggression, just fear/nervousness/intoxication etc and you will often inflict small cuts, abrasions or localized swelling on the person being cuffed. Add any degree of proper physical resistance and it becomes extremely difficult to cuff someone with out injuring them at least slightly. When full resistance is used it is impossible to cuff someone without assistance by yourself unless you use a force option to incapacitate the POI. I know because we practice on each other during training and even at 50% effort it its dam near impossible to cuff someone without assistance and we end up injured when we role play as the suspect.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the cuffing process, but about the boot stomps delivered for contempt of cop afterward. There is a huge difference between actions driven by nessecuity and those that are not. I can legally break your ribs when performing CPR, no crime. I break your ribs otherwise and its assault. Ditto for this discussion.



So force is force and it ranges from simple physical contact through to a bullet and people can and will complain about any degree of force employed by LEO's even if were the simply bystanders and not victims of the incident. I am not suggesting any of the above means I'm advocating some kind of blanket proscription against UOF complaints nor am I suggesting officers are never guilty of using excessive force. What I am saying is that unless you have either :

a) a clear and persistent pattern of minor UOF complaints against one particular officer; or
b) evidence of some kind of significant physical injury (e.g something requiring at least a check-up by an medical professional)

Then firing a LEO for inflicting any kind of injury under any circumstances where someone complains will mean that eventually you would loose all your officers - unless they never choose to arrest anyone.

If the injury would get a citizen charged, a cop should be as well.


I'm not excusing anything. I have in the past and will again (if required to) investigated matters where the final recommendation has been that the officer concerned be fired/dismissed. And there a host of matters they can go down for - not just for excessive use of force complaints, officers can be and are fired for failing to follow procedure, dishonesty/theft ,giving false evidence (including lying to me or a colleague while under investigation) and drug related matters. If there is enough evidence to warrant criminal charges then they get the "double dip" (i.e. lose their jobs and get a criminal conviction). I'm not excusing anything what I want is a good clear example of the type of force involved and the circumstances in which it was applied before I potentially ruin someones career and reputation. You on the other hand seem to be demanding perfection when it comes to professional standards in PD's and are setting the bar so high no-one could be expected to meet them for very long unless they just stayed in the office. I would at the very least think you would be consistent and demand the same high standards from every other trade/profession and person you might meet in your local community - and from yourself.

No cop should be fired without also being charged... You listed crimes as reasons for firing and they should be prosecuted.


Wouldn't even begin to cover the cost, tactical ops share of any modern PD's total HR and capital budgets is tiny. Keeping one cop on the road can cost 100K or more a year . I could outfit him and give him time of to train for a fraction of that,especially since only a small % of PD need to be trained up to SWAT level (and there are different levels of tac ops training which would make it even cheaper depending on the type/level of ops you are training them for.)

Adding a clerk to handle the paper work side of the citizens committee plus ancillary costs would be what 50k a year?Sorry but for almost every county in the US that is doable. If its not move it up to the state level. The idea is to create an organization with real teeth to watch the watchers.


By "beat down" I assume you mean inflicted serious injuries upon? I would expect the PD he worked for to be professional - "oops" wouldn't cut it give a valid reason that can be corroborated or face the consequences. If you dropped the ball while in the army and someone got injured would you expect to get away with "oops"? well neither do most PD's I know of.

I don't think you are in the US so you may not know about Brady Violations. When the state denies a citizen their right to present evidence in their own defense through loss, malfeasance or mistake its a Brady violation and may be grounds for a directed acquittal. But only if the defendant can prove the prosecution has, or should have it (which had been extended to stuff they should have gotten from police). In this case an oops could let some very bad people go. Always on is superior.



Well under your rules you wouldn't get it.

Not my rules, American jurisprudence


If I show up on your property to even if it's only canvassing the neighborhood for information about a crime in the local area and you have no info - you and yours are going to be recorded.

I don't have to open the door unless I consent to talk to you. If your recording uncovered something illegal, then as long as your entry on to my property was otherwise legal, I'd have no expectation of privacy either. If the entry wasn't legal, then the discovery of the crime would be fruit of the poisonous tree.


If you take your family to the beach - your kids are going to get videoed as well unless you start marking out special "exemption zones" and then watch how quickly they multiply. Your way is to messy, complicated and to intrusive. I'll turn my camera on when and where I need it for evidence and I am not going to be some kind of walking surveillance post monitoring my neighbors and fellow community members.

In America there is no expectation of privacy in public except in a few very well defined areas like public rest rooms, phone booths etc.


No they've got taps - so I can dance around the truth when I'm in court :rolleyes:

OOhh,, combined with hiding behind the badge..... Bet that is impressive :P

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 04:58
All Anyone can own double stacks, why not police?

what does creating taped double stacks imply about motivation and training?

That is a move for someone who is expecting to lay down covering fire..... We can see 120 rounds in the photo that are possibly headed down range in a residential area. Sorry, covering fire is not a valid police tactic for serving a warrant.

Doktor
27 Jul 13,, 05:00
In America there is no expectation of privacy in public except in a few very well defined areas like public rest rooms, phone booths etc

Really?!

How it worked out for satellite images and people being pictured on the streets or in the yards facing street? You can also ask for your property to be "blackened". I remind you, we talk about stuff that can be normally seen from the street.

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 05:18
Really?!

Yes really


How it worked out for satellite images and people being pictured on the streets or in the yards facing street? You can also ask for your property to be "blackened". I remind you, we talk about stuff that can be normally seen from the street.

If it can be normally seen from the street and I don't like that, its up to me to put up a fence high enough protect my privacy. In America rights are generally passive in that the it is the citizens duty to exercise them. The presumption is knowledge and knowing waiver or exercising of said rights.

Doktor
27 Jul 13,, 05:22
You sure you can build a wall 6' high anywhere in USA?

Monash
27 Jul 13,, 06:00
Re the "Occupy incident" in the video. You have a trespass or a public nuisance matter, if the people involved "move on" by themselves when directed to do so - no problem. If however they won't just how do you expect one fully grown adult to physically move another without using some kind of force?

Grab and drag - you risk inflicting pain and injury. Joint locks and blows ditto. Battons? OC hurts like hell but at least it inflicts no physical damage. And over here we were expected to take a good "dose" of OC in training before we were qualified to carry it so we know from personal experience how it works. So sans moving someone with our vaunted psychic powers, how would you do it?

On this occasion the LEO in the video should have got the OK from the OIC at the scene before using the fogger. (Myself? I would have though a standard, personal issue OC canister would have sufficed and would've carried less risk of splash back on innocent bystanders/Police) so maybe he should have been dismissed. (Don't know - don't have all the facts. )

In any event I'm talking about crowd control in general no this particular incident. Parents have enough trouble getting their kids to go somewhere they don't want to go let alone trying to make an adult (who is behaving like a child ) move against their will. :)

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 07:05
You sure you can build a wall 6' high anywhere in USA?

If its my land, yes I can build a fence as high as I need to, its called a curtilidge and that is where the right to privacy begins.

Monash


On this occasion the LEO in the video should have got the OK from the OIC at the scene before using the fogger. (Myself? I would have though a standard, personal issue OC canister would have sufficed and would've carried less risk of splash back on innocent bystanders/Police) so maybe he should have been dismissed. (Don't know - don't have all the facts. )

After review he was fired.... He should have been charged. He sprayed some of those people 3x in just a few seconds.

Occupy Maced: Police pepper spray unarmed youth, tear tents down - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBk1ogP18K0)

Monash
27 Jul 13,, 07:26
An action not necessary to the performance of duties that would get a citizen arrested.

I've only ever been talking about actions taken pursuant to a LEOs duties i.e during an arrest. Not acts extraneous to same.


I don't think anyone is complaining about the cuffing process, but about the boot stomps delivered for contempt of cop afterward. There is a huge difference between actions driven by nessecuity and those that are not. I can legally break your ribs when performing CPR, no crime. I break your ribs otherwise and its assault. Ditto for this discussion.

FYI -most public complaints re: use of force are about lower level issues like cuffing. This is because low level use of force incidents are far and away more common that higher level ones and neither I or any of my colleagues would have truck with kicking or beating a suspect because they gave us lip. You see it you report it.



If the injury would get a citizen charged, a cop should be as well.

If we are talking about the above then depending on all the circumstances no prob.


No cop should be fired without also being charged... You listed crimes as reasons for firing and they should be prosecuted.

You failed to note my point - before you charge someone, anyone with a criminal offense you have to be confident there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction. Failing a drug test will not get you convicted of drug possession because not all of the proofs required for even a low level drug charge will be present - but it is enough for dismissal due to loss of confidence. Continued failures to follow procedures (like how to handle evidence) isn't a criminal offence but shows you have poor regard for your job so it can get you dismissed. Same can be said about things like sexual harassment complaints etc. Also you can have an officer who might get charged with an criminal offence e.g a domestic violence matter etc and get off the charge in court. They can still be fired because the job believes the conduct involved showed extremely poor judgement/decision making or set a bad public example. Likewise any criminal conviction for example a drink driving can get a LEO fired even if the matter occurred while he is off duty and has nothing to do with how he does his job. The profession has high expectations as to how you present yourself in public at all times. Live up to them or get out.



Adding a clerk to handle the paper work side of the citizens committee plus ancillary costs would be what 50k a year?Sorry but for almost every county in the US that is doable. If its not move it up to the state level. The idea is to create an organization with real teeth to watch the watchers.

No disciplinary proceeding is ever that straightforward, the panel members and witnesses would have costs associated with attending, members would need to be vetted (unless of course it's OK for local gang members to sit on the committee.) Offices need to be maintained etc etc etc. Plus there would be an appeal process - you can't deny anyone in the US access to the court system proper if they believe they have been legally wronged so if an officer does appear before your "panel" and if they are found to be guilty (for want of a better term) and if they are fired then they will have the option of seeking legal advice and suing for wrongful dismissal. So your panel would need legal advice plus insurance available while sitting (ain't no way in hell any panel member would accept personal liability for a decision he makes which then gets overturned on appeal). Plus the officer would probably want legal advice at the hearing and will expect to be reimbursed if he gets off.

In other words lawyer$, lawyer$ lawyer$.


OOhh,, combined with hiding behind the badge..... Bet that is impressive :P

My badge is only tiny - what is there to hide behind, that would be silly . :confused:

Monash
27 Jul 13,, 08:06
Before someone talks about that stats above just being the "bad apples" that you find in any bunch, these may be the bad (or rotten) apples, but they have been protected by "the thin blue line" for so long that the whole bunch is bad. I'm more angry at those who enable this type of action by looking the other way, helping out a brother or outright lying than I am at those who do these actions.

I really don't think I'm jaded when I say that I believe that 5% of cops give the rest a good name.


I believe there are something like 800,000 full time law enforcement officers in the US working for all levels of government. This figure obviously doesn't include and part time or volunteer LEO'S. Why then is anyone surprised when a small % turn out to be incompetent or corrupt? The surprise would be if there weren't any "bad" cops, after all why should law enforcement be different from any other profession on the planet. All you can do is get rid of the bad ones as they show up and keep working on your selection, training and anti-corruption processes.

Doktor
27 Jul 13,, 08:17
If its my land, yes I can build a fence as high as I need to, its called a curtilidge and that is where the right to privacy begins.

It might be your land, but it is still subject to local gov. Permits, licenses etc are needed for you to take that fence, right?

If I am your neighbour and I build a 10 story building, would you build a fence the same height?

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 15:16
It might be your land, but it is still subject to local gov. Permits, licenses etc are needed for you to take that fence, right?

If I am your neighbour and I build a 10 story building, would you build a fence the same height?

Yes, you have to pay the man in some states, in others you don't. However I don't think you're going to build a 10 story building next to a single family dwelling unless its high occupancy apartments. If I wanted to protect my privacy in that case i would need to put up out buildings or awnings.

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 15:20
FYI -most public complaints re: use of force are about lower level issues like cuffing. This is because low level use of force incidents are far and away more common that higher level ones and neither I or any of my colleagues would have truck with kicking or beating a suspect because they gave us lip. You see it you report it.




If we are talking about the above then depending on all the circumstances no prob.

That is what I am talking about.... its far too common in the US. The prosecutions for it far too few and too light.... One officer had 6 fatal shootings before he popped a 7th unarmed victim... others have cost their cities millions in settlements




You failed to note my point - before you charge someone, anyone with a criminal offense you have to be confident there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction. Failing a drug test will not get you convicted of drug possession because not all of the proofs required for even a low level drug charge will be present - but it is enough for dismissal due to loss of confidence. Continued failures to follow procedures (like how to handle evidence) isn't a criminal offence but shows you have poor regard for your job so it can get you dismissed. Same can be said about things like sexual harassment complaints etc. Also you can have an officer who might get charged with an criminal offence e.g a domestic violence matter etc and get off the charge in court. They can still be fired because the job believes the conduct involved showed extremely poor judgement/decision making or set a bad public example. Likewise any criminal conviction for example a drink driving can get a LEO fired even if the matter occurred while he is off duty and has nothing to do with how he does his job. The profession has high expectations as to how you present yourself in public at all times. Live up to them or get out.

perjury and falsifying evidence is a criminal act... but I concede I was over broad on that statement.



No disciplinary proceeding is ever that straightforward, the panel members and witnesses would have costs associated with attending, members would need to be vetted (unless of course it's OK for local gang members to sit on the committee.) Offices need to be maintained etc etc etc. Plus there would be an appeal process - you can't deny anyone in the US access to the court system proper if they believe they have been legally wronged so if an officer does appear before your "panel" and if they are found to be guilty (for want of a better term) and if they are fired then they will have the option of seeking legal advice and suing for wrongful dismissal. So your panel would need legal advice plus insurance available while sitting (ain't no way in hell any panel member would accept personal liability for a decision he makes which then gets overturned on appeal). Plus the officer would probably want legal advice at the hearing and will expect to be reimbursed if he gets off.

No lawyers, employment termination proceedings are not courts


My badge is only tiny - what is there to hide behind, that would be silly . :confused:

nice tap dancing routine there....

cyppok
27 Jul 13,, 15:45
The students that were pepper sprayed were on their campus, hence they were not trespassing but the cops were.
The cop is in a youtube video coming to them and spraying them in the face for fun, imagine if it was your kid there sitting peacefully (they can't be trespassing if its public grounds in broad daylights no matter what you imagine)...

All of this gets down to the following.
When the cops 'bend' the law in their favor and compliance shifts expect the following to happen.
1) people will know where you live, your name, etc... thanks to the internet and the destruction of privacy.

2) compliance ceases, which means people will look at you as a problem not a solution, ergo some witnesses in your favor will choose not to be, and others that aren't in your favor will present evidence against you

3) a culture of disdain slowly creeps up until no matter how good you present yourself or are ideologically painted on tv it no longer matters and all cops are branded public scumbags by the public at large...

4) Right now I'm going to give you some food for thought but this is the most major change you will encounter in the future (before energy weapons)...
Notice Detroit going bankrupt and San Bernardino etc...
Personal Liability for officers once the cities are shown to be insolvent is going to be a very real whipsaw effect. Not only will you get no money to defend yourself from an insolvent city but the public opinion (no matter how you think the newspapers paint it in your favor) on the ground will be against you. Imagine people suing a cop and winning the lawsuit while the department may indemnify you, if they are broke and cannot pay welcome to personal liability... :cool: (Ergo responsibility for transgressions)

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn-teen-sues-nypd-officer-false-arrest-article-1.1410423?localLinksEnabled=false (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn-teen-sues-nypd-officer-false-arrest-article-1.1410423?localLinksEnabled=false)
Food for thought...

A college-bound Brooklyn teen says a vengeful cop handcuffed him and dragged him off to jail for leaving his bicycle on the sidewalk — eight days after he slapped the officer with a lawsuit alleging false arrest.


Callahan’s lawyer, Joel Berger, was livid. “Never in 45 years of practicing civil rights law have I encountered such a brazen retaliation against a plaintiff by the very officer he has just sued,” Berger said.

(The first arrest was because someone they talked to had a gun, so bear in mind this guy arrested 3 people because 2 of them talked to 1 person) (second time it was obvious he was getting back at him for the suit since he arrested him in the cash checking place for parking bike on sidewalk)

bonehead
27 Jul 13,, 16:34
what does creating taped double stacks imply about motivation and training?

That is a move for someone who is expecting to lay down covering fire..... We can see 120 rounds in the photo that are possibly headed down range in a residential area. Sorry, covering fire is not a valid police tactic for serving a warrant.

Just curious here. Have you been trained in SWAT/police tactics or are you simply pulling this out of your ass because you see large capacity magazines and you are jumping to a conclusion.

bonehead
27 Jul 13,, 16:39
Here is a SWAT team that did some good just last night. Perhaps you should talk to the survivors and ask them if they felt the SWAT team carried too much ammo.
Gunman among 7 dead after Fla. apartment shootout (http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-among-7-dead-fla-apartment-shootout-095137897.html)

Doktor
27 Jul 13,, 16:52
If one wants to be picky here, i am sure those officers who were on the scene didn't emptied the first mag in the shootout.

Just to make it clear I have no issue if they have 5 mags, if that's what makes them feel comfy doing the job they are doing.

Gun Grape
27 Jul 13,, 18:34
If its my land, yes I can build a fence as high as I need to, its called a curtilidge and that is where the right to privacy begins.


No You can not. In most areas zoning laws will tell you the height and materials you can use for a fence. Won't even go into easements, setbacks and other rules and laws that apply.

An example,where I live, you cannot build a privacy fence due to Florida building code covering hurricane wind zones.

cyppok
27 Jul 13,, 18:40
Here is a SWAT team that did some good just last night. Perhaps you should talk to the survivors and ask them if they felt the SWAT team carried too much ammo.
Gunman among 7 dead after Fla. apartment shootout (http://news.yahoo.com/gunman-among-7-dead-fla-apartment-shootout-095137897.html)

There are always way to justify the way things are the problem is in vast majority of cases deployment of excessive force is not justified. You think going in guns blazing into that guys house was the right way to go or just serving him with a warrant by 1 officer and letting him comply. Because I am sure when he started defending himself he thought people going into his house were criminals and the penalty for him distributing wasn't worth shooting people... But alas the "wise" (sarcasm) decision to go all in without warning was used instead.

There are dozens of youtube videos of swat teams being used to raid regular people's homes to put the boot down. Just remember there is always blowback from excess.

I am going to repeat what I said before.

When the cops 'bend' the law in their favor and compliance shifts expect the following to happen.
1) people will know where you live, your name, etc... thanks to the internet and the destruction of privacy.

2) compliance ceases, which means people will look at you as a problem not a solution, ergo some witnesses in your favor will choose not to be, and others that aren't in your favor will present evidence against you

3) a culture of disdain slowly creeps up until no matter how good you present yourself or are ideologically painted on tv it no longer matters and all cops are branded public scumbags by the public at large...

4) Right now I'm going to give you some food for thought but this is the most major change you will encounter in the future (before energy weapons)...
Notice Detroit going bankrupt and San Bernardino etc...
Personal Liability for officers once the cities are shown to be insolvent is going to be a very real whipsaw effect. Not only will you get no money to defend yourself from an insolvent city but the public opinion (no matter how you think the newspapers paint it in your favor) on the ground will be against you. Imagine people suing a cop and winning the lawsuit while the department may indemnify you, if they are broke and cannot pay welcome to personal liability... (Ergo responsibility for transgressions)

Yes when the city goes broke and you violate someones rights by breaking the law, they sue you and your indemnity at the expense of taxpayers ceases to shield you, you loose everything... I don't think cops should have that anyway if the cops follow the law there is no need for taxpayers to eat those costs bar very rare circumstances.

erik
27 Jul 13,, 19:04
what does creating taped double stacks imply about motivation and training?

That is a move for someone who is expecting to lay down covering fire..... We can see 120 rounds in the photo that are possibly headed down range in a residential area. Sorry, covering fire is not a valid police tactic for serving a warrant.

That they do not want to run out of ammo? You do realize that they probably have more clips in the armor vest too right? If they don't have double stacks, they have the extra clips on their person.

Who is to say 120 rounds if for covering fire? I trained with a SWAT team and they had tons of extra ammunition and clips for each of their guns ranging from pistols, snipers, MP5s, and ARs. Not once did they train in "covering fire". The extra rounds are for when shit hits the fan like the Hollywood shootout or other instances when there are multiple shooters or heavily armored and armed shooter(s). It doesn't mean that they instantly thinking that they will be throwing down hundreds of rounds. Should they only be restricted to one clip to their rifle? When those extreme circumstances happen (that you cannot predict when or where or if), why should an officer be restricted to a certain amount of rounds?

bonehead
27 Jul 13,, 21:19
[QUOTE]There are always way to justify the way things are the problem is in vast majority of cases deployment of excessive force is not justified. You think going in guns blazing into that guys house was the right way to go or just serving him with a warrant by 1 officer and letting him comply. Because I am sure when he started defending himself he thought people going into his house were criminals and the penalty for him distributing wasn't worth shooting people... But alas the "wise" (sarcasm) decision to go all in without warning was used instead.





The man already killed and wounded others and had two hostages. Negotiations had been tried but failed. Then the SWAT team went in. This case was not a simple serve a warrant, but to stop a man hell bent on murdering as many people as he could before he was stopped. This is exactly how a SWAT team is supposed to work.

Doktor
27 Jul 13,, 22:29
No You can not. In most areas zoning laws will tell you the height and materials you can use for a fence. Won't even go into easements, setbacks and other rules and laws that apply.

An example,where I live, you cannot build a privacy fence due to Florida building code covering hurricane wind zones.

Thank you. For a brief moment I thought it's only us who do that.

Now how is Z gonna protect his privacy?

zraver
27 Jul 13,, 23:19
So much for the right to peaceably assemble, or freedom of the press.....

Watch Scott Walker's Police Illegally Arrest A Marine Veteran & Desecrate His Flag - Occupy Democrats (http://occupydemocrats.com/watch-scott-walkers-police-illegally-arrest-a-marine-veteran-desecrate-his-flag/)

Monash
28 Jul 13,, 01:59
That is what I am talking about.... its far too common in the US. The prosecutions for it far too few and too light.... One officer had 6 fatal shootings before he popped a 7th unarmed victim... others have cost their cities millions in settlements

So we are talking serious/lethal UOF only. That a least cuts down the workload for your "committee of public safety". You will still find however that most of your citizens complaints will be about the little stuff like the use of cuffs, tazers and OC etc not the "biggies" because unless they are very unlucky that's mostly what they'll see or encounter.




perjury and falsifying evidence is a criminal act... but I concede I was over broad on that statement.

FYI here (and I'm assuming over there in the US) when a LEO is ordered to attend II (we call it Professional Standards) he can be compelled to anwser questions about his conduct in a particular incident (no right to silence). The upside to this is he has to give us a version of events. The downside is that because it is "compelled" nothing he says can be used in evidence in court against him. So I can't charge him with perjury but he can lose his job. II therefore has to think tactically and depending on the nature of the complaint there may be a conventional investigation first after which an assessment is conducted to see if there is enough evidence for criminal charges. If yes you proceed like you would for anyone else. If not you go down the internal discipline route with compulsory questioning. As for the evidence thing that was meant refer to just not handling or processing items correctly not stealing it. The former would be procedural hence the II route the latter would be a criminal offense.



No lawyers, employment termination proceedings are not courts

Employment terminating proceedings end up in court if the person involved (or rather his lawyer) can point to a mistake of process, fact or issue. Also if someone feels their reputation has been publicly impugned.....



nice tap dancing routine there....

I shall now jive my off the dance floor - exit stage right :)

zraver
28 Jul 13,, 06:03
No You can not. In most areas zoning laws will tell you the height and materials you can use for a fence. Won't even go into easements, setbacks and other rules and laws that apply.

An example,where I live, you cannot build a privacy fence due to Florida building code covering hurricane wind zones.

Then how do you establish your constitutional right to a privacy curtiledge? Or has it simply not been challenged?

Monash
28 Jul 13,, 06:40
Yes when the city goes broke and you violate someones rights by breaking the law, they sue you and your indemnity at the expense of taxpayers ceases to shield you, you loose everything... I don't think cops should have that anyway if the cops follow the law there is no need for taxpayers to eat those costs bar very rare circumstances.

So you think LEO should be the only profession on the planet that can't get public indemnity insurance?

Gun Grape
28 Jul 13,, 06:52
Then how do you establish your constitutional right to a privacy curtiledge? Or has it simply not been challenged?

Are you saying that only those with fences around their homes have established a "right to privacy"? And those without fences do not enjoy that "Right"?

zraver
28 Jul 13,, 07:00
Are you saying that only those with fences around their homes have established a "right to privacy"? And those without fences do not enjoy that "Right"?

Privacy outside the home, but on your own property is only protected if it meets four requirements (U.S. V Dunn)

1. intimate use 2. proximity to the home 3. enclosure by fence and 4. obstructed view.

Gun Grape
28 Jul 13,, 07:17
The Court stated that all 4 factors were not required to meet 4th Amendment protection.

See US. v. Seidel, 794 F. Supp. 1098, 1103 (S.D.FIa.., 1992) (where three of the four Dunn factors were found to militate in favor of the defendant - the disputed area was only two and one-half acres in size and was located in close proximity to the house). Furthermore, in Katz v. United States, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. The Court observed that the reach of the amendment does not turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intru¬sion into any given enclosure. The Court added that what a person seeks to preserve as private may be constitutionally protected despite the fact that it is in an area acces¬sible to the public. (Emphasis added). 389 U.S. 347 at 351-352.

zraver
28 Jul 13,, 07:39
The Court stated that all 4 factors were not required to meet 4th Amendment protection.

See US. v. Seidel, 794 F. Supp. 1098, 1103 (S.D.FIa.., 1992) (where three of the four Dunn factors were found to militate in favor of the defendant - the disputed area was only two and one-half acres in size and was located in close proximity to the house). Furthermore, in Katz v. United States, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. The Court observed that the reach of the amendment does not turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intru¬sion into any given enclosure. The Court added that what a person seeks to preserve as private may be constitutionally protected despite the fact that it is in an area acces¬sible to the public. (Emphasis added). 389 U.S. 347 at 351-352.


I have some reading to do, thanks

Minskaya
28 Jul 13,, 11:45
95-year-old man dies after police confrontation
Saturday, July 27, 2013

State investigators are looking into the death of a 95-year-old suburban man after an armed confrontation with police. Police in far south suburban Park Forest say they were called Friday night by a private ambulance service transporting what they described as a combative patient. Police say they used a stun gun and bean bag rounds to subdue the man after he'd threatened them first with a cane and then a knife. Police also say he was conscious after the incident, but later died at the hospital. An autopsy is pending.
Source: ABC7Chicago.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9187477)

This I have a problem with.

John Warna was a 95 year old man living in a retirement home. He was initially tasered and then shot with bean-bag rounds by police. Such rounds are considered non-lethal, but the damage they can inflict is dependent upon distance and the particular area of the body impacted. Come on, there must have been a better and less violent way to subdue this old-timer who required a cane to shuffle around.

How fast/strong can such an aged person be? A squirt of pepper spray would probably have sufficed.

Monash
28 Jul 13,, 13:59
Words fail me. What kind of training and supervision did these idiots receive?

Minskaya
28 Jul 13,, 14:38
Words fail me. What kind of training and supervision did these idiots receive?
It must be a small suburb. The Park Forest Police Department has 42 sworn officers who work 12 hour shifts and there is no residency requirement.

parkforestpolice | Proud to Serve (http://parkforestpolice.com/)

Monash
28 Jul 13,, 14:49
Y'ere I've never understood how the the whole county, city, state and federal law enforcement model as adopted in the US manages to hang together. I can see how county PD's give the their local communities a direct say over local law enforcement but maintaining standardized levels re: recruitment, training and methodologies across hundreds of independent jurisdictions some of which will have severe resource constraints looks like a nightmare scenario to someone coming from an environment where there are only state and federal PD.s.

Doktor
28 Jul 13,, 15:08
Monash, I know how you feel.

It all started when I wondered why there are no Secretary (Ministry) of Interior.

I had hard time to grasp Sheriff, State, Federal thingy. Still not sure if I have it right.

Minskaya
28 Jul 13,, 15:15
Y'ere I've never understood how the the whole county, city, state and federal law enforcement model as adopted in the US manages to hand together. I can see how county PD's give the their local communities a direct say over local law enforcement but maintaining standardized levels re: recruitment, training and methodologies across hundreds of independent jurisdictions some of which will have severe resource constraints looks like a nightmare scenario to someone coming from an environment where there are only state and federal PD.s.
In regards to training, I believe that all sworn police officers in Illinois (except Chicago) must graduate from the Illinois State Police Academy in Springfield. Chicago has its own police academy.

Where I live (160,000) in western Du Page County, the municipal police department has a staff of 300 of which 190 are sworn officers.

zraver
28 Jul 13,, 15:48
Monash, I know how you feel.

It all started when I wondered why there are no Secretary (Ministry) of Interior.

I had hard time to grasp Sheriff, State, Federal thingy. Still not sure if I have it right.

In Arkansas, every 640 acre township is authorized a constable, each municipality can have a police force, each county has a sheriffs department... The state has (statewide jurisdiction) highway patrol, state police, university police, game wardens, juvenile police and others....

Monash
28 Jul 13,, 16:22
As I said it sounds both expensive and hard to coordinate.

Monash
28 Jul 13,, 16:35
"Police say they used a stun gun and bean bag rounds to subdue the man after he'd threatened them first with a cane and then a knife."

I know standard SOP is that any threat involving a knife mandates the drawing of firearms in response but hell, what would it have cost to back off and assess with firearms drawn if need be. Try negotiation from a distance, and maybe use OC when you get a chance, it has at least 2-3 meter effective range. How hard can it be to keep your reactionary gap open when dealing with a sick 95 year old? I mean how old were the deputies 70?

Minskaya
28 Jul 13,, 16:53
As I said it sounds both expensive and hard to coordinate.
Where I live it is affluent suburbs separated by rolling farmland. This is where Illinois soldiers trained for Civil War duty. Du Page County is also home to Fermilab, Argonne National Laboratory, and the Illinois High Tech and Research Corridor. State Police patrol the local interstate highways, municipal police the towns, and the county sheriff everything else.

Neighboring Cook County is an entirely different animal altogether. Everything from the FBI and Federal Marshals to Metra Transit and Forest Preserve police.

omon
29 Jul 13,, 22:25
ZMind you if Zimmerman had been rigged up with a permanently "on" camera we'd all know what really happened wouldn't we? Although I guess you would counter that only Police officers carrying firearms need to be monitored - civilians can of course be trusted to do always do the right thing when carrying a gun in public can't they?
No they've got taps - so I can dance around the truth when I'm in court :rolleyes:

that would be lovely, i'm pretty sure you'd see exactly what Z said happened, all physical evidence that exist, confirm his story, but i would love to see what those seeking "justice" would say if they showed the video, but i'm sure they would still find injustice, and would still blame someone.

and yes i think PO should be monitored with always on cameras, every second. leos have legal power to project force, power that i'm as a civilian don't normaly have, power that cops do abuse, and proof of it almost every week is all over the internet and newspapers. it is really pointless to deny. now i keep hearing about bad apples, but you know what, it doesn't matter, even those that you would say are good apples, don't help to get rid of bad ones, there is a code blue thing, (if civilians do that, we are called conspirators), it is pointless to deny it, it exsts. good cops will not normaly talk, they will not help to convict bad apples, same with pba's, so wheater they do abuse power or just know and keep quiet, makes no difference to us, civilians.

and yes i trust more a civilian carrying a gun legaly than a cop, for simple reasons. 1. cops in usa most of the time, prove they either bad shots (34st shooting, 9 pedestrian shot by cops), or have horoble judgmet on where to use their gun (same incedent, plus many more). yet they almost always get away with that. if civilian uses his gun, outside hunting, or target shooting, it is either self defence, or a crime. and responcible gun owners know it, and wont discharge their gun for no really good reason. so yea, i would be all for you wearing camera on duty all the time, and also since cops have same powers off duty as on duty, i would not mind you have them, those constant on cameras 24\7.

now that dancing around the truth is exactly what we don't want cops to do, we want the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, just what you expect from us. so i do want a camera on you, so you ain't got any room to dance.

Doktor
29 Jul 13,, 23:54
What is the size of LEOs in the US?

What is the number of violations they do?

When you put that in a percentage, what you get?

I sense now I get the "They are cops, invested with powers we the civvies can't breach unpunished.
I am willing to bet you that doctors have higher % of mistakes where the cost is also the human life. Not a single outcry. Some of them even think they are Gods.
And they are paid more, trained more, have more assistants...

omon
30 Jul 13,, 01:24
What is the size of LEOs in the US?

What is the number of violations they do?

When you put that in a percentage, what you get?

I sense now I get the "They are cops, invested with powers we the civvies can't breach unpunished.
I am willing to bet you that doctors have higher % of mistakes where the cost is also the human life. Not a single outcry. Some of them even think they are Gods.
And they are paid more, trained more, have more assistants...

idk, you can do math yourself, i'd be interested in your findings,. but how many is ok by you?
so far my friend that got ran over by off duty cop (http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2013/04/off-duty_jersey_city_cop_hits.html), that ran away, in nj 3 mounts ago, is dead, and cop isn't even arres (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/05/off-duty_jersey_city_police_of_1.html)ted, his pba made sure of that. leaving a scene of an accident, is a felony, why isn't the cop arrested, and charged??

if you say police misconduct is justified because doctors do it more, than all gun death is also justified since cars kill more.

lets stick to apples of the thread.

zraver
30 Jul 13,, 01:46
In a way to go G-men moment....

100 girls rescue and 150 pimps jailed.... that is a productive day.

FBI rescues more than 100 children, arrests 150 pimps in sex-trafficking raid | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/29/fbi-rescues-at-least-105-child-prostitutes-in-nationwide-undercover-operation/?intcmp=trending)

Doktor
30 Jul 13,, 01:58
idk, you can do math yourself, i'd be interested in your findings
I would if I had an idea where to look for the data. I don't. Hence why I asked.


but how many is ok by you?
0 (zero).
But the world is not perfect and these things will happen. Pretending that they wont is naive.


so far my friend that got ran over by off duty cop (http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2013/04/off-duty_jersey_city_cop_hits.html), that ran away, in nj 3 mounts ago, is dead, and cop isn't even arres (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/05/off-duty_jersey_city_police_of_1.html)ted, his pba made sure of that.
Sorry for your loss. Must be terrible, especially when you see the justice not working.

Are you saying the laws are not working or that they are bent for the POs. How often this happens?


leaving a scene of an accident, is a felony, why isn't the cop arrested, and charged??
Ask the DA.


if you say police misconduct is justified because doctors do it more, than all gun death is also justified since cars kill more.
Where have I said it is justified?!
I was wondering if a comparison is possible, then how would cops fare. Moreover, since docs have higher education, more training, are better paid (motivated), have assistants...

omon
30 Jul 13,, 02:32
yes that is exactly what I'm saying, if i hit someone and ran and he died, i would be charged with murder, i have seen it happen. the cop got away with 4 tickets, and yes it does happen often, more often than reported, and i have firsthand experience with it. in separate incidents. and have seen such things happen too many times to brush it off as "bad apples" the whole tree is rotten, some apples are good, but it does not do much for overall result.

any comparison is possible, but not every makes sense, or reflect anything useful, in this case doctors mistakes, and police misconduct are not exactly the same thing.
medical errors can often be classified as accidents, or worst case, criminal negligence, but police misconduct is intent, even covering up for crimes of other cops is intent. but you really have to live here and deal with it to truly understand it.

chanjyj
30 Jul 13,, 10:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S7cHY2ztet4&t=59

Fast forward to 00:59. I can't believe it. Up-armoured vehicles like the Lenco BEAR I've seen but this!

zraver
30 Jul 13,, 15:14
After Vietnam the various departments all got M114's, after Desert Storm and the Cold war they got surplus hummers or Cadillac Gage's. Now after OIF/OEF they are getting surplus MRAP's.

tuna
30 Jul 13,, 15:48
After Vietnam the various departments all got M114's, after Desert Storm and the Cold war they got surplus hummers or Cadillac Gage's. Now after OIF/OEF they are getting surplus MRAP's.

The problem isn't getting this surplus equipment, which I think is a very good deal for all. The problem is that once they get this equipment, they want to use it. Simple human nature - give a guy a new hammer and he'll look for a nail. Beyond that, they need to justify having this equipment and the costs of upkeep. So they'll find justifications to use it so that they'll have it for the one time they do need it.

chanjyj
30 Jul 13,, 16:02
Tuna put it right - "justify cost of upkeep".

zraver
30 Jul 13,, 19:58
Tuna put it right - "justify cost of upkeep".

In a lot of areas that MRAP would be an ideal rescue vehicle for flood waters. But ya I see the threat in having so many armored vehicles in and amongst the citizens. However, they will never out number the total number of SWAT teams in the country so cutting the number of those teams will reduce the need for such vehicles.

Doktor
31 Jul 13,, 08:14
yes that is exactly what I'm saying, if i hit someone and ran and he died, i would be charged with murder, i have seen it happen. the cop got away with 4 tickets, and yes it does happen often, more often than reported, and i have firsthand experience with it. in separate incidents. and have seen such things happen too many times to brush it off as "bad apples" the whole tree is rotten, some apples are good, but it does not do much for overall result.
I am judging by what we have here. I'd characterize our LEOs' mistakes as negligence. And they face charges. Not always, but in most of the cases. Some are even weird for US context.
Last year off duty cop killed two people with his gun over what was reported an argument over a parking slot. The cop was with his daughter and felt threatened for his own and his daughter safety. He was sentenced for life. I believe he would be a free man in USA. Especially in Florida.
Another case is where an uninformed cop who was securing the PM, beaten a teen (the kid passed later) was also sentenced for a long time. His version of events was the kid was running so he pushed him, kid fell and hit the sidewalk with his head. As you can imagine there were other cops around who didn't call Emergency since their colleague told them the kid will be fine. They tried to cover up the thing, but the pressure for his actions was very high. The other cops are free.


any comparison is possible, but not every makes sense, or reflect anything useful, in this case doctors mistakes, and police misconduct are not exactly the same thing. medical errors can often be classified as accidents, or worst case, criminal negligence, but police misconduct is intent, even covering up for crimes of other cops is intent. but you really have to live here and deal with it to truly understand it.
You are starting with a premise that the officers are doing violations on purpose and with intention, I believe in 99% of the cases it's the situation gone out of control and blame lack of training for it. Again, I speak from what happens here.
Another thing is we don't have many full scale mil-type raids, so we don't see pets being shot, elders being put with the face on the floor, kids being cuffed...

Monash
01 Aug 13,, 13:53
Did a quick check and I do mean quick, so what follows in not statistically valid just a guestimate. Wiki lists the number of fatal Police shootings in the US for 2012 as 587. Likewise as previously stated one estimate I saw for the total number of LEO there was aprox 800,000. If you assume about a 1 to 6 to kill to injury rate, that puts the number of shootings at about 1 per 228 officers per year. Most would be "justifiable" some not.

As for Oman I read the article about your friend and nowhere did it suggest the driver was negligent in fact the article referred to a witness who apportioned some of the blame to your friend, nothing in it suggested "murder". Disregarding the fact that one small news article does not form the basis for any sensible analysis in this case it is the only thing I have so here goes.

Maybe the officer was negligent, maybe not. Perhaps he should have or will be charged with a criminal offense - I don't know. What I can say is that no evidence was presented in the article to suggest it was anything more than a tragic accident. Murder requires intent so if you want to claim this was murder prove there was some.

As for the rest you appear to have issues with law enforcement (or maybe just issues in general ). In any event you offer no evidence to support your claim that "all cops in the US are bad shots" . Instead all you do is refer to media reports about a few isolated instances out the hundreds of officer involved shootings in the US each year where you seem to think civilians would have done better. Presumably you think you would have done better, so to keep it simple - shooting at a paper target at the range where you can get your sight picture, take that deep breath, half exhale, and gently squeeze the trigger is NOT the same thing as shooting at another human being when your own life or someone else's is at risk and you have no time to think, only to respond as you've been trained. If you think at all its probably something along the line of "please don't let me f*&% this up!.

And as for your few isolated examples (out of the hundreds of officer involved shootings in the US each year) give me a detailed breakdown of each event step by step from beginning to end with distances, geometry of the engagement space, rates of movement, lighting and all the other variables spelled out and I'll offer an a semi educated opinion. But don't wave a few examples of what you consider to be poor performance under my nose as if that proves your point. I'm more than happy to accept a broad brush critique of the officers involved in those shootings from someone with a claim to expertise but not from anyone else.

As for the dancing I was being facetious. I'm not that good a dancer.

Oh and P.S. - in 20 years of duty I have never once perjured myself in the witness box or been cognisant of a colleague doing so. Aside from the fact that I regard myself as a professional those corny old concepts of honour and oaths and stuff keep getting in the way dam them.

Monash
01 Aug 13,, 14:17
In a lot of areas that MRAP would be an ideal rescue vehicle for flood waters. But ya I see the threat in having so many armored vehicles in and amongst the citizens. However, they will never out number the total number of SWAT teams in the country so cutting the number of those teams will reduce the need for such vehicles.

Lots of MRAPS going cheap now that the Afghanistan is winding down and it looks better giving them to local LEOS rather than having to admit they over ordered in the first place and wasted all those taxpayer dollars. Good point about using them for rescue vehicles, however given recent events in the US I can maybe see a even better use for them in rural firefighting. Conversion costs would be greater but you could move a lot of pumps, tools and men through dangerous fire zones with a fleet of converted MRAPS.

As for county SWAT Teams I can't see how they all need an armoured vehicle on standby. I mean how many sieges do you have over there in any one county at a time? Spread-em round, say one every two or three counties with the operating costs pooled. One phone call and whoevers garaging the thing delivers it to the CP/rally point.

erik
01 Aug 13,, 16:30
Lots of MRAPS going cheap now that the Afghanistan is winding down and it looks better giving them to local LEOS rather than having to admit they over ordered in the first place and wasted all those taxpayer dollars. Good point about using them for rescue vehicles, however given recent events in the US I can maybe see a even better use for them in rural firefighting. Conversion costs would be greater but you could move a lot of pumps, tools and men through dangerous fire zones with a fleet of converted MRAPS.

As for county SWAT Teams I can't see how they all need an armoured vehicle on standby. I mean how many sieges do you have over there in any one county at a time? Spread-em round, say one every two or three counties with the operating costs pooled. One phone call and whoevers garaging the thing delivers it to the CP/rally point.


That is how many areas/counties work. Hell, the State Police will actually use their SWAT team/vehicle in certain counties, towns, etc. etc. as the sole vehicle/team that is provided for free by the State police. But the larger cities and counties who have the funds have their own vehicles/teams.

A rural county near where I live in Michigan just got a MRAP that was in Afghanistan for free. It was going to be junked out otherwise. That department didn't have any kind of specialized armored vehicle so why turn down the MRAP for free?

Also these vehicles aren't used like candy. Many times, just regular vans or SUVs are used.


Edit: many of the Lenco bear vehicles you see we're provided by federal grants that were being given out during the post 9/11 security craze.

omon
01 Aug 13,, 16:50
As for Oman I read the article about your friend and nowhere did it suggest the driver was negligent .....maybe the officer was negligent, maybe not. Perhaps he should have or will be charged with a criminal offense - I don't know. What I can say is that no evidence was presented in the article to suggest it was anything more than a tragic accident. Murder requires intent so if you want to claim this was murder prove there was some.

.

can you read letters?? i thought my name cleary says Omon, not Oman. if you can't see that what else can't you see??

he left the scene of an accident, that is a felony. murder charges not always need intent. and leaving a scene of a fatal accidents can result in murder charges. it happened before.

also i never said ALL cops bad apples, i said most, but good apples can't save rotten tree, and link to police misconduct site is something you should look at. if you want breakdown.
and i'm pretty sure civilians would do better, a don't mean thugs and gangsters, but law abiding ccw), they are not nearly so trigger happy. since it would be their ass on the line, not their dept\pba, will sort this out. it has little to do with training, even thou ccw holders have plenty of it. and i have seen numerous times ccw embraced cops at the range. i got plenty of evidence to based my strong opinion on.

omon
01 Aug 13,, 16:54
You are starting with a premise that the officers are doing violations on purpose and with intention, ...

lol, i really don't care if they have intent or not, don't care the reason they do it, all i care that they do it. and quite a lot of it, site linked few pages before has pretty good number of facts.

zraver
01 Aug 13,, 17:09
Lots of MRAPS going cheap now that the Afghanistan is winding down and it looks better giving them to local LEOS rather than having to admit they over ordered in the first place and wasted all those taxpayer dollars. Good point about using them for rescue vehicles, however given recent events in the US I can maybe see a even better use for them in rural firefighting. Conversion costs would be greater but you could move a lot of pumps, tools and men through dangerous fire zones with a fleet of converted MRAPS.

An MRAP is a high risk of rollover platform.... I do not want them doing rural wildland fires, someone will take it off road, roll it and kill a bunch of people. They also have a really high ground pressure and tend to get stuck. Rollover risk plus easily stuck= bad idea for wildland fires.


As for your point about police shootings, shootings are rare events. Rather I wish we knew the injury rate per arrest and by type. Head, rib, and throat injuries in particular. That would be a much easier way to filter out bad apples. Combine an always on video, criminalize brady violations by police along with better data tracking and you can create an environment that is safer for good cops and incentives the exit of bad cops.

Monash
02 Aug 13,, 15:09
An MRAP is a high risk of rollover platform.... I do not want them doing rural wildland fires, someone will take it off road, roll it and kill a bunch of people. They also have a really high ground pressure and tend to get stuck. Rollover risk plus easily stuck= bad idea for wildland fires.

Correct me if I am wrong but believe MRAPs were designed with some degree of "off road" capability if only so they they can deal with river fordings and dirt tracks etc. I am aware they have a high center of gravity but as the picture below indicates so do our standard rural firefighting platforms over here.

33503


Good driver training is the key to preventing rollovers. They still occur of course rarely from time to time but a high center of gravity doesn't discount a vehicle from service selection for firefighting duty -in fact given the terrain they work in it's almost a requirement. These vehicles do go "bush" but they do have limited off road capability for obstacle avoidance and the rest... Cheers

Monash
02 Aug 13,, 15:11
can you read letters?? i thought my name cleary says Omon, not Oman. if you can't see that what else can't you see??

he left the scene of an accident, that is a felony. murder charges not always need intent. and leaving a scene of a fatal accidents can result in murder charges. it happened before.

also i never said ALL cops bad apples, i said most, but good apples can't save rotten tree, and link to police misconduct site is something you should look at. if you want breakdown.
and i'm pretty sure civilians would do better, a don't mean thugs and gangsters, but law abiding ccw), they are not nearly so trigger happy. since it would be their ass on the line, not their dept\pba, will sort this out. it has little to do with training, even thou ccw holders have plenty of it. and i have seen numerous times ccw embraced cops at the range. i got plenty of evidence to based my strong opinion on.

My apologies for the misspelling of your name, no offense was intended. On the bright side at least I didn't call you Onan - a biblical reference with slightly unfortunate connotations if you can be bothered looking it up. :red: although I'm starting to think it might be appropriate.

I'll let the 800,000 LEO referred to earlier know that most of them are bad cops, poor shots and thugs who don't deserve to keep their jobs. Perhaps they'll all resign in shame - then you can start your crusade on Doctors, engineers and rogue plumbers etc as you work your way down the no doubt long list of professions that have incurred your ire.

....and for the last time at Law in the U.S. as in all western nations a charge of murder requires the mens rea of intent as in "I intend to stop wasting my time."

zraver
02 Aug 13,, 19:22
Correct me if I am wrong but believe MRAPs were designed with some degree of "off road" capability if only so they they can deal with river fordings and dirt tracks etc. I am aware they have a high center of gravity but as the picture below indicates so do our standard rural firefighting platforms over here.

Very limited... You are forgetting that the MRAP is armored which makes it much more top heavy than a normally high vehicle.

Figure 2-1 illustrates MRAP mishaps between November 2007 and August 2009 by mishap category, with rollovers the category resulting in the greatest loss in vehicle damage and casualties. Of the 420 recorded mishaps, 178 (42 percent) involved some type of rollover. Seven rollover events resulted in 11 fatalities (7 drowning; 4 gunner blunt force trauma). As of August 2009, there were 215 reported rollover injuries.

https://safety.army.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=26evaisy-j0=&tabid=351

42% of accidents result in roll over.... In addition run ins with power lines caused another 16 mishaps....



Good driver training is the key to preventing rollovers. They still occur of course rarely from time to time but a high center of gravity doesn't discount a vehicle from service selection for firefighting duty -in fact given the terrain they work in it's almost a requirement. These vehicles do go "bush" but they do have limited off road capability for obstacle avoidance and the rest... Cheers

103 of the 178 roll overs were caused by a vehicle fall such as a shoulder collapsing under the weight of the vehicle. The weight is so heavy they destroy roads.


I'll let the 800,000 LEO referred to earlier know that most of them are bad cops, poor shots

Uhmm most of them are bad shots, especially if they are part of a large urban force. Our local sheriffs deputies might be doomed if they ever had to do a foot chase, but they grew up with guns and can shoot. Your typical urban cop, much better physical health but not so good with guns... He shoots from an idiotic Isosceles stance when its time for quals, never shoots prone, upside down, off hand, in the dark, prone with the off hand in the dark at a moving target...

1980s
03 Aug 13,, 14:15
BBC News - Radley Balko: Rise of America's warrior cop (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23368326)

chanjyj
03 Aug 13,, 15:46
Uhmm most of them are bad shots, especially if they are part of a large urban force. Our local sheriffs deputies might be doomed if they ever had to do a foot chase, but they grew up with guns and can shoot. Your typical urban cop, much better physical health but not so good with guns... He shoots from an idiotic Isosceles stance when its time for quals, never shoots prone, upside down, off hand, in the dark, prone with the off hand in the dark at a moving target...

Interesting observation. I wonder why the urban cop would be more fit than a sheriff?
Mmhmm.. shooting prone and upside down. Not a war zone captain, you're asking too much of em - but does bring to mind veterans who join the police force.

Wooglin
03 Aug 13,, 21:39
Uhmm most of them are bad shots, especially if they are part of a large urban force. Our local sheriffs deputies might be doomed if they ever had to do a foot chase, but they grew up with guns and can shoot. Your typical urban cop, much better physical health but not so good with guns... He shoots from an idiotic Isosceles stance when its time for quals, never shoots prone, upside down, off hand, in the dark, prone with the off hand in the dark at a moving target...

Florida deputies shoot man they mistook for car thief at his own house - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/florida-police-shooting/index.html)


Pensacola, Florida (CNN) -- Was he a suspect or a victim?

A Florida sheriff says an unarmed man -- mistaken for a car thief and shot by deputies in his own driveway -- is both.

He refused to obey commands and lunged at the deputies who fired their weapons 15 times to subdue him, they say.

Roy Middleton, 60, was hit by two of those rounds in his legs. He is in good condition at a Pensacola hospital after a metal rod was placed inside his shattered left leg.

Sheriff defends controversial shooting

"The tragedy of this is the noncompliance to the directions of law enforcement officers," said Sheriff David Morgan of Escambia County, Florida. "Had that occurred we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's a tragedy all the way around. He is both a suspect and a victim."

'Like a firing squad'

The bizarre story started Saturday around 2:30 a.m. as Middleton was returning home.

Searching for a cigarette inside his White Lincoln Town Car, he appears to have been mistaken for a car thief by a concerned neighbor who called 911. Escambia County Sheriff's Deputy Jeremiah Meeks and Sgt. Matthew White responded to the call.

This is where the story takes a fork in the road.

Middleton's family said he was not feeling well enough to discuss what happened to him.

But earlier this week, he told the Pensacola News Journal that he first thought someone was joking when they yelled at him to, "Get your hands where I can see them."

He said that as he was turning around to face deputies with his hands raised, they opened fire.

"It was like a firing squad. Bullets were flying everywhere," he told the News Journal.

Deputies feared for their lives

But the deputies involved told a different story.

Meeks fired 12 shots and White fired three times, authorities said. They are now on paid administrative leave. Five of the bullets hit the White Town car, which was parked under a carport in a dark area of the property.

The deputies were in fear for their own safety, according to the sheriff.

"He came out of the car with more of a lunging motion coming out of the car, and the deputies were standing behind him and he had what appeared to be a metallic object in his hand," Sheriff David Morgan said.

Not buying it

But Middleton's family doesn't believe that story. His mother, Ceola Walker, 77, told CNN that her son was holding his car keys with a small flashlight on the key chain. She does not believe he lunged at deputies.

"I don't believe that. He said he didn't. I don't believe that," she said.

She says her son is incredibly lucky.

"They could have hit his upper body, but they didn't ....God just shielded him. I know he did, cause they was trying to kill him," she said.

Andre Lauzon, who lives next door and witnessed the incident, said it lasted less than 30 seconds.

Deafening gunfire

He was out smoking a cigarette on his front lawn when the deputies arrived, he said. His view was obscured by darkness, and at one point he lost sight of Middleton.

But the sound of gunfire, he said, was deafening.

"I'm very surprised that all they did was hit him in the leg," he said.

Timeline, lab analysis

Lauzon says his neighbor may have had trouble getting down to the ground because he was standing between his car and the wall of the carport.

"I don't have any doubt -- even not being able to see what was going on -- that he was complying with them," he told CNN. " Maybe not in the time frame that the officer was looking for -- but it seemed he was complying."

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has taken over the investigation at the request of the Sheriff's Office.

"FDLE investigators are developing a timeline and conducting interviews and crime laboratory scientists are conducting lab analysis," Gretl Plessinger, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in a statement. "Once our investigation is complete, FDLE will provide the case to the state attorney's office. The state attorney will determine whether or not any laws were broken.

Walker said her son takes pain medication for a bad back. The investigation will determine whether that played a role in the incident.

"The message to the public is this was a tragedy," Morgan said. "And it was a tragedy because we had an individual, a citizen, who for whatever reason, either impairment due to alcohol or drugs, or just taking it upon himself not to be compliant to following basic direct orders."

But his mother disputes the sheriff's theory that her son was a suspect and a victim at the same time.

"How can you be a suspect and a victim at your own house? In your own yard, in your own car?" Walker asked.

15 shots "to subdue" him, 2 hits. And they had to be close enough to "feel threatened" by his alleged lunging at them.

Apparently, the justification of "feeling threatened" has moved beyond dogs and applies to people now too.

Doktor
03 Aug 13,, 23:12
Some really scared police officers you got there. This frequency of such events, event for a country the size and population of USA, is worrying.

bonehead
04 Aug 13,, 22:33
Some really scared police officers you got there. This frequency of such events, event for a country the size and population of USA, is worrying.

The police are the least of our worries. We have an incredible gang problem that is only getting worse. We have 10-15 million here illegally that are not much interested in being Americans. Huge drug/addiction problem that transcends all economic classes. Big money/corporations are wrestling our "we the people" government from us. Then there are the real criminals that put all the rest to shame....you would call them congressmen.

What is most worrisome is that while "we the people" can still get in and effect the changes needed to right this country they won't. They are being manipulated into charging into the trenches of the the right or left and end up fighting each other instead of joining for a common cause. We can do so many positive things if only people would understand that they are not going to get everything they want. Secondly, we need to just do what needs to be done because no one else is going to do it for us. Unfortunately we have too few that actually get this and too many people that are holding out for everything they want and they expect everyone else to do the work for them.

Doktor
04 Aug 13,, 23:04
The police are the least of our worries. We have an incredible gang problem that is only getting worse. We have 10-15 million here illegally that are not much interested in being Americans. Huge drug/addiction problem that transcends all economic classes. Big money/corporations are wrestling our "we the people" government from us. Then there are the real criminals that put all the rest to shame....you would call them congressmen.

What is most worrisome is that while "we the people" can still get in and effect the changes needed to right this country they won't. They are being manipulated into charging into the trenches of the the right or left and end up fighting each other instead of joining for a common cause. We can do so many positive things if only people would understand that they are not going to get everything they want. Secondly, we need to just do what needs to be done because no one else is going to do it for us. Unfortunately we have too few that actually get this and too many people that are holding out for everything they want and they expect everyone else to do the work for them.

You sure you talk USA there? Sounds like you have just been over here and described my country.

zraver
06 Aug 13,, 02:34
When cops in a Rialto, California were forced to wear cameras, their use of force dropped by over two-thirds. Additionally, the officers who were not made to wear the cameras used force twice as much as those who did. This strongly suggests the majority of the time police use force is unnecessary. In other words, the majority of the time these officers used force they were simply committing acts of violence which they don't feel comfortable committing if it's captured on film.

From The New York Times:
HERE'S a fraught encounter: one police officer, one civilian and anger felt by one or both. Afterward, it may be hard to sort out who did what to whom.

Now, some police departments are using miniaturized video cameras and their microphones to capture, in full detail, officers' interactions with civilians. The cameras are so small that they can be attached to a collar, a cap or even to the side of an officer's sunglasses. High-capacity battery packs can last for an extended shift. And all of the videos are uploaded automatically to a central server that serves as a kind of digital evidence locker.

William A. Farrar, the police chief in Rialto, Calif., has been investigating whether officers' use of video cameras can bring measurable benefits to relations between the police and civilians. Officers in Rialto, which has a population of about 100,000, already carry Taser weapons equipped with small video cameras that activate when the weapon is armed, and the officers have long worn digital audio recorders.

Rialto, CA Police Made to Wear Cameras, Use of Force Drops by Over Two-Thirds - informationliberation (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=44427)

Chogy
07 Aug 13,, 17:00
I'm very conflicted.

I like the idea of the video camera in general. But a cop wears two hats... there are going to be times when (even though on duty) he is going to behave as a normal guy. He'll want to bitch to his buddy about the chief. He'll need to use the bathroom, scratch himself, munch on a chili dog. Would anyone want to have every moment of their waking lives video'd?

If they could have some sort of automation to the process... have the camera come on only during specific events, such as a traffic stop, a warrant execution, that sort of thing, I think it'd be more palatable, and effective.

They have been wanting to put cameras in cockpits for years, and there is strong resistance to it, myself among them. Not that piloting and police work are similar, but both carry huge responsibilities with regards to public safety.

zraver
07 Aug 13,, 18:12
Choggy, not only did the use of force drop dramatically, so did citizen complaints against cops. It was a win-win for both sides.

In a much sadder incident, cops killed a 95yo WWII vet with bean-bag shots to the cut because he didn't want surgery and refused medical care.

Chogy
07 Aug 13,, 19:25
I think we can agree that police have become militarized to excess, but behind them is a government, a system, that has also become heavy-handed. The overwhelming feeling is one of "We know what's best for you. You will be dragged kicking and screaming into 'our vision' for society."

If they tried that (the veteran shooting) to a Civil War vet in 1930, there'd be more outrage. People would say, and understand, "He's a free man. Only he can decide for himself what is best for him."

astralis
08 Aug 13,, 02:56
chogy,



I think we can agree that police have become militarized to excess, but behind them is a government, a system, that has also become heavy-handed. The overwhelming feeling is one of "We know what's best for you. You will be dragged kicking and screaming into 'our vision' for society."

If they tried that (the veteran shooting) to a Civil War vet in 1930, there'd be more outrage. People would say, and understand, "He's a free man. Only he can decide for himself what is best for him."

you sure about that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Monash
08 Aug 13,, 09:43
Been a bit busy of late, so I havn't had a chance to comment. Will try to do so this weekend. Typing on my tablet on the bus after yet another late finish - our crooks have been busy so that means we are to.

Monash
10 Aug 13,, 07:36
OK here goes. Re the "militarization" line of argument there is no central driver behind the apparent rise of military style, training uniforms/equipment and operations amongst civilian law enforcement organizations. Nor is the process necessarily driven by a top down approach, most of the drivers at least initially have been bottom up.

Firstly especially in the US a lot of military personnel transfer across to law enforcement upon leaving the armed services. This hardly surprising given the similar ethos/mind sets etc of both professions. So you have steady intakes of soldiers into LEOs who bring their previous training and ideas with them. This gives you personnel with the ability to both execute para military style operations when required and cross train others.

Secondly you have suppliers of military equipment who are constantly looking for new markets and are in the position to adapt their products for use by LEO (even if this just means painting them dark blue instead of camo. Since the Iraq war lots of products that are readily adaptable to law enforcement use have come out of military programs - especially areas like SOCOM. You have the equipment available.

Thirdly and especially since 9/11 there has been an upsurge (justified or not) in concern about the need for local LEO to be capable of dealing with local terrorist incidents. Politicians have reacted in part by providing funding. You have the money.

Lastly Police have always had to deal with siege situations and (especially in the US) heavily armed offenders. Experience has shown that if entry to a hostile tactical space is required the best chance of minimizing the risk of injury to LEOs, hostages the criminals themselves is a fast, dynamic assault using surprise and team tactics. As a result for a very specialized subset of Policing situations military tactics have been adopted because time and again in they have been shown to work and work well. To the point where no Police Chief, senior officer or local politician would want to be seen as opposing the use or retention of these capabilities by their local Police. This brings OH&S and politics into the mix, tell Police to stop using military tactics and the first time someone is killed or hurt afterwards whoever made that decision gets called on it big time. Lets face it no politician is ever likely to be that 'brave'. Once you bring in militarized tactics its very hard to backtrack.

TV has a lot to do with it as well, glamorizing the whole concept of "SWAT" type ops.

IMO you do appear to utilize tactical operations teams a lot more often than other Western Nations do but that may simply reflect the fact that you are a more heavily armed society so confrontations with armed offenders in SWAT type situations are bound to occur more often.

As far as the whole camera argument goes I stick by the "on as required argument". People including victims and witnesses usually don't want to be filmed taking to Police if they can avoid it (I know, I know... in the US there is no constitutional right to privacy in public...blah, blah, blah," ) but there are simply to many often traumatic situations where peoples privacy needs to be respected. You try filming a parent when you when you've just had to tell them their child has died. So cameras are a good idea, just not always. Yes hit the button, tell the POI your confronting that they are being videoed and then if this is not done any arrest or charges that may occur as a result are invalidated and the LEO concerned has to account for his actions.

zraver
10 Aug 13,, 07:54
OK here goes. Re the "militarization" line of argument there is no central driver behind the apparent rise of military style, training uniforms/equipment and operations amongst civilian law enforcement organizations. Nor is the process necessarily driven by a top down approach, most of the drivers at least initially have been bottom up. et al.... ten than other Western Nations do but that may simply reflect the fact that you are a more heavily armed society so confrontation with armed offenders are much more likely. [/quote]

All valid points, to which i will add the 1033 program that makes surplus military equipment available for little of no cost to public agencies. I am not saying this is a bad program, only that is exists. Our local county rescue squad got a surplus Jet ranger helicopter and two hummers plus shit tons of surplus rescue and medical gear so it has a lot of benefit. But the same program the provides surplus rescue baskets and 4x4's to rescue squads also provides armored vehicles to law enforcement groups.

Also while confrontations with armed suspect may be more common, for the most part, such confrontations don't involve real military grade weapons which are much easier to smuggle into Europe than North America.


As far as the whole camera argument goes I stick by the "on as required argument". People including victims and witnesses usually don't want to be filmed taking to Police if they can avoid it (I know, I know... in the US there is no constitutional right to privacy in public...blah, blah, blah," ) but there are simply to many often traumatic situations where peoples privacy should be restricted. You try filming parents when you when you have to go and tell them their child has just died. So cameras are a good idea just hit the button, tell the POI they are being videoed and if this is not done then any arrest or charges that may occur are invalidated and the LEO concerned has to account for his actions.

The evidence from Rialto is pretty convincing, use of force declined 88%, and citizen complaints against law enforcement drove off the same cliff. That is a truly astounding de-escalation. With the use of force and complaints now so infrequent community based policing can thrive. The results are so striking that I'd be tempted to label any cop in the US who refused to wear one a camera as a dirty cop.

Monash
10 Aug 13,, 08:32
The evidence from Rialto is pretty convincing, use of force declined 88%, and citizen complaints against law enforcement drove off the same cliff. That is a truly astounding de-escalation. With the use of force and complaints now so infrequent community based policing can thrive. The results are so striking that I'd be tempted to label any cop in the US who refused to wear one a camera as a dirty cop.

Yes the results are impressive. But they have to be interpreted correctly. The article notes that there was an 88% drop in complaints against Police and corresponding 60% drop in UOF reports. The interpretation you appear to take is that the officers used less force because they knew their actions would be recorded. In some instances this may have well been a factor but it overlooks the fact that the POI being spoken to by Police also knew they were being recorded. This means that:

A) They couldn't lodge a false complaint without get caught out (hence at least part of the 88% drop in such reports) and

B) Because they aware they were being recorded suspects were less inclined to resist arrest since they knew they couldn't lie about it afterwards in Court and claim they didn't resist.

In other words the use of force reports and complaints went down not because Police were scared of being seen doing something wrong but because the the people they were arresting were scared of being seen doing something wrong - as a result they were simply more compliant than usual. (Which is a good thing!!!)

To the extent that anyone wants the clarify the causes rather than just accept a good outcome, what needs to be done is more research into the precise reasons for the drop in stats.

zraver
10 Aug 13,, 14:10
Yes the results are impressive. But they have to be interpreted correctly. The article notes that there was an 88% drop in complaints against Police and corresponding 60% drop in UOF reports. The interpretation you appear to take is that the officers used less force because they knew their actions would be recorded. In some instances this may have well been a factor but it overlooks the fact that the POI being spoken to by Police also knew they were being recorded. This means that:

A) They couldn't lodge a false complaint without get caught out (hence at least part of the 88% drop in such reports) and

B) Because they aware they were being recorded suspects were less inclined to resist arrest since they knew they couldn't lie about it afterwards in Court and claim they didn't resist.

In other words the use of force reports and complaints went down not because Police were scared of being seen doing something wrong but because the the people they were arresting were scared of being seen doing something wrong - as a result they were simply more compliant than usual. (Which is a good thing!!!)

To the extent that anyone wants the clarify the causes rather than just accept a good outcome, what needs to be done is more research into the precise reasons for the drop in stats.


The cameras are not all that visible, especially in the heat of the moment so its effect on suspects is dubious. Regardless the use of force and complaints dropped and so its a win for both sides. Inside of the American legal tradition with our approach to privacy there is no reason for any uniformed American cop to refuse if they are a good cop.

bonehead
10 Aug 13,, 17:56
The cameras are not all that visible, especially in the heat of the moment so its effect on suspects is dubious. Regardless the use of force and complaints dropped and so its a win for both sides. Inside of the American legal tradition with our approach to privacy there is no reason for any uniformed American cop to refuse if they are a good cop.

The cameras don't have to be visible. As long as the locals know the cameras are up and running the impact is huge. Secondly, even good cops have plenty of valid reasons to refuse to wear a camera 100% of the time while on duty.

zraver
10 Aug 13,, 19:06
The cameras don't have to be visible. As long as the locals know the cameras are up and running the impact is huge. Secondly, even good cops have plenty of valid reasons to refuse to wear a camera 100% of the time while on duty.

such as? Other than potty breaks or work product protected periods in which you case you turn it off, what reasons?

Mihais
10 Aug 13,, 19:13
such as? Other than potty breaks or work product protected periods in which you case you turn it off, what reasons?

Such as the need to beat the living crap out of some punk? The type not worth more formal ways.:rolleyes:

zraver
10 Aug 13,, 20:11
Such as the need to beat the living crap out of some punk? The type not worth more formal ways.:rolleyes:

Assault is illegal and cops are not judges.

Mihais
10 Aug 13,, 21:07
Assault is illegal and cops are not judges.

Okay :rolleyes:

Monash
11 Aug 13,, 10:01
such as? Other than potty breaks or work product protected periods in which you case you turn it off, what reasons?

As previously stated: delivering death notices, speaking to potential witnesses and/or informants in public places, speaking with victims of violence crime or sexual assault immediately after the crime, talking to children, talking to people in areas where their modesty might otherwise be compromised e.g public pools, beaches ..., when attending daily planning meetings, musters or briefings etc where criminal intelligence is disseminated, in court, during pre-trial conferences, at the morgue, at the station, in the car when talking to you partner about how stupid or hot person X, Y, or Z is etc etc etc.

zraver
11 Aug 13,, 13:56
As previously stated: delivering death notices, speaking to potential witnesses and/or informants in public places, speaking with victims of violence crime or sexual assault immediately after the crime, talking to children, talking to people in areas where their modesty might otherwise be compromised e.g public pools, beaches ..., when attending daily planning meetings, musters or briefings etc where criminal intelligence is disseminated, in court, during pre-trial conferences, at the morgue, at the station, in the car when talking to you partner about how stupid or hot person X, Y, or Z is etc etc etc.

Some of those I would argue need to be on camera, others are in no way protected or private, some are protected work product and some its fairly easy to turn off.

zraver
12 Aug 13,, 02:16
Police conduct illegal home invasion

DeKalb County Sheriff Opens Investigation Over Shocking Video Of Alleged Police Brutality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/dekalb-sheriff-brutality_n_3733854.html)

No warrant, no probable cause, refused entry so the police escalate the situation. They then unlawfully imprison the residents and assault them physically and verbally.

Monash
12 Aug 13,, 12:10
So what the point? As has been previously stated there are somewhere in excess of 800,000 LEO in the United States, not including volunteer and part time officers. Posting isolated examples of poor or criminal conduct by a minority of officers doesn't prove systemic misconduct by the rest of them and in fact does the large majority a disservice. Posting a list of botched surgeries does not mean the all Doctors are incompetent, isolated reports of air fatalities due to pilot error doesn't mean that most pilots in the continental United states are a public menace and poor battlefield decisions individual US soldiers in the field resulting in unnecessary fatalities doesn't mean that most members of the United States Armed Forces are incapable of doing their jobs properly.

So keep posting them if you must, most times I'll probably agree with you that the incident your reporting is unacceptable, sometimes based on the limited information available I won't. But either way it it won't go to prove that most LEO in the United states are corrupt, incompetent and/or thuggish. What it will prove is that you have some kind of fixation on the issue.

zraver
12 Aug 13,, 13:21
So what the point? As has been previously stated there are somewhere in excess of 800,000 LEO in the United States, not including volunteer and part time officers. Posting isolated examples of poor or criminal conduct by a minority of officers doesn't prove systemic misconduct by the rest of them and in fact does the large majority a disservice. Posting a list of botched surgeries does not mean the all Doctors are incompetent, isolated reports of air fatalities due to pilot error doesn't mean that most pilots in the continental United states are a public menace and poor battlefield decisions individual US soldiers in the field resulting in unnecessary fatalities doesn't mean that most members of the United States Armed Forces are incapable of doing their jobs properly.

So keep posting them if you must, most times I'll probably agree with you that the incident your reporting is unacceptable, sometimes based on the limited information available I won't. But either way it it won't go to prove that most LEO in the United states are corrupt, incompetent and/or thuggish. What it will prove is that you have some kind of fixation on the issue.

That is not isolated, that is an entire department. And no, individually it does not prove that all are corrupt, it merely proves the system is open to abuse and needs reform like cameras, stricter enforcement of Brady and cops/citizens being given lessons on what rights citizens actually have.

Doktor
12 Aug 13,, 13:29
Monash,

The way I see it Z's and Wooglin's 'fixation' is that there is no system to start with. Seems like many cops can do what they please without being properly sanctioned for their actions.

Monash
12 Aug 13,, 14:44
Monash,

The way I see it Z's and Wooglin's 'fixation' is that there is no system to start with. Seems like many cops can do what they please without being properly sanctioned for their actions.

A statement totally unsupported by the evidence. If the USA had no effective law enforcement "system" then the streets of the average American city or town would more closely resemble those of Mogadishu or Karachi rather than London or Berlin. For the most part the law and order system in the US works as well and perhaps in some ways better than many other Western Nations. Its officers reflect the society they live in that they are generally well educated, well supported by modern technology and subject to the rule of law. Crime figures in the US as in many parts of the Western World are trending down, partly due to economic and social factors but also because of better/smarter law enforcement.

My point has always has been that the faults of a minority (in any profession) cannot be used as a justification to demean the rest of that profession, any more than the faults of a few should dam any particular race, nation or religion.

All except line dancers that is, they should all be taken out and shot. :whome:

bonehead
12 Aug 13,, 16:13
Monash,

The way I see it Z's and Wooglin's 'fixation' is that there is no system to start with. Seems like many cops can do what they please without being properly sanctioned for their actions.

Cops are put out as the first line on the streets and they are supposed to use good judgment while on the job. However when they stray from policy is when they get into trouble. It is the people at the top that dictate policy and those are the ones that need to be held accountable for such policies in addition to being responsible for the people they hire to follow such policies.

Wooglin
12 Aug 13,, 19:24
A statement totally unsupported by the evidence. If the USA had no effective law enforcement "system" then the streets of the average American city or town would more closely resemble those of Mogadishu or Karachi rather than London or Berlin. For the most part the law and order system in the US works as well and perhaps in some ways better than many other Western Nations. Its officers reflect the society they live in that they are generally well educated, well supported by modern technology and subject to the rule of law. Crime figures in the US as in many parts of the Western World are trending down, partly due to economic and social factors but also because of better/smarter law enforcement.

My point has always has been that the faults of a minority (in any profession) cannot be used as a justification to demean the rest of that profession, any more than the faults of a few should dam any particular race, nation or religion.

All except line dancers that is, they should all be taken out and shot. :whome:

Half of all intentional shootings by police involve dogs. This is not a minority issue, it's a policy issue. Shooting dogs upon entry is SOP for SWAT. This is not a few bad apples issue, it's a policy issue. Using SWAT more and more for things like administrative searches and busting up the neighborhood poker game in full tactical gear is not an issue about the misdeeds of a few, it's a policy issue. Holding nobody responsible for showing up to the wrong house unannounced and blowing away your dog in it's own house or yard is a policy issue. Raiding a bar in full tactical gear and detaining and searching everyone there under the guise of an administrative search to get around the lack of a warrant is a policy issue.

We're not talking about the faults of a minority. We're talking about a system that allows for these things to happen, defends it, and in some cases encourages it.

zraver
13 Aug 13,, 00:12
Given the sheer number of complaints both official and unofficial (social media filming for example) we may be talking as high as 10% of uniformed law enforcement being dirty. The US has seen an entire metro area police departments taken over by the federal court system due to systematic abuse of citizens.

tuna
14 Aug 13,, 18:57
Given the sheer number of complaints both official and unofficial (social media filming for example) we may be talking as high as 10% of uniformed law enforcement being dirty. The US has seen an entire metro area police departments taken over by the federal court system due to systematic abuse of citizens.

For those who find my "10% of cops give the rest a good name" to be too cynical - the above statement verifies it. One in every 10 simply cannot be dirty without some form of complicity from the other 9. Those with their eyes purposely closed, or not "ratting out a brother of the thin blue line" in my book are WORSE than the dirty cop. There are indeed bad apples in every group of people, but those that are bad know it and make no pretenses. Those who toe the line have convinced themselves that they still do the public good by their service.

zraver
14 Aug 13,, 20:20
You should read this Sarah Stillman: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all)

It will offend you and confirm your suspicions.

tuna
14 Aug 13,, 23:12
Here's another annoying part of the militarization of police - do they have an obligation to NOT obey an unlawful order?

As a military man, I know that saying "I was following orders" will do me as much good as some of history's greatest monsters.

As far as I can tell though, following orders or "policy" is enough to excuse behavior and excesses by the cops.

If they want to dress like the military, maybe they should have some of the responsibilities of an 18 year old E3 and know the difference between right and wrong.

Monash
17 Aug 13,, 08:54
Here's another annoying part of the militarization of police - do they have an obligation to NOT obey an unlawful order?

As a military man, I know that saying "I was following orders" will do me as much good as some of history's greatest monsters.

As far as I can tell though, following orders or "policy" is enough to excuse behavior and excesses by the cops.

If they want to dress like the military, maybe they should have some of the responsibilities of an 18 year old E3 and know the difference between right and wrong.

To clarify, as a member of the military you are obliged to follow all lawful orders issued to you by your superiors while on duty. The key word here being 'lawful'. You were only obeying orders is therefore a perfectly legitimate responce in most day to day circumstances. It's only when you contemplate committing an act that breaches the Militaty Code of Justice that it is rendered unacceptable. As for policy, like doctrine it is there to be followed only until such time as circumstances create a situation where following it is likely to lead to worse outcomes than not, either because a unique set of circumstances has arisen not previosly anticpated under the policy in question or because something specifically prevented you from following the policy in question.

The difference should be clear, beaching a law automaticaly mandates the imposition of the relevant penalty,
breaching a policy does not. As for the relative responibilities of police v the miltary, to the extent they are different professions you are talking apples and oranges. Two points though:

1) This isn't a pissing contest;
2) 18 year old E3s aren't let off base strolling around in public with loaded firearms. (Although lets face it, I can't think of many jobs where I would let your average 18 year old do anything without supervision seeing as how being 18 and thinking you know everything and are indestructable seem to go hand in hand.)

snapper
17 Aug 13,, 18:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y4zsgymRxE

Blademaster
17 Aug 13,, 18:22
You should read this Sarah Stillman: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all)

It will offend you and confirm your suspicions.

This is greatly offensive. This is nothing short of highway robbery. Why the hell are not the Feds investigating this because these are probably cause for federal crimes of corruption and acting under color of law? if they are being stymied by states' rights arguments, this is a damning indictment of states' rights arguments.

D2theShizzle
18 Aug 13,, 23:09
Recently I even heard of an instance where a SWAT team was dispatched to a barber shop for a license inspection, and another one where a house was being watched by a helicopter and a SWAT team raided the place, all because the natural foods farm might have had marajuana plants. Absolutely ridiculous.

zraver
19 Aug 13,, 00:48
This is greatly offensive. This is nothing short of highway robbery. Why the hell are not the Feds investigating this because these are probably cause for federal crimes of corruption and acting under color of law? if they are being stymied by states' rights arguments, this is a damning indictment of states' rights arguments.

The feds do investigate some of these. But they are hard to prove because the victims sign waivers and release all rights and claims to the property. Right now these cases are likely view with minimal scrutiny and unless a higher standard of review is applied or the law is changed nothing is likely to change. It makes agencies so much money that change is unlikely, too many cops addicted to too much money.

Monash
21 Aug 13,, 02:44
Half of all intentional shootings by police involve dogs. This is not a minority issue, it's a policy issue. Shooting dogs upon entry is SOP for SWAT. This is not a few bad apples issue, it's a policy issue. Using SWAT more and more for things like administrative searches and busting up the neighborhood poker game in full tactical gear is not an issue about the misdeeds of a few, it's a policy issue. Holding nobody responsible for showing up to the wrong house unannounced and blowing away your dog in it's own house or yard is a policy issue. Raiding a bar in full tactical gear and detaining and searching everyone there under the guise of an administrative search to get around the lack of a warrant is a policy issue.

We're not talking about the faults of a minority. We're talking about a system that allows for these things to happen, defends it, and in some cases encourages it.

I know what you mean. On the inhumanity of it all...

dogassistance | BLUtube (http://blutube.policeone.com/videos/934032446001-dogassistance/)

zraver
21 Aug 13,, 02:55
I know what you mean. On the inhumanity of it all...

dogassistance | BLUtube (http://blutube.policeone.com/videos/934032446001-dogassistance/)

Seems to me you have a basic contempt for the citizen, everything we bring up you make light of, blow off or otherwise consign to irrelevance.

Wooglin
21 Aug 13,, 03:53
I know what you mean. On the inhumanity of it all...

dogassistance | BLUtube (http://blutube.policeone.com/videos/934032446001-dogassistance/)

How funny do you find this?

Police officer Robert Lasso shot dead after pointing his stun gun at man's dogs | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025812/Police-officer-Robert-Lasso-shot-dead-pointing-stun-gun-mans-dogs.html)

zraver
21 Aug 13,, 04:05
^^^ Maybe that officer should have respected the command of the private property owner to stay off of his land unless he had a warrant. Further, having been denied entry and PA makes torturing an animal a felony offense the cop was acting under color of law and thus the citizen was entitled to act to stop the felony and defend what was his.

Monash
21 Aug 13,, 04:33
Seems to me you have a basic contempt for the citizen, everything we bring up you make light of, blow off or otherwise consign to irrelevance.

Nope! Apart from the video above (which is very funny, and on topic) show me where in any of my previous posts I have shown 'contempt for the citizen', unless of course your definition of contempt includes daring to disagree with you. Nowhere in my posts have I made light of, blown off, consigned to irrelevance or otherwise trivialized the issues at hand.

What I have done in response to the numerous examples of Police "misconduct" is provide where I can some insight into the potential issues at hand and the reasons certain actions may have been taken. I have also cautioned against making judgements in the absence of all the facts and made it quite clear I had no intention of trying to justify the actions (good or bad) of the officers involved in the every one of the examples raised in this thread. I have neither the time, the energy or the interest to be an apologist for every bad outcome (out of the thousands of 'good' or 'neutral' ones occurring daily) that get highlighted here.

I would also point out that given the huge number of different LEA jurisdictions in the US it would be difficult for anyone let alone someone with a foreign Policing background to comment on the specifics reasons a particular US LEA might have operated in the manner they did. I am not an expert of US LEO so I tend to refrain from making definitive statements one way or the other, a practice you can and obviously do choose to ignore.

Take the use of 'SWAT' teams for what a civilian might regard as a routine day to day Policing duties, the barber shop incident being a good example. On face value without knowing the facts it looks like an overreaction, perhaps it was. However the first thing that comes to mind is that nothing is stated in the report about the background circumstances. For instance:

1) was the owner 'known to Police' i.e did he have a history of violence or a was he known to have carried a firearm in the past;
2) were firearms or drugs etc suspected to be stored on the premises;
2) was the owner abusive, violent or obstructive when approached by county officials during a prior licensing inspection;
3) Were the officers attending the shop as part of another investigation with the licensing issue used as an cover or aside; and
4) What are/were the relevant PD's OH&S Policies regarding the utilization of 'SWAT' officers when available

These are just some questions that come to mind. I raise the last because ballistic armour, utility vests and long arms etc are part of the 'tools of trade' for LEO. The equivalent of hard hats and work boots to be worn/utilized in those environments where they are justified and wow betide the OIC who, based on the information known at the time sends his officers out to a situation where higher levels of protection were justified without that protection.

Threat assessments aren't just for the military, a PD that fails to equip, train or deploy its officers in accordance with the relevant OH&S standards will get it's arse sued off the first time a member of the public or an employee gets injured as a result. Hence what often appears as an OTT response in the form of tactically equipped officers for what an outside observer might regard as a minor incident. Supervisors can and do adopt the view that assuming you have the resources at hand it's better to go in over-equipped and ratchet down than go in under-equipped and not have the ability to ratchet up. You live in an armed society. Why is surprising that LEO react to this fact by utilizing (workplace) protective measures.

So, you want to criticize the standards of Policing in the US by all means do so - it should be done. Reasoned, critical assessments of the performance of all organizations are part and parcel of making them perform better. But at least try to gather some statistics, analysis of trends or official reports reports etc that support your POV.

Otherwise your just engaging in a whinge fest.

woof woof!

zraver
21 Aug 13,, 05:43
Nope! Apart from the video above (which is very funny, and on topic) show me where in any of my previous posts I have shown 'contempt for the citizen', unless of course your definition of contempt includes daring to disagree with you. Nowhere in my posts have I made light of, blown off, consigned to irrelevance or otherwise trivialized the issues at hand.

In a response to Dok saying that Wooglin and I were complaining about the system permitting police abuses and not holding them accoutrnable you said,

"A statement totally unsupported by the evidence. If the USA had no effective law enforcement "system" then the streets of the average American city or town would more closely resemble those of Mogadishu or Karachi rather than London or Berlin."

There is evidence to support it, in part the video posted just a few replies earlier of an entire department gone bad. Then an article just a few replies later showing the abuses of civil forfeiture. Further there are large parts of major metro areas that do resemble the lawlessness of Karachi or Mogadishu. In part because of a militarized police enforcing an unjust war on drugs which has destroyed inner city culture and family structure leading to the rise of youth gangs and a self fulfilling prophecy.


So, you want to criticize the standards of Policing in the US by all means do so - it should be done. Reasoned, critical assessments of the performance of all organizations are part and parcel of making them perform better. But at least try to gather some statistics, analysis of trends or official reports reports etc that support your POV.

Gun murder approaching a 100 year low, personal gun ownership below its all time and police keep upping the ante.... wheres the evidence its needed? Even with the war on drugs crime is dropping.

Monash
21 Aug 13,, 06:10
[QUOTE=Wooglin;927675]How funny do you find this?

Police officer Robert Lasso shot dead after pointing his stun gun at man's dogs | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025812/Police-officer-Robert-Lasso-shot-dead-pointing-stun-gun-mans-dogs.html)[/QUOTE

Who in their right mind would find the above funny? That said what has it got to do with my post which related to the (fictional) shooting of a dog by a Police officer?

zraver
21 Aug 13,, 06:25
I think he meant your making light of cops killing our pets. A situation that has lead to situations where pet owners have no choice but to either watch their pets die or defend their kids. I said kids because there are multiple studies showing the person-pet bond mimics that of parent-child in the brain and this invites an entirely primal and visceral emotional response that has now lead to the predictable death of a cop.

Monash
21 Aug 13,, 06:49
Possibly. As for the whole shooting of dogs issue I doubt the average LEO enjoys the experience very much either, no-one in their right mind would. Your response depends on the dog of course, pit bulls, rotties and alsatians are one thing, toy breeds another. Over here we tend to ask the owners to get the animal under control first, leastways there aren't to many shootings of pets during warrants. As far as the US is concerned it could be a policy thing (which can be reviewed of course ) or maybe owners tend towards large breeds more often over there. In Aus for some years now, in the suburbs at least the trend has been towards 'downsizing' to small child friendly breeds better suited to city living.

I do know from experience what its like to be confronted by large dogs on entering a premises uninvited and its not pretty. Climbed over a 2 meter chain link fence at dawn one time into a back yard in preparation for executing a search warrant - other team members go in the front door and you wait out back for anyone who might be eager to leave the party. Anyway I no sooner land on my feet than I hear a deep growling and turn round to face a large male alsatian doing his thing. In that case I did my best impersonation of a Russian high jumper and left the way I came but if he had gone for me I could see myself having to shoot it. (He turned out to be a lovely dog by the way, once he was introduced he turned into a big puppy.) You have other use of force options of course but OC doesn't always work on dogs and tazer apart from being a one shot option tends to get caught up in the fur and fail.

Point being given the nature of the job sometimes confrontations with a 'pet' is unavoidable. We certainly don't go out of our way to higher people who enjoy shooting dogs.

zraver
21 Aug 13,, 15:43
Point being given the nature of the job sometimes confrontations with a 'pet' is unavoidable. We certainly don't go out of our way to higher people who enjoy shooting dogs.

Whether or not they enjoy it doesn't really matter, it seems to be a matter of policy in the US. In Colorado they just changed the law mandating dog training for cops. This law was pushed by the owners of an Alsatian gunned down by the police in her own yard with a large rawhide bone in her mouth. She was one of 37 dogs killed by police in Colorado in 5 years.The officer claimed a safety issue and was never charged or administratively disciplined.He didn't have a warrant, probable cause or permission to be on the property he just wanted to "ask" some questions.

I've got no problem with an officer executing a search warrant or otherwise engaged in lawful execution of his duties and killing a dog if that is the only option. But, I also as much sympathy for a cop killed while acting under color of law or while breaking the law as I do for any other felon killed in the commission of a felony.

Monash
21 Aug 13,, 16:08
In a response to Dok saying that Wooglin and I were complaining about the system permitting police abuses and not holding them accoutrnable you said,

"A statement totally unsupported by the evidence. If the USA had no effective law enforcement "system" then the streets of the average American city or town would more closely resemble those of Mogadishu or Karachi rather than London or Berlin."

There is evidence to support it, in part the video posted just a few replies earlier of an entire department gone bad. Then an article just a few replies later showing the abuses of civil forfeiture. Further there are large parts of major metro areas that do resemble the lawlessness of Karachi or Mogadishu. In part because of a militarized police enforcing an unjust war on drugs which has destroyed inner city culture and family structure leading to the rise of youth gangs and a self fulfilling prophecy.

Gun murder approaching a 100 year low, personal gun ownership below its all time and police keep upping the ante.... wheres the evidence its needed? Even with the war on drugs crime is dropping.

Sigh, one video does not a point make. Detroit and other cities like it are a victim of wholesale economic failure and/or decline which in turn results in the failure of civil services in general not just law enforcement. Emergency services, street cleaning, schools and libraries everything suffers, your argument is based on substituting cause for effect when in fact there is a feedback loop in play, the more public revenues drop via declining tax receipts, the less is spent on civil services, the fewer the number of people who choose to remain in that vicinity etc etc etc. As for the drug laws duly elected public officials, voted into office by their electorates draft and implement those laws, all Police do is attempt to ensure compliance. You want to stop the war on drugs, change the law - it might be stating the obvious but LEO don't get to choose which laws they enforce.

FYI changing the drug laws wont significantly change anything, the funds spent on enforcing proscription will simply be spent on enforcing regulation. Alcohol is a legal drug, want to guess how much time effort and money goes into Policing, licensing and harm minimization strategies for that?

zraver
21 Aug 13,, 16:24
it might be stating the obvious but LEO don't get to choose which laws they enforce.

Uhm, NO.... In the US the only laws police "must enforce" are domestic violence laws and "must arrest" only those with arrest warrants and "must protect" only those with whom they have a special relationship or have personally placed in harms way. Everything else is up to the officers discretion.


FYI changing the drug laws wont significantly change anything, the funds spent on enforcing proscription will simply be spent on enforcing regulation. Alcohol is a legal drug, want to guess how much time effort and money goes into Policing, licensing and harm minimization strategies for that?

when was the last the swat raid on somebodies home for drinking? Sorry but more assets are devoted to drugs than combating drunk driving.

Monash
23 Aug 13,, 09:55
Uhm, NO.... In the US the only laws police "must enforce" are domestic violence laws and "must arrest" only those with arrest warrants and "must protect" only those with whom they have a special relationship or have personally placed in harms way. Everything else is up to the officers discretion.

Your confusing enforce with arrest. Depending on the offense involved a LEO has the option of issuing a formal caution, preceding by way of fine or summons or arrest. As for discretion in general, every profession has discretion regarding how and when they go about their business. Within the parameters of his work my plumber has discretion.


when was the last the swat raid on somebodies home for drinking? Sorry but more assets are devoted to drugs than combating drunk driving.

For drinking no. For running an illegal still or commercial scale excise evasion on alcohol imports quite often. It's the nature and seriousness of the offending along with the potential for violence that dictates the use of SWAT type resources. In general with drug related matters the criminals are motivated to defend their "stash" from other criminals so they carry firearms, even street level dealers with no more than a few dollars worth of drugs at a time will do this.

The point is that generally the larger the drug supply involved, the more money its worth and the more risks/precautions taken by owners. So you profile your offenders first. No street cop is going to call in for tactical backup if he suspects a couple of local clean skin teenagers are selling grass -unless there is something else in their backgrounds that changes the picture.

Wooglin
23 Aug 13,, 17:54
It's the nature and seriousness of the offending along with the potential for violence that dictates the use of SWAT type resources.

Bullshit

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book _the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/


Sal Culosi is dead because he bet on a football game — but it wasn’t a bookie or a loan shark who killed him. His local government killed him, ostensibly to protect him from his gambling habit.

Several months earlier at a local bar, Fairfax County, Virginia, detective David Baucum overheard the thirty-eight-year-old optometrist and some friends wagering on a college football game. “To Sal, betting a few bills on the Redskins was a stress reliever, done among friends,” a friend of Culosi’s told me shortly after his death. “None of us single, successful professionals ever thought that betting fifty bucks or so on the Virginia–Virginia Tech football game was a crime worthy of investigation.” Baucum apparently did. After overhearing the men wagering, Baucum befriended Culosi as a cover to begin investigating him. During the next several months, he talked Culosi into raising the stakes of what Culosi thought were just more fun wagers between friends to make watching sports more interesting. Eventually Culosi and Baucum bet more than $2,000 in a single day. Under Virginia law, that was enough for police to charge Culosi with running a gambling operation. And that’s when they brought in the SWAT team.

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team began to move in. Seconds later, Det. Deval Bullock, who had been on duty since 4:00 AM and hadn’t slept in seventeen hours, fired a bullet that pierced Culosi’s heart.

Sal Culosi’s last words were to Baucum, the cop he thought was a friend: “Dude, what are you doing?”

In March 2006, just two months after its ridiculous gambling investigation resulted in the death of an unarmed man, the Fairfax County Police Department issued a press release warning residents not to participate in office betting pools tied to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. The title: “Illegal Gambling Not Worth the Risk.” Given the proximity to Culosi’s death, residents could be forgiven for thinking the police department believed wagering on sports was a crime punishable by execution.

In January 2011, the Culosi family accepted a $2 million settlement offer from Fairfax County. That same year, Virginia’s government spent $20 million promoting the state lottery.
advertisement

The raid on Sal Culosi was merely another red flag indicating yet more SWAT team mission creep in America. It wasn’t even the first time a Virginia SWAT team had killed someone during a gambling raid. In 1998 a SWAT team in Virginia Beach shot and killed security guard Edward C. Reed during a 3:00 AM raid on a private club suspected of facilitating gambling. Police said they approached the tinted car where Reed was working security, knocked, and identified themselves, then shot Reed when he refused to drop his handgun. Reed’s family insisted the police story was unlikely. Reed had no criminal record. Why would he knowingly point his gun at a heavily armed police team? More likely, they said, Reed mistakenly believed the raiding officers were there to do harm, particularly given that the club had been robbed not long before the raid. Statements by the police themselves seem to back that account. According to officers at the scene, Reed’s last words were, “Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book.”

As the Texas Hold ’Em craze picked up momentum in the mid-2000s, fans of the game started hosting tournaments at private clubs, bars, and residences. Police in many parts of the country responded with SWAT raids. In 2011, for example, police in Baltimore County, Maryland, sent a tactical unit to raid a $65 buy-in poker game at the Lynch Point Social Club. From 2006 to 2008, SWAT teams in South Carolina staged a number of raids to break up poker games in the suburbs of Charleston. Some were well organized and high-stakes, but others were friendly games with a $20 buy-in. “The typical police raid of these games . . . is to literally burst into a home in SWAT gear with guns drawn and treat poker players like a bunch of high-level drug dealers,” an attorney representing poker players told a local newspaper. “Using the taxpayers’ resources for such useless Gestapo-like tactics is more of a crime than is playing of the game.”

In 2007 a Dallas SWAT team actually raided a Veterans of Foreign Wars outpost for hosting charity poker games. Players said the tactics were terrifying. One woman urinated on herself. When police raided a San Mateo, California, poker game in 2008, card players described cops storming the place “in full riot gear” and “with guns drawn.” The games had buy-ins ranging from $25 to $55. Under California law, the games were legal so long as no one took a “rake,” or a cut of the stakes. No one had, but police claimed the $5 the hosts charged players to buy refreshments qualified as a rake. In March 2007, a small army of local cops, ATF agents, National Guard troops, and a helicopter raided a poker game in Cary, North Carolina. They issued forty-one citations, all of them misdemeanors. A columnist at the Fayetteville Observer remarked, “They were there to play cards, not to foment rebellion. . . . [I] wonder . . . what other minutiae, personal vices and petty crimes are occupying [the National Guard’s] time, and where they’re occupying it. . . . Until we get this sorted out, better not jaywalk. There could be a military helicopter overhead.”

Police have justified this sort of heavy-handedness by claiming that people who run illegal gambling operations tend to be armed, a blanket characterization that absurdly lumps neighborhood Hold ’Em tournaments with Uncle Junior Soprano’s weekly poker game. And in any case, if police know that people inside an establishment are likely to be armed, it makes even less sense to come in with guns blazing. Police have also defended the paramilitary tactics by noting that poker games are usually flush with cash and thus tend to get robbed. That too is an absurd argument, unless the police are afraid they’re going to raid a game at precisely the same moment it’s getting robbed. Under either scenario, the police are acknowledging that the people playing poker when these raids go down have good reason to think that the men storming the place with guns may be criminals, not cops.

Indeed, that’s exactly what happened to seventy-two-year-old Aaron Awtry in 2010. Awtry was hosting a poker tournament in his Greenville, South Carolina, home when police began breaking down the door with a battering ram. Awtry had begun carrying a gun after being robbed. Thinking he was about to be robbed again, he fired through the door, wounding Deputy Matthew May in both arms. The other officers opened fire into the building. Miraculously, only Awtry was hit. As he fell back into a hallway, other players reporting him asking, “Why didn’t you tell me it was the cops?” The raid team claimed they knocked and announced several times before putting ram to door, but other players said they heard no knock or announcement. When Awtry recovered, he was charged with attempted murder. As part of an agreement, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison. Police had broken up Awtry’s games in the past. But on those occasions, they had knocked and waited, he had let them in peacefully, and he’d been given a $100 fine.

The poker raids have gotten bad enough that the Poker Players Alliance, an interest group that lobbies to make the game legal, has established a network of attorneys around the country to help players who have been raided and arrested.

But the mission creep hasn’t stopped at poker games. By the end of the 2000s, police departments were sending SWAT teams to enforce regulatory law. In August 2010, for example, a team of heavily armed Orange County, Florida, sheriff’s deputies raided several black-and Hispanic-owned barbershops in the Orlando area. More raids followed in September and October. The Orlando Sentinel reported that police held barbers and customers at gunpoint and put some in handcuffs, while they turned the shops inside out. The police raided a total of nine shops and arrested thirty-seven people.

By all appearances, these raids were drug sweeps. Shop owners told the Sentinel that police asked them where they were hiding illegal drugs and weapons. But in the end, thirty-four of the thirty-seven arrests were for “barbering without a license,” a misdemeanor for which only three people have ever served jail time in Florida.
The most disturbing aspect of the Orlando raids was that police didn’t even attempt to obtain a legal search warrant. They didn’t need to, because they conducted the raids in conjunction with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Despite the guns and handcuffs, under Florida law these were licensure inspections, not criminal searches, so no warrants were necessary.

That such “administrative searches” have become an increasingly common way for police to get around the Fourth Amendment is bad enough. More disturbing is the amount of force they’re opting to use when they do. In the fall of 2010, police in New Haven, Connecticut, sent a SWAT team to a local bar to investigate reports of underage drinking. Patrons were lined up at gunpoint while cops confiscated cell phones and checked IDs. There have been similar underage drinking SWAT raids on college fraternities. The Atlanta City Council recently agreed to pay a $1 million settlement to the customers and employees of a gay nightclub after a heavy-handed police raid in which police lined up sixty-two people on the floor at gunpoint, searched for drugs, and checked for outstanding warrants and unpaid parking tickets. Police conducted the September 2009 raid after undercover vice cops claimed to have witnessed patrons and employees openly having sex at the club. But the police never obtained a search warrant. Instead, the raid was conducted under the guise of an alcohol inspection. Police made no drug arrests, but arrested eight employees for permit violations.

Federal appeals courts have upheld these “administrative searches” even when it seems obvious that the real intent was to look for criminal activity as long as the government can plausibly claim that the primary purpose of the search was regulatory. In the case of the Orlando raids, simply noting the arrests of thirty-four unlicensed barbers would be enough to meet the test.

But the Fourth Amendment requires that searches be “reasonable.” If using a SWAT team to make sure a bar isn’t serving nineteen-year-olds is a reasonable use of force, it’s hard to imagine what wouldn’t be. At least a couple of federal appeals courts have recognized the absurdity. In 2009 the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck a small blow for common sense, allowing a civil rights suit to go forward against the sheriff’s department of Rapides Parish, Louisiana, after a warrantless SWAT raid on a nightclub thinly veiled as an administrative search. And in 1995 the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit made an even broader ruling, finding that having probable cause and a warrant for the arrest of one person in a club did not justify a SWAT raid and subsequent search of the entire club and everyone inside.

But other legal challenges to paramilitary-style administrative searches have been less successful. Consider the bizarre case of David Ruttenberg, owner of the Rack ‘n’ Roll pool hall in Manassas Park, Virginia. In June 2004, local police conducted a massive raid on the pool hall with more than fifty police officers, some of whom were wearing face masks, toting semi-automatic weapons, and pumping shotguns as they entered. Customers were detained, searched, and zip-tied. The police were investigating Ruttenberg for several alleged drug crimes, although he was never charged. The local narcotics task force had tried unsuccessfully to get a warrant to search Ruttenberg’s office but were denied by a judge. Instead, they simply brought along several representatives of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and claimed that they were conducting an alcohol inspection. Ruttenberg was cited only for three alcohol violations, based on two bottles of beer a distributor had left that weren’t clearly marked as samples, and a bottle of vodka they found in his private office.

In June 2006, Ruttenberg filed a civil rights suit alleging that, among other things, using a SWAT team to conduct an alcohol inspection was an unreasonable use of force. (The town’s vendetta against Ruttenberg stretched on for years and is one of the strangest cases I’ve ever encountered. He eventually sold his bar and moved to New York.) In 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied his claim. So for now, in the Fourth Circuit, sending a SWAT team to make sure a bar’s beer is labeled correctly is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
By the end of the decade, state and local SWAT teams were regularly being used not only for raids on poker games and gambling operations but also for immigration raids (on both businesses and private homes) and raids on massage parlors, cat houses, and unlicensed strip clubs. Today the sorts of offenses that can subject a citizen to the SWAT treatment defy caricature. If the government wants to make an example of you by pounding you with a wholly disproportionate use of force, it can. It’s rare that courts or politicians even object, much less impose consequences.

Another example is the use of these tactics on people suspected of downloading child pornography.

Because people suspected of such crimes are generally considered among the lowest of the low, there’s generally little objection to using maximum force to apprehend them. But when police use force to demonstrate disgust for the crimes the target is suspected of committing, there’s always a risk of letting disgust trump good judgment. In one recent case in West Virginia, police violently stormed a house after a Walmart employee reported seeing an image of a man’s genitals near a child’s cheek in a set of photos a customer had left at the store to be developed. After terrorizing the customer’s family (he was out of town), the police learned that the cheek in the photo wasn’t a child’s but that of a thirty-five-year-old Filipino woman.

Given that most child pornography investigations today involve people who use the Internet to find or distribute the offending images and videos, the investigations can be fraught with problems. There have been several instances in recent years of police waging child porn raids on people after tracing IP addresses, only to learn after the fact that the victims of the raid had an open wireless router that someone else had used to download the pornography. Inevitably, the lesson drawn by police and by the media covering these stories is not that a SWAT raid may be an inappropriate way to arrest someone suspected of looking at child porn on a computer, or that police who insist on using such tactics should probably factor the possibility of an open router into their investigation before breaking down someone’s door, but rather that we should all make sure our wireless routers are password-protected—so we too don’t get wrongly raided by a SWAT team, too.

It can also be difficult to trace an IP address to a physical address, which can lead to yet more mistaken raids. An example of that problem manifested in one of the more bizarre botched raids in recent years. It took place in September 2006, when a SWAT team from the Bedford County sheriff’s department stormed the rural Virginia home of A. J. Nuckols, his wife, and their two children. Police had traced the IP address of someone trading child porn online to the Nuckols’ physical address. They had made a mistake. As if the shock of having his house invaded by a SWAT team wasn’t enough, Nuckols was in for another surprise. In a letter to the editor of the Chatham Star Review, he described the raid: “Men ran at me, dropped into shooting position, double-handed semi-automatic pistols pointed at me, and made me put my hands against my truck. I was held at gunpoint, searched, taunted, and led into the house. I had no idea what this was about. I was scared beyond description.”

He then looked up, and saw . . . former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal.

O’Neal, an aspiring lawman, had been made an “honorary deputy” with the department. Though he had no training as a SWAT officer, Shaq apparently had gone on several such raids with other police departments around the country. The thrill of bringing an untrained celebrity along apparently trumped the requirement that SWAT teams be staffed only with the most elite, most highly qualified and best-trained cops. According to Nuckols, O’Neal reached into Nuckols’s pickup, snatched up his (perfectly legal) rifle, and exclaimed, “We’ve got a gun!” O’Neal told Time that Nuckols’s description of the raid on his home was exaggerated. “It ain’t no story,” he said. “We did everything right, went to the judge, got a warrant. You know, they make it seem like we beat him up, and that never happened. We went in, talked to him, took some stuff, returned it—bada bam, bada bing.”

Incidentally, there have been other strange incidents of SWAT teams with star power. Matt Damon accompanied SWAT officers on several raids while preparing for the movie “The Departed.” And after police mistakenly shot and killed immigrant and father Ismael Mena on a raid in Denver in 1999, they revealed that Colorado Rockies first baseman Mike Lansing had gone along for the ride. Denver police added that it was fairly common to take sports stars on drug raids.

In 2010 a massive Maricopa County SWAT team, including a tank and several armored vehicles, raided the home of Jesus Llovera. The tank in fact drove straight into Llovera’s living room. Driving the tank? Action movie star Steven Seagal, whom Sheriff Joe Arpaio had recently deputized. Seagal had also been putting on the camouflage to help Arpaio with his controversial immigration raids. All of this, by the way, was getting caught on film. Seagal’s adventures in Maricopa County would make up the next season of the A&E TV series Steven Seagal, Lawman.
Llovera’s suspected crime? Cockfighting. Critics said that Arpaio and Seagal brought an army to arrest a man suspected of fighting chickens to play for the cameras. Seagal’s explanation for the show of force: “Animal cruelty is one of my pet peeves.” All of Llovera’s chickens were euthanized. During the raid, the police also killed his dog.

In the end, while the Supreme Court has laid down some avoidable requirements for obtaining a no-knock warrant (or deciding to conduct a no-knock raid at the scene), there are few court decisions, laws, or regulations when it comes to when it is and isn’t appropriate to use a SWAT team and all the bells and whistles of a dynamic entry. The decision is almost always left to the discretion of the police agency—or in the case of the multi-jurisdictional task forces, to the SWAT team itself. The mere fact that there’s actually a split in the federal court system over the appropriateness of using SWAT teams to perform regulatory alcohol inspections at bars shows just how little attention the courts pay to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.

In other words, if the DEA wants to stick it to medical marijuana users because they’re flouting federal law, they can. If Steven Seagal wants to drive a tank into a man’s living room to demonstrate his love of animals, he can. If the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) wants to send a SWAT team to a physicist’s house to show that it’s cracking down on illegal bottle rockets, it can. At worst, the DEA, the CPSC, and Steven Seagal will be chastised by a judge after the fact, though that seldom happens. Even on the rare occasions when someone actually gets into court and wins an excessive-force lawsuit stemming from a raid, the damages are usually borne by taxpayers, not by the cops who used excessive force. In some cases, community outrage and bad press have persuaded police agencies to change a policy here or there regarding the deployment of their SWAT teams. But if they want to reneg and go back to breaking down the doors of people suspected of stealing decorative fish, there’s very little to stop them.

* * *

Toward the end of the 2000s there were hints that the public was beginning to want a change, though that desire could manifest in unexpected ways. A former colleague at the Cato Institute, Tim Lynch, has told me that when he gives talks about the Waco raid, he finds that people are somewhat sympathetic to the argument that the government overreacted, but that they still can’t get past the weirdness of the Branch Davidians themselves—their stockpile of weapons and the claims of sexual abuse and drug distribution in the community. Even the children who died are sometimes dismissed with guilt by association. But when he mentions that the ATF agents killed the Davidians’ dogs, Lynch tells me, people become visibly angry. I have found the same thing to be true in my reporting on drug raids.

At first, that may seem to indicate that people callously value the lives of pets more than the lives of people. But the fact that killing the dog during these raids has become nearly routine in many police agencies demonstrates just how casually those agencies have come to accept drug war collateral damage. When I started logging cop-shoots-dog incidents on my blog (under the probably sensational term “puppycide”), people began sending me new stories as they happened. Cops are now shooting dogs at the slightest provocation. As of this writing, I’m sent accounts of a few incidents each week.

It’s difficult to say if this is happening more frequently. There are no national figures, and estimates are all over the map. One dog handler recently hired to train a police department in Texas estimates there are up to 250,000 cop-shoots-dog cases each year. That seems high. In 2009 Randal Lockwood of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he sees 250 to 300 incidents per year in media reports, and he estimates that another 1,000 aren’t reported. The Indianapolis Star reported that between 2000 and 2002 police in that city shot 44 dogs. A recent lawsuit filed by the Milwaukee owner of a dog killed by cops found that police in that city killed 434 dogs over a nine-year period, or about one every seven and a half days. But those figures aren’t all that helpful. They don’t say how many of those dogs were actually vicious, how many were strays, or how many were injured and perhaps killed as an act of mercy versus how many were unjustified killings of pets.

What is clear is that police are almost always cleared of any wrongdoing in these shootings. An officer’s word that he felt a dog posed a threat to his safety is generally all it takes. Whether or not the officer’s fear was legitimate doesn’t seem to matter. Thanks to smart phones and surveillance cameras, a growing batch of these incidents have been caught on video have shown that officers’ claims that the dog was threatening often aren’t matched by the dog’s body language. In recent years, police officers have shot and killed chihuahuas, golden retrievers, labs, miniature dachshunds, Wheaton terriers, and Jack Russell terriers. In 2012 a California police officer shot and killed a boxer puppy and pregnant chihuahua, claiming the boxer had threatened him. The chihuahua, he said, got caught in the crossfire. Police officers have also recently shot dogs that were chained, tied, or leashed, going so far as to kill pets while merely questioning neighbors about a crime in the area, cutting across private property while in pursuit of a suspect, and after responding to false burglar alarms.

It’s possible that these incidents could just be attributed to rogue cops. But the fact that the police are nearly always excused in these cases—even in the more ridiculous examples—suggests there may be an institutional problem. So does the fact that only a handful of police departments give their cops any training at all when it comes to reading and handling the dogs they may encounter. In a 2012 article for the Huffington Post, my intern J. L. Greene and I looked at twenty-four recent cases of “puppycide” and called the relevant police departments to inquire about training. Only one department could confirm that its officers received training at the time of the incident in question. (Eleven departments did not return our phone calls.) That jibes with an earlier article I wrote for The Daily Beast in which both the ASPCA and the Humane Society told me that they offer such training to any police department that wants it, while few take advantage of the offer. Joseph Pentangelo, the ASPCA’s assistant director for law enforcement, who also served twenty-one years with the NYPD, told me, “New York is the only state I know of that mandates formalized training, and that’s during academy. There are some individual departments in other parts of the country that avail themselves of our training, but not many. Not enough.”

Given how likely it is that police officers will often interact with animals, you would think that such training would be common. It is at the US Postal Service. A spokesman for the USPS told me that while dog bites do happen on occasion, serious dog attacks on mail carriers are almost nonexistent. Postal workers are given regular training in distracting dogs with toys, subduing them with voice commands, or, at worst, incapacitating them with Mace. Mail carriers are shown a two-hour video and then given annual instruction on topics like recognizing and reading a dog’s body language and differentiating between aggressive charging and playful bounding, and between a truly dangerous dog and a merely territorial one.

The fact that the Postal Service offers such training and most police departments don’t lends some credence to the theory that dog shootings are part of the larger problem of a battlefield mentality that lets police use lethal force in response to the slightest threat—usually with few consequences. “It’s an evolving phenomenon,” says Norm Stamper, the former Seattle police chief. “It started when drug dealers began to recruit pit bulls to guard their supply. These dogs weren’t meant to attack cops. They were meant to attack other drug dealers who came to rob them. But of course they did attack cops. And yes, that’s awfully scary if one of those things latches on to your leg.”

But Stamper says that like many aspects of modern policing, dog shootings may have had a legitimate origin, but the practice has since become a symptom of the mind-set behind a militarized police culture. “Among other things, it really shows a lack of imagination. These guys think that the only solution to a dog that’s yapping or charging is shooting and killing it. That’s all they know. It goes with this notion that police officers have to control every situation, to control all the variables. That’s an awesome responsibility, and if you take it on, you’re caving to delusion. You no longer exercise discrimination or discretion. You have to control, and the way you control is with authority, power, and force. With a dog, the easiest way to take control is to simply kill it. I mean, especially if there are no consequences for doing so.”

A handful of police departments do now mandate dog training, including Nashville, Omaha, and Milwaukee. Police departments in Austin, Fort Worth, and Arlington, Texas, do too. All began offering training after public backlash over one or more cop-shoots-dog incidents.

“In my ten years in law enforcement on the street, I can’t remember one case where a police officer shot a dog,” says Russ Jones, the former narcotics cop with the San Jose Police Department and the DEA. “I don’t understand it at all. I guess somewhere along the line a cop shot a dog under questionable circumstances and got away with it. Word got out, and now it seems like some cops are just looking for reasons to take a shot at a dog. Maybe it just comes down to that—we can get away with it, therefore we do it.”

* * *

On the Friday afternoon before the 2009 G-20 summit was to begin in Pittsburgh at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, a reader in the city sent me a photo he’d snapped moments earlier. The photo was of a police officer standing in the middle of an intersection. He was wearing a military-green top, camouflage pants, and combat boots. He had a gun strapped to his thigh and looked to be carrying another one. The camouflage in particular seemed odd—as it does whenever it’s worn by a police officer in an urban area. It was unclear why this cop would have wanted to hide, and even if he did, how camouflage would help him do so in the city. There seemed to be little purpose for it other than to mimic the military. In any case, it was a sign of what was to come.

This is how the country that gave the world the First Amendment now handles protest. There’s a disquieting ease now with which authorities are willing to crush dissent—and at the very sorts of events where the right to dissent is the entire purpose of protecting free speech—that is, events where influential policymakers meet to make high-level decisions with far-reaching consequences. In fact, the more important the policymakers and the more consequential the decisions they’ll be making, the more likely it is that police will use more force to keep protesters as far away as possible. As Norm Stamper said, this unfortunately was the lesson the country’s law enforcement agencies took from the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle.

A number of police departments from across the country had sent officers to Pittsburgh to help police the 2009 summit. Nearly all were dressed in similar paramilitary garb. In one widely circulated video from the summit, several police officers dressed entirely in camouflage emerged from an unmarked car, apprehended a young backpack-toting protester, stuffed him into the car, then drove off. It evoked the sort of “disappearance” you might envision happening in a Latin American country headed by a junta, or one of the countries of the Soviet bloc. Matt Drudge linked to the video with a headline describing the officers in it as members of the military. They weren’t, though it’s certainly easy to understand how someone might make that mistake.

Another video showed a police unit with a handcuffed protester. Officers surrounded the protester, propped him up, then posed with him while another officer snapped a trophy photo. (YouTube later removed the video, citing a terms of use violation.) It was later revealed that the police unit was from Chicago. They had taken vacation time to come to Pittsburgh to provide “freelance security” for the G-20 summit.

As the summit went on, Twitter feeds and uploaded photos and videos claimed (and sometimes provided some evidence to prove) that police fired tear-gas canisters into dorm rooms, used sound cannons, and fired bean bags and rubber bullets. One man was arrested for posting the locations of riot police to his Twitter feed. The charges were later dropped.

Emily Tanner, a grad student at the University of Pittsburgh who described herself as a “capitalist” who didn’t agree with the general philosophy of the antiglobalization protesters, covered the summit, the protests, and the fallout on her blog. The most egregious police actions seemed to take place on the Friday evening before the summit, around the university, when police began ordering students who were in public spaces to disperse, despite the fact that they had broken no laws. Students who moved too slowly were arrested, as were students who were standing in front of the dormitories where they lived.

A University of Pittsburgh spokesman later said that the tactic was to break up crowds that “had the potential of disrupting normal activities, traffic flow, egress and the like. . . . Much of the arrests last night had to do with failure to disperse when ordered.” Note that no one needed to have broken any actual laws to get arrested. The potential to break a law was more than enough. That standard was essentially a license for the police to arrest anyone, anywhere in the city, at any time, for any reason.

Pennsylvania ACLU legal director Vic Walczak said the problem was that police didn’t bother to attempt to manage the protests. They simply suppressed them. In the process, they rounded up not only innocent protesters but innocent students who had nothing to do with the protests at all. In all, 190 people were arrested. One of the arrestees was a reporter from the left-leaning organization Indy-Media. When they apprehended her, the police took her camera. When they returned her camera, it was broken, and the police had deleted her photos and videos of the protests and police reaction. The police presence “seemed to focus almost exclusively on peaceful demonstrators,” Walczak said. “On [Friday] night they didn’t even have the excuse of property damage going on or any illegal activity. It’s really inexplicable.”

Inexcusable perhaps, but not inexplicable. Since Seattle, this had become the template. At the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, police conducted peremptory raids on the homes of protesters before the convention had even started. Police broke into the homes of people known to be activist rabble-rousers before they had any evidence of any actual crime. Journalists who inquired about the legitimacy of the raids and arrests made during the convention were also arrested. In all, 672 people were put in handcuffs. The arrest of Democracy Now journalist Amy Goodman was captured on a widely viewed video. She was charged with “conspiracy to riot.” That charge against Goodman was later dropped. So were the charges against most of the others arrested. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported the following February that charges were dropped or dismissed for 442 of the 672 people arrested.

There were similar problems at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Police in Denver showed up for the protests decked out in full riot gear. One particularly striking photo from Denver showed a sea of cops in shiny black armor, batons in hand, surrounding a small, vastly outnumbered group of protesters. The most volatile night of the convention featured one incident in which Jefferson County, Colorado, deputies unknowingly clashed with and then pepper-sprayed undercover Denver cops posing as violent protesters. The city later paid out $200,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that a Denver SWAT team was making indiscriminate arrests, rounding up protesters and bystanders alike.

Perhaps the best insight into the mentality the police brought to the DNC protests could be found on the T-shirts the Denver police union had printed up for the event. The shirts showed a menacing cop holding a baton. The caption: DNC 2008: WE GET UP EARLY, TO BEAT THE CROWDS. Police were spotted wearing similar shirts at the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago. At the 1996 DNC convention in Chicago, cops were seen wearing shirts that read: WE KICKED YOUR FATHER’S ASS IN 1968 . . . WAIT ’TIL YOU SEE WHAT WE DO TO YOU!

This default militaristic response to protest of overkill was then given an extended national stage during the Occupy protests of 2011. In the most infamous incident, now forever captured in countless Internet memes and mashups, Lt. John Pike of the University of California–Davis campus police casually hosed down a peaceful group of protesters with a pepper-spray canister. But that was far from the only incident. Police across the country met protesters in riot gear, once again anticipating—and in too many instances seemingly even craving—confrontation. In Oakland, the skull of Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen was fractured by a tear-gas canister that the police had fired into the crowd. In New York, NYPD officer Anthony Bologna pepper-sprayed a group of helpless protesters who had been penned in by police fencing.

One thing the Occupy crackdowns did seem to do was focus renewed attention on police tactics and police militarization. Big-picture stories about the Pentagon buildup, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding for antiterror gear, and the proliferation of SWAT teams started streaming out of media outlets, giving the militarization issue the most coverage it had received since Kraska’s studies came out in the late 1990s. Part of that was due to social media. The ubiquity of smart phones and the viral capacity of Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and blogs were already bringing unprecedented accountability to police misconduct and government oppression, be it a Baltimore cop screaming obscenities at a kid on a skateboard, a transit cop in Oakland shooting a man who lay handcuffed on his stomach, or government paramilitaries in Iran gunning down a young woman in cold blood during Arab Spring democracy protests. But the Occupiers, who tended to be young, white, and middle-to upper-middle-class, knew social media like few other demographics. They knew how to live-stream video directly to the Internet. They all had smart phones, so police couldn’t suppress incriminating video by confiscating one or two or ten phones—someone was bound to have video of not only the original incident but also of police trying to confiscate phones to cover it up.

The political reaction to the Occupy crackdowns was interesting to watch. In the 1990s, it had been the right wing—particularly the far right—that was up in arms over police militarization. Recall the outrage on the right over Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the raid to seize Elián González. The left had largely either remained silent or even defended the government’s tactics in those cases. But the right-wing diatribes against jackbooted thugs and federal storm-troopers all died down once the Clinton administration left office, and they were virtually nonexistent after September 11, 2001. By the time cops started cracking heads at the Occupy protests, some conservatives were downright gleeful. The militarization of federal law enforcement certainly didn’t stop, but the 9/11 attacks and a friendly administration seemed to quell the conservatives’ concerns. So long as law enforcement was targeting hippie protesters, undocumented immigrants, suspected drug offenders, and alleged terrorist sympathizers, they were back to being heroes.

Steven Greenhut, a conservative-leaning columnist for the Orange County Register and editor of the investigative journalism site CalWatchdog, was dismayed by the right’s reaction. “What’s really disgusting is the natural instinct of so many conservatives to stick up for the police,” Greenhut wrote. “They don’t like the Occupy protesters, so they willingly back brutality against them, without considering the possibility that conservatives at some point might be on the receiving end of this aggression.”

Unfortunately, consistent voices like Greenhut’s have been rare. Partisan reaction to aggressive police actions against opponents tends to fall somewhere between indifference and schadenfreude.

After the December 2012 shooting massacre in Newtown, Connecticut put the issue of gun control back into the political discourse, some progressives again dredged up the right’s criticism of the ATF in the early 1990s. In one lengthy segment, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow aired old footage from Waco and Ruby Ridge while making some tenuous connections between gun rights politicians and activists and Weaver, McVeigh, and Koresh. She referred to a “conspiracy-driven corner of the gun world’s paranoia about federal agents,” without paying much heed to the fact that the ATF was inflicting the same sort of abuse on suspected gun offenders that Maddow herself has decried when used against suspected undocumented immigrants or Occupy protesters. More tellingly, Maddow added that there’s nothing wrong with wanting to give more power to the ATF based only on the politics of the people opposed to doing so. “Sometimes the character of the opposition defines why something ought to be the most politically viable thing in the world,” she said.

But even before Newtown, progressives have been advocating for the use of more government force against political factions they find unsavory. In 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued a controversial report on what the author—DHS analyst Daryl Johnson—called a resurgence of right-wing extremism and the threat it posed to domestic security. The report was widely criticized on the right and was eventually criticized and revoked by DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But after a spate of mass killings in the following years by assailants with political views that in some cases could loosely be characterized as right-wing, Johnson became something of a progressive hero. Most of the incidents involved clearly mentally ill attackers whose politics were all over the place. Even Johnson acknowledged that the incident most in line with his thesis—the massacre at a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, by a white supremacist named Wade Michael Page—was the work of a “lone wolf” attacker and likely would not have been prevented by the recommendations in his report.

Still, he was celebrated on the left. The progressive advocacy group Media Matters declared him “vindicated.” Similar sentiment popped up on progressive outlets like ThinkProgress, Salon, Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC blog, and Democracy Now.

In truth, attacks by groups on the fringes of the right wing have actually dropped in recent years, despite some claims that they’ve increased in response to the election of a black president. Attacks from groups on the fringes of the left wing are in decline too, as are alleged attempted terrorist attacks by fringe Muslim groups.

In a 2012 interview with the Idaho Spokesman Review, Johnson showed why it may not have been such a great idea for progressives to embrace him simply because he wanted to shut down opinions they found distasteful. Johnson was interviewed for an article on the twentieth anniversary of the Ruby Ridge fiasco, and he took one step further Rachel Maddow’s idea of supporting government force simply because you don’t like the factions opposing it. Johnson in fact suggested that merely having concerns about police militarization is a worry only borne by extremists. In fact, he appeared to have suggested that even recognizing that militarization is happening is an indication of fringe extremism.

“For American extremists, the siege at Ruby Ridge symbolizes the ‘militarized police state,’” said Johnson. The US government, through its Department of Homeland Security in particular, he said, “has unintentionally fostered, and even solidified, Orwellian conspiracies concerning an overzealous, oppressive federal government and its perceived willingness to kill to ensure citizen compliance. . . . In the minds of modern-day extremists, [Homeland Security] has enhanced the lethal capability of many underfunded, small-town police forces through its grant programs.” Using federal grants, state and local law enforcement agencies have been able to buy expensive equipment and training that are “commonly associated with the military,” he said, adding that “extremists view such a security buildup as a continuation of the Ruby Ridge legacy.” That legacy is a continuing drumbeat for extremists and white supremacists who recruit with the message of “big government versus the little guy” and “the government set me up.” These extremist ideas continue as messages and even recruiting themes among various radical groups in the United States, Johnson said.

I attempted to contact Johnson to ask if he’d like to clarify his comments. He didn’t return my calls. As they stand, these quotes are striking, particularly from someone who once worked for the Department of Homeland Security and now runs a consulting firm that works with law enforcement agencies. They certainly appear to dismiss police militarization—a phenomenon documented by a wide range of media outlets and criticized by interests all across the political spectrum—as merely a fantasy cooked up by extremists to boost their recruiting. Incidentally, the publications and advocacy groups who have recently expressed concerns about police militarization include ThinkProgress, Wired, Salon, MSNBC, and Democracy Now— all of them also ran articles praising Johnson.

So long as partisans are only willing to speak out against aggressive, militarized police tactics when they’re used against their own and are dismissive or even supportive of such tactics when used against those whose politics they dislike, it seems unlikely that the country will achieve enough of a political consensus to begin to slow down the trend.

Wooglin
23 Aug 13,, 18:02
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/4.5-swat-raids-per-day


As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.

Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.

Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.

zraver
23 Aug 13,, 20:47
Your confusing enforce with arrest. Depending on the offense involved a LEO has the option of issuing a formal caution, preceding by way of fine or summons or arrest. As for discretion in general, every profession has discretion regarding how and when they go about their business. Within the parameters of his work my plumber has discretion.

No I am not, Cops in the US have no duty of care, no duty to enforce, arrest or protect. Outside of having established a "special" relationship you will find no formal force compelling an officers actions.


For drinking no. For running an illegal still or commercial scale excise evasion on alcohol imports quite often. It's the nature and seriousness of the offending along with the potential for violence that dictates the use of SWAT type resources. In general with drug related matters the criminals are motivated to defend their "stash" from other criminals so they carry firearms, even street level dealers with no more than a few dollars worth of drugs at a time will do this.

The point is that generally the larger the drug supply involved, the more money its worth and the more risks/precautions taken by owners. So you profile your offenders first. No street cop is going to call in for tactical backup if he suspects a couple of local clean skin teenagers are selling grass -unless there is something else in their backgrounds that changes the picture.

Prohibition does not work, the drug war is driving drug profits and cost John Q taxpayer a huge amount of money to fight it.

Monash
24 Aug 13,, 03:17
No I am not, Cops in the US have no duty of care, no duty to enforce, arrest or protect. Outside of having established a "special" relationship you will find no formal force compelling an officers actions.

Prohibition does not work, the drug war is driving drug profits and cost John Q taxpayer a huge amount of money to fight it.

With regards to the first paragraph above apart from that fact that it is is in their job description no. Any officer who openly and regularly made the decision not to enforce the laws of his jurisdiction would face dismissal or should consider resigning since he is:

a) obviously in the wrong profession: &
b) ignoring/breaking the oath he took - which goes to his character

As for the 2nd paragraph I was sighting examples of situations where SWAT type tactics would be used re: the enforcement of alcohol related crimes not advocating a return to prohibition. Although since aprox 10% of Policing resources in Australia are spent dealing with alcohol related law enforcement issues legalisation of any drug also imposes heavy financial burdens on the community concerned via the social/health impacts of wider use and the enforcement of regulations concerning how/when/who can use of the drug concerned. Either way it still ends up being no cheaper. There are good arguments for decriminalization or perhaps even legalisation of some drugs but cost isn't one of them. Communities end up paying either way.

zraver
24 Aug 13,, 03:26
With regards to the first paragraph above apart from that fact that it is is in their job description no. Any officer who openly and regularly made the decision not to enforce the laws of his jurisdiction would face dismissal or should consider resigning since he is:

a) obviously in the wrong profession: &
b) ignoring/breaking the oath he took - which goes to his character


US L.E.O oath

On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

I'm telling you cops here have no duty to enforce. It stems from a 1989 Supreme Court decision DeShaney v. Winnebago that said cops have no duty to protect citizens, and from that no duty to arrest or enforce unless a law specifically states otherwise like domestic violence statues. A citizen can hope a cop will do his job, but hope is all it is. If the cop is part of a union then there is very little sanction for a cop who won't.

Monash
24 Aug 13,, 05:33
US courts have tended to support the argument that any duty the police had to protect the public was owed to the general public and not to any particular citizen.

Quoting from one study of the issue "any breach of this duty by a police officer is at most actionable by the public in the form of criminal prosecution or administrative disposition." ..... and "The discretion of the police, to be valid, cannot be reviewed after-the-fact by a jury in a civil lawsuit, otherwise the police might be pressured to make arrests simply to avoid the threat of personal prosecution by a putative victim." And finally "Finding liability in these situations would also create an unnecessary burden upon the judicial system."

Hence their duty to enforce the law is owed to their community at large not specific individuals and for good reasons. The US courts recognize a duty exists but have limited the manner in which it is imposed.

Monash
24 Aug 13,, 05:44
The figures quoted are high by our standards but may not be by US standards as a whole. It would be a good idea to have have similar reporting requirements across the entire US. At least then trends in the use of SWAT resources could be noted and justification for same requested if it was considered too high by legislators. As for Maryland it has a population of what, nearly 6 million? 800 uses p.a. based on that population size may not be extreme. Don't know about Prince Georges County - it may be a crime black spot. Alternatively maybe they do overuse their SWAT resources in that jurisdiction.

Doktor
24 Aug 13,, 07:36
@Z,
Why there would be any sanction at all for a cop if the Supreme Court said it's not their job?

@ Monash:
It's 800 uses in the last 6 months of 2009, not for a whole year.

Monash
24 Aug 13,, 09:02
Sorry, me bad. Posted in haste without proofing.

Repatriated Canuck
29 Aug 13,, 01:01
[QUOTE=zraver;923969]

Or if he was trying to protect the illegal marijuana plants that he was growing in the basement. 16 plants goes way above "Personal Use". Guess he didn't notice the police cars either when he exited the house and went to his shed either.

And thats a prime example of why cops have to go in heavy. Mans growing dope in his home and shoots the cops as they enter. Another scumbag off the streets. Glad he saved the taxpayers money by hanging his self. And the "former combat vet" crap doesn't carry water. If he was doing the right thing he wouldn't have been in the situation.


16 plants is not more than personal use. If they where all 2M tall trees perhaps but it takes months for plants to mature. If he was growing from seed more than half of said 16 plants will be garbage.

Basing a charge off plants count is misleading.

Did he have multiple grow rooms with a mother plant to have a constant supply indicating a supplier or was it one room where he was growing his annual or bi-annul crop to see him through the year.


Furthermore, just because one smokes or grows marijuana it does not make one a scum bag. I grew weed at Sensi Seeds in Amsterdam as a tax paying job. I also quite enjoy marijuana especially now that I'm older and my hang overs are starting to really suck. I am far from being a scum bag.



The cops could have knocked or called or any number of options before kicking the door in. It's not like they where raiding a fortified Hells Angels meth lab.


Either way, two dead men over 16 evil weed plants.

I'm a big fan of America but this kind of crap still happening South of my border is ridiculous. Forcing your morals on people you disagree with sure has been bloody.

Celebrating the death of a man in his own home over 16 plants is way more scummy than the fact that I and countless others enjoy something you don't like.


Normally I'm on side with your opinions but not this one Gun Grape.

zraver
29 Aug 13,, 01:45
@Z,
Why there would be any sanction at all for a cop if the Supreme Court said it's not their job?

A cops job is to keep the peace and generate revenue, not protect citizens or enforce any particular law.

Monash
29 Aug 13,, 07:54
A cops job is to keep the peace and generate revenue, not protect citizens or enforce any particular law.

Since when are these mutually exclusive, by keeping the peace the lives and property of citizens are protected, by generating revenue (imposing fines) you also modify anti-social behaviors like speeding and littering. Don't impose a fine and people will speed and park where they want result - more motor accidents and grid locked streets. Fines are imposed because they deter further offending without the need to impose short periods of imprisonment for minor misdemeanors. And yes governments do use fines as a means of revenue raising but that doesn't alter the fact that they also serve as a means of modifying behavior - if only because we all hate paying them.

zraver
29 Aug 13,, 16:21
Since when are these mutually exclusive, by keeping the peace the lives and property of citizens are protected, by generating revenue (imposing fines) you also modify anti-social behaviors like speeding and littering. Don't impose a fine and people will speed and park where they want result - more motor accidents and grid locked streets.

Mind if I ask a German for a second opinion about that the more accidents thing? You seem to approach the general citizen as a lawless anarchist just waiting for you to not be looking so they can commit some offense. I don't litter because I am not a litter bug. It has nothing to do with fines. Same reason I do not park in handicapped spots or where I block access. because I am socially aware and courteous. My biggest sin as it were is speeding. Give me a fast car and I tend drive fast on the interstate. And there is zero correlation between moderate speeding on open roads in clear weather and accidents.



Fines are imposed because they deter further offending without the need to impose short periods of imprisonment for minor misdemeanors. And yes governments do use fines as a means of revenue raising but that doesn't alter the fact that they also serve as a means of modifying behavior - if only because we all hate paying them.

Fines do not deter, social awareness does. If you have awareness, you are socially responsible, if you don't, you are not. But as posted earlier in the thread, abuses of power like civil forfeiture of cash and property without criminal charges ever being filed have zero to do with litter control and parking.

Doktor
29 Aug 13,, 16:28
Z,

Can you then explain to me how our immigrants are socially aware when abroad and suddenly become unaware when back home?

I would say it is all about blending in the group.

Monash
30 Aug 13,, 06:03
Mind if I ask a German for a second opinion about that the more accidents thing? You seem to approach the general citizen as a lawless anarchist just waiting for you to not be looking so they can commit some offense.

Z, it maybe stating the obvious but all the worlds roads are not autobahns, for that matter not all roads in Germany are autobahns either. Perhaps if they were speeding tickets would be irrelevant but they're not and each year across the continental United States thousands of lives are ended or ruined by motor vehicle accidents so that is hardly a valid point. As for my approach to the 'general citizen' nowhere have I ever suggested that the average person is a lawless anarchist. I don't live in a Mad Max movie and neither do you. I do however live in a normal community and from time to time some members of that community (a small %) commit crimes. An even smaller % become career criminals. Pretending that this wasn't the case would be silly, your not that silly and neither am I.


I don't litter because I am not a litter bug. It has nothing to do with fines. Same reason I do not park in handicapped spots or where I block access. because I am socially aware and courteous. My biggest sin as it were is speeding. Give me a fast car and I tend drive fast on the interstate. And there is zero correlation between moderate speeding on open roads in clear weather and accidents.

You may not litter, but others do (obviously because you only have to look around to see litter). You may not park in a handicapped spaces but other more selfish people do (otherwise parking officers would be out of work.) You may be socially aware and conscious but that doesn't mean all other members of your community are equally socially aware and courteous. I would also add that everyone has their failings and moral blind spots, even if only occasionally which brings me to your self professed tendency to speed on interstates.

It is an undeniable fact that speeding is a factor in the majority of road accidents. This is because 'speeding' is a relative term, effected by variables including weather conditions, road surface, traffic density, driver fatigue and experience etc. A safe speed on a given stretch of road, even the posted speed limit can quickly become an unsafe speed when one of the above variables changes significantly. You might regard yourself as a good driver, hell you might be a good driver by any objective measure of the word, the problem is the morgues are full of people you believed they were good and just got tired, careless or unlucky.

The posted speeds generally reflect a safe (if very conservative) recommended top speed under normal driving conditions. By all means ignore them if you want, but fair cop :) take the penalty when you get caught and remember that just because you may be a good driver it doesn't mean that the other guy speeding down that interstate towards you is also that good. Attending fatal traffic accidents and watching dead bodies (especially kids) get pealed out of car wrecks gets gives you a whole new perspective on speeding which is why Traffic Cops and highway patrolmen can be real hard cases at times.


Fines do not deter, social awareness does. If you have awareness, you are socially responsible, if you don't, you are not. But as posted earlier in the thread, abuses of power like civil forfeiture of cash and property without criminal charges ever being filed have zero to do with litter control and parking.

Disagree completely about the fines, just as a thought experiment imagine what would happen if your nearest city publicly announced that from tomorrow there would be no fines for illegal parking. Now flash forward one year and imagine what would be happening to that cities streets. Stop enforcing the rules and over time people would stop obeying them if only because they saw others doing so and getting away with it - its human nature, and only a small % of the community would be principled or strong willed enough to keep obeying rules that entailed no penalty for the breach of same.

As for the civil forfeiture cases you refer to it seems obvious they can be abused if misapplied. Certainly on the basis of the examples/cases in this thread it would appear that some of the outcomes were and are unfair and if it were up to me they would be subject to review. Other applications of the same law might however be entirely justified. Some legislative or judicial review would appear to be in order in any case.

I might add that we use civil forfeiture in my jurisdiction as an effectively means of seizing the proceeds of crime. Disputed assets can be seized or frozen and the value of the assets has to be relatively high to justify the court costs but once proceedings are commenced the Crown has to prepare an asset betterment statement and provide other evidence showing the POI controls the assets. The 'owner' on the other hand has to produce evidence showing that he came to possess the asset via legal means. This is something which is very hard for a career criminal to do since he can't prove the asset came into his control via legitimate means if this is not the case.

Cheers

Gun Grape
30 Aug 13,, 13:01
16 plants is not more than personal use. If they where all 2M tall trees perhaps but it takes months for plants to mature. If he was growing from seed more than half of said 16 plants will be garbage.

Basing a charge off plants count is misleading.

yea but they had Ex Girlfriends statement, and they had been observing him/the house

If your going to charge people with "Growing with intent to sell" how else do you base the charge?



Furthermore, just because one smokes or grows marijuana it does not make one a scum bag. I grew weed at Sensi Seeds in Amsterdam as a tax paying job. I also quite enjoy marijuana especially now that I'm older and my hang overs are starting to really suck. I am far from being a scum bag.

You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear.

I have always called for the legalization of drugs. I take a libertarian view of make them all legal. We are adults, let us decide what we want to do.
Its his other actions that make him a scumbag IMO

zraver
30 Aug 13,, 17:37
Z, it maybe stating the obvious but all the worlds roads are not autobahns, for that matter not all roads in Germany are autobahns either. Perhaps if they were speeding tickets would be irrelevant but they're not and each year across the continental United States thousands of lives are ended or ruined by motor vehicle accidents so that is hardly a valid point. As for my approach to the 'general citizen' nowhere have I ever suggested that the average person is a lawless anarchist. I don't live in a Mad Max movie and neither do you. I do however live in a normal community and from time to time some members of that community (a small %) commit crimes. An even smaller % become career criminals. Pretending that this wasn't the case would be silly, your not that silly and neither am I.

My point was that laws in the US go too far. I think we have more laws than the rest of the world combined.


You may not litter, but others do (obviously because you only have to look around to see litter). You may not park in a handicapped spaces but other more selfish people do (otherwise parking officers would be out of work.) You may be socially aware and conscious but that doesn't mean all other members of your community are equally socially aware and courteous. I would also add that everyone has their failings and moral blind spots, even if only occasionally which brings me to your self professed tendency to speed on interstates.

Surprisingly little litter in my area and I don't know anyone that ever got a ticket for littering. It might be that this is a socially aware college town.


It is an undeniable fact that speeding is a factor in the majority of road accidents. This is because 'speeding' is a relative term, effected by variables including weather conditions, road surface, traffic density, driver fatigue and experience etc. A safe speed on a given stretch of road, even the posted speed limit can quickly become an unsafe speed when one of the above variables changes significantly. You might regard yourself as a good driver, hell you might be a good driver by any objective measure of the word, the problem is the morgues are full of people you believed they were good and just got tired, careless or unlucky.

Driving too fast for conditions is a factor. Speed has to be dependent on conditions. Open interstate with light traffic the only real risk is a sudden blow on out a steer or sudden cardiac arrest. American interstate design can by and large can support a normal vehicle going 90mph safely. It can handle say a modded 350z at much higher speeds than that.


The posted speeds generally reflect a safe (if very conservative) recommended top speed under normal driving conditions. By all means ignore them if you want, but fair cop :) take the penalty when you get caught and remember that just because you may be a good driver it doesn't mean that the other guy speeding down that interstate towards you is also that good.

Yup, or pack more electronics to detect radar and lasers than an EF-18 Growler. My detector not only detects, but is undetectable and via my smart phone tracks my location and gets reports from other smart detectors in my area within the past 15 minutes.



Attending fatal traffic accidents and watching dead bodies (especially kids) get pealed out of car wrecks gets gives you a whole new perspective on speeding which is why Traffic Cops and highway patrolmen can be real hard cases at times.

I don't play in traffic



Disagree completely about the fines, just as a thought experiment imagine what would happen if your nearest city publicly announced that from tomorrow there would be no fines for illegal parking. Now flash forward one year and imagine what would be happening to that cities streets. Stop enforcing the rules and over time people would stop obeying them if only because they saw others doing so and getting away with it - its human nature, and only a small % of the community would be principled or strong willed enough to keep obeying rules that entailed no penalty for the breach of same.

I think its more culture than enforcement.


As for the civil forfeiture cases you refer to it seems obvious they can be abused if misapplied. Certainly on the basis of the examples/cases in this thread it would appear that some of the outcomes were and are unfair and if it were up to me they would be subject to review. Other applications of the same law might however be entirely justified. Some legislative or judicial review would appear to be in order in any case.

But in the US there is very little review and almost no recourse for the citizen.


I might add that we use civil forfeiture in my jurisdiction as an effectively means of seizing the proceeds of crime. Disputed assets can be seized or frozen and the value of the assets has to be relatively high to justify the court costs but once proceedings are commenced the Crown has to prepare an asset betterment statement and provide other evidence showing the POI controls the assets. The 'owner' on the other hand has to produce evidence showing that he came to possess the asset via legal means. This is something which is very hard for a career criminal to do since he can't prove the asset came into his control via legitimate means if this is not the case.

Cheers

If you think an asset is related to criminal activity, then charge the person with a specific crime, and put a freeze or hold on the asset and if the prosecution wins, take the asset as part of the judgement. Don't divorce the two to unfairly disadvantage the defendant who may be innocent.

troung
30 Aug 13,, 18:46
Further, having been denied entry and PA makes torturing an animal a felony offense the cop was acting under color of law and thus the citizen was entitled to act to stop the felony and defend what was his.

The jury really thought otherwise.

George Hitcho Jr. sentenced to death for murder of Freemansburg police officer Robert Lasso | lehighvalleylive.com (http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2012/05/george_hitcho_jr_sentenced_to.html)

The jurors deliberated about two and a half hours before returning with the death sentence. The jury foreman said they found three mitigating factors that explained why Hitcho fired a shotgun into the base of the 31-year-old's skull, but they did not outweigh killing a police officer in the line of duty. The same jurors on May 17 found him guilty of first-degree murder.
Jurors approve death penalty for murderer of Freemansburg cop - Morning Call (http://articles.mcall.com/2012-05-24/news/mc-freemansburg-cop-murder-jury-sentence-hitcho-20120524_1_louise-luck-death-row-police-officer)

On Aug. 11, Lasso was at Hitcho's New Street home after being called for an argument between Hitcho and a neighbor. The 31-year-old officer was being attacked by Hitcho's dogs and was moving to use his stun gun against them when he was felled by a 12-gauge shotgun blast from behind.
Prosecutors argued that nothing in Hitcho's life offset his decision to shoot Lasso in the back of the head from feet away, killing him before he hit the ground.
......

I think he meant your making light of cops killing our pets. A situation that has lead to situations where pet owners have no choice but to either watch their pets die or defend their kids. I said kids because there are multiple studies showing the person-pet bond mimics that of parent-child in the brain and this invites an entirely primal and visceral emotional response that has now lead to the predictable death of a cop.

They are not "children" or "little people" whether or not some person puts that value on them. No different then a goat, chicken, or any other potentially tasty creature or the animal which gave it's life for a very comfortable pair of boots.

Monash
31 Aug 13,, 08:45
If you think an asset is related to criminal activity, then charge the person with a specific crime, and put a freeze or hold on the asset and if the prosecution wins, take the asset as part of the judgement. Don't divorce the two to unfairly disadvantage the defendant who may be innocent.

The problem, especially with organized crime is that the principle beneficiaries go to great lengths to distance themselves from the criminal activity. They keep their money and assets close but large drug shipments, extortion rackets and stolen cars etc at a distance. To take a hypothetical example say a mid level 'suspected' drug dealer owns (or controls entities that own) a 1 million dollar home with no mortgage, two luxury sports cars, a forty foot power boat, a holiday apartment in climes sunny and some 'investments' in gold bullion. All on a declared income of say 60K a year from his 'job" as a used car salesman.

You might not have enough to convict him for drug offenses but you do your financial homework and then can use civil forfeiture orders to get him into court where he has to explain "where did you get the money for that?" If his income was $600,000 no problem he could probably account for everything so you wouldn't bother but since there's no way on God's green earth that he can have accumulated all those assets in just a few years legitimately with his declared income and if you can convince a court of that then he looses the lot or at least a large chunk of it, even if he doesn't go to jail for the drug shipment you were tracking in the first place.

Monash
31 Aug 13,, 08:59
Yup, or pack more electronics to detect radar and lasers than an EF-18 Growler. My detector not only detects, but is undetectable and via my smart phone tracks my location and gets reports from other smart detectors in my area within the past 15 minutes.

Al that stuffs illegal over here. Anyway traffic authorities are thinking of extending a system they use to monitor heavy vehicles to all traffic on motorways and highways. They place automated cameras that track and record the rego details of every vehicle that passes under them mark across a highway and then at a measured fixed point further along the road they do the same thing again. Then a computer compares the time each vehicle crosses one line with the time they cross the next one, does a simple mathematical calculation and hey presto your toast. There's no way to beat it, unless of course you decide to pull over to the side of the road and wait out the clock until your elapsed time equals the speed limit - which sort of defeats the purpose of speeding in the first place.

Doktor
31 Aug 13,, 09:54
Unless you are adrenaline addict who loves the speed and would do just that. Those systems are usually very well marked and there is a sign 1km in front (at least in Italy, where they call it TUDOR).

Anyway, even if caught speeding my guess is there wont be a SWAT team delivering you the ticket. That was the topic, right?

Monash
31 Aug 13,, 10:00
Unless you are adrenaline addict who loves the speed and would do just that. Those systems are usually very well marked and there is a sign 1km in front (at least in Italy, where they call it TUDOR).

Anyway, even if caught speeding my guess is there wont be a SWAT team delivering you the ticket. That was the topic, right?

Yep, just pointing out to Z that he could wire up his car like an AWAC and the authorities would still be able to catch him speeding if they introduced a system like Tudor.

zraver
31 Aug 13,, 16:18
Yep, just pointing out to Z that he could wire up his car like an AWAC and the authorities would still be able to catch him speeding if they introduced a system like Tudor.

They have similar systems on some tollways. Never heard of it on the open road, but I'm sure eventually the nanny state will crush all liberty everywhere.

bigross86
31 Aug 13,, 22:36
Two things:

1) In August 2012, the Central Bureau of Statistics determined that speeding was only responsible for 0.5% of the accidents that year. Yes, half a percent. I'm just gonna leave that particular statistic and walk away. Aside from that, sure, speeding is bad and breaking the limit probably won't help you if/when you get into an accident, I think we can all agree on that.

2)


by keeping the peace the lives and property of citizens are protected, by generating revenue (imposing fines) you also modify anti-social behaviors like speeding and littering. Don't impose a fine and people will speed and park where they want result - more motor accidents and grid locked streets. Fines are imposed because they deter further offending without the need to impose short periods of imprisonment for minor misdemeanors.

Quote from Freakonomics, by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt


Imagine for a moment that you are the manager of a day-care center. You have a clearly stated policy that children are supposed to be picked up by 4 p.m. But very often parents are late. The result: at day’s end, you have some anxious children and at least one teacher who must wait around for the parents to arrive. What to do? A pair of economists who heard of this dilemma—it turned out to be a rather common one—offered a solution: fine the tardy parents. Why, after all, should the day-care center take care of these kids for free?

The economists decided to test their solution by conducting a study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel. The study lasted twenty weeks, but the fine was not introduced immediately. For the first four weeks, the economists simply kept track of the number of parents who came late; there were, on average, eight late pickups per week per day-care center. In the fifth week, the fine was enacted. It was announced that any parent arriving more than ten minutes late would pay $3 per child for each incident. The fee would be added to the parents’ monthly bill, which was roughly $380. After the fine was enacted, the number of late pickups promptly went...up. Before long there were twenty late pickups per week, more than double the original average. The incentive had plainly backfired.....

....So what was wrong with the incentive at the Israeli day-care centers? You have probably already guessed that the $3 fine was simply too small. For that price, a parent with one child could afford to be late every day and only pay an extra $60 each month—just one-sixth of the base fee. As babysitting goes, that’s pretty cheap. What if the fine had been set at $100 instead of $3? That would have likely put an end to the late pickups, though it would have also engendered plenty of ill will. (Any incentive is inherently a trade-off; the trick is to balance the extremes.)

But there was another problem with the day-care center fine. It substituted an economic incentive (the $3 penalty) for a moral incentive (the guilt that parents were supposed to feel when they came late). For just a few dollars each day, parents could buy off their guilt. Furthermore, the small size of the fine sent a signal to the parents that late pickups weren’t such a big problem. If the day-care center suffers only $3 worth of pain for each late pickup, why bother to cut short your tennis game? Indeed, when the economists eliminated the $3 fine in the seventeenth week of their study, the number of late-arriving parents didn't change. Now they could arrive late, pay no fine, and feel no guilt.

They also specifically mention and discuss parking tickets:


We all learn to respond to incentives, negative and positive, from the outset of life. If you toddle over to the hot stove and touch it, you burn a finger. But if you bring home straight A’s from school, you get a new bike. If you are spotted picking your nose in class, you get ridiculed. But if you make the basketball team, you move up the social ladder. If you break curfew, you get grounded. But if you ace your SATs, you get to go to a good college. If you flunk out of law school, you have to go to work at your father’s insurance company. But if you perform so well that a rival company comes calling, you become a vice president and no longer have to work for your father. If you become so excited about your new vice president job that you drive home at eighty mph, you get pulled over by the police and fined $100. But if you hit your sales projections and collect a year-end bonus, you not only aren't worried about the $100 ticket but can also afford to buy that Viking range you've always wanted—and on which your toddler can now burn her own finger.

Just pointing out that giving out fines doesn't always change behavior or mentally condition someone.....

Doktor
31 Aug 13,, 23:07
Two things:

1) In August 2012, the Central Bureau of Statistics determined that speeding was only responsible for 0.5% of the accidents that year. Yes, half a percent. I'm just gonna leave that particular statistic and walk away. Aside from that, sure, speeding is bad and breaking the limit probably won't help you if/when you get into an accident, I think we can all agree on that.
That's weird. Since I took Italy and Tudor as an example, there it's about 60% (http://www.autostrade.it/en/assistenza-al-traffico/tutor.html) of accidents on highways. Cultural?


2) Quote from Freakonomics, by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt


They also specifically mention and discuss parking tickets:

Just pointing out that giving out fines doesn't always change behavior or mentally condition someone.....

In Finland (and some other places) they seemed to worked this out. In Finladn since 1921, it's called Day-fine. The idea is that the fine is not sentenced in amount, but in paid days. IIRC, Nokia's CEO paid some ridiculous fine for speeding ($100k+) some 10 years ago ;). And again, no SWAT team came to enforce the payment.

Monash
09 Sep 13,, 12:46
From ABC News:

'Police said officers responded to a disturbance at a house in Pine Bluff city on Saturday afternoon and found that suspect Monroe Isadore had pointed a gun at two people. The two victims were led out of the house. As the officers approached the bedroom where Isadore had taken cover, he shot through the door.
Isadore failed to injure any of the officers with his gunfire. Supervisors began negotiating with Isadore and a Special Weapons and Tactics team was called out.
Using a camera inserted into the room, the SWAT team was able to confirm that Isadore was armed with a handgun. The officers then slipped gas into the room before Isadore responded with gunfire.

"Shortly afterwards, a SWAT entry team inside the residence breached the door to the bedroom and threw a distraction device into the bedroom," the Pine Bluff Police Department statement read.

"Isadore then began to fire on the entry team and the entry team engaged Isadore, killing him."

The statement did not say which type of distraction device was used. Law enforcement officials are investigating the incident.'

Civilians escorted to safety. Perimeter contained - tick
Suspect contained in room - tick
Negotiations commenced - tick
Covert surveillance technology used to confirm the location, armaments and status of suspect - tick
Use of OC to disorientate suspect -tick?
SWAT Team breaching door and engaging the suspect - ????

Question - why not wait him out? The suspect was 107 years old! How long before physical exhaustion, a lack of sleep, food and water begins to take its toll?

In the absence of a more detailed an analytical report I have to ask -what, the overtime budget doesn't stretch to cordoning the room for a few more hours?

zraver
09 Sep 13,, 17:49
From ABC News:

'Police said officers responded to a disturbance at a house in Pine Bluff city on Saturday afternoon and found that suspect Monroe Isadore had pointed a gun at two people. The two victims were led out of the house. As the officers approached the bedroom where Isadore had taken cover, he shot through the door.
Isadore failed to injure any of the officers with his gunfire. Supervisors began negotiating with Isadore and a Special Weapons and Tactics team was called out.
Using a camera inserted into the room, the SWAT team was able to confirm that Isadore was armed with a handgun. The officers then slipped gas into the room before Isadore responded with gunfire.

"Shortly afterwards, a SWAT entry team inside the residence breached the door to the bedroom and threw a distraction device into the bedroom," the Pine Bluff Police Department statement read.

"Isadore then began to fire on the entry team and the entry team engaged Isadore, killing him."

The statement did not say which type of distraction device was used. Law enforcement officials are investigating the incident.'

Civilians escorted to safety. Perimeter contained - tick
Suspect contained in room - tick
Negotiations commenced - tick
Covert surveillance technology used to confirm the location, armaments and status of suspect - tick
Use of OC to disorientate suspect -tick?
SWAT Team breaching door and engaging the suspect - ????

Question - why not wait him out? The suspect was 107 years old! How long before physical exhaustion and lack of sleep begins and or water begins to take its toll?

In the absence of a more detailed an analytical report I have to ask -what, the overtime budget doesn't stretch to cordoning the room for a few more hours?

We've been debating this locally, I live in Arkansas after all. We would really like to know if the guy was senile. Was he trapped in the mental time machine of age and fighting some past fight.

In Arkansas, Pine Bluff is known as crimebluff... Majority black city with a failing economy since the paper mill/lumber collapsed and high drug, gang and crime rate. Consistently one of the most violent and dangerous small cities in America.

Parihaka
13 Nov 13,, 03:35
Not really militarization but nevertheless apropos
David Eckert sues Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office in New Mexico over invasive anal probe search (http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/david-eckert-sues-hidalgo-county-sheriffs-office-in-new-mexico-over-invasive-anal-probe-search)



The incident began January 2, 2013 after David Eckert finished shopping at the Wal-Mart in Deming. According to a federal lawsuit, Eckert didn't make a complete stop at a stop sign coming out of the parking lot and was immediately stopped by law enforcement.
Eckert's attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said in an interview with KOB that after law enforcement asked him to step out of the vehicle, he appeared to be clenching his buttocks. Law enforcement thought that was probable cause to suspect that Eckert was hiding narcotics in his anal cavity. While officers detained Eckert, they secured a search warrant from a judge that allowed for an anal cavity search.
The lawsuit claims that Deming Police tried taking Eckert to an emergency room in Deming, but a doctor there refused to perform the anal cavity search citing it was "unethical."
But physicians at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City agreed to perform the procedure and a few hours later, Eckert was admitted.
What Happened
While there, Eckert was subjected to repeated and humiliating forced medical procedures. A review of Eckert's medical records, which he released to KOB, and details in the lawsuit show the following happened:
1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
Throughout this ordeal, Eckert protested and never gave doctors at the Gila Regional Medical Center consent to perform any of these medical procedures.

zraver
13 Nov 13,, 03:45
Those cops and doctors should be brought up on sexual assault charges.

Also related, I busted a cop running a stop sign (sorry about the date, now fixed). Filed a complaint, the shift supervisor said he would be showing the clip at the next shift briefing. I was headed North, sun was setting to the west. had there been a bike coming the Bike would have been blind and cop may well have run him down. I still think cops that assume they are being watched are better cops.

cop runs stop sign - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Keb1L62TjYY)

chanjyj
13 Nov 13,, 03:47
The American LE scene is royally screwed up. They should have a look across the atlantic to the British cops sometimes. Not that the British system is perfect by any means (I believe all officers should be authorised to carry arms for one), but the attitudes the British cops have are vastly different. Was watching a show "Coppers" recently and that I think, epitomises the British cop.

tuna
13 Nov 13,, 16:25
The American LE scene is royally screwed up. They should have a look across the atlantic to the British cops sometimes. Not that the British system is perfect by any means (I believe all officers should be authorised to carry arms for one), but the attitudes the British cops have are vastly different. Was watching a show "Coppers" recently and that I think, epitomises the British cop.

I'm all for American cops to be disarmed. They keep using the lame excuses to prevent civilians from being able to defend themselves: "it'll only be taken away from you," "more likely to hurt an innocent", etc - when they themselves fall into those same categories. I think they're projecting thier own problems on the civilians. I'm all for making them apply for a weapon when there is a valid need - and a parking ticket doesn't count.

chanjyj
14 Nov 13,, 05:05
I'm all for American cops to be disarmed. They keep using the lame excuses to prevent civilians from being able to defend themselves: "it'll only be taken away from you," "more likely to hurt an innocent", etc - when they themselves fall into those same categories. I think they're projecting thier own problems on the civilians. I'm all for making them apply for a weapon when there is a valid need - and a parking ticket doesn't count.

Won't work. Criminal access to firearms is too large an issue to be feasible.