Rise of the Warrior Cop
Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?.Article Comments (752) more in Life & Culture | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked inEmailPrintSave ↓ More .
.smaller Larger
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.
Enlarge Image
ClosePhoto illustration by Sean McCabe
.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.
Enlarge Image
CloseDaily Republic/Associated Press
Today the U.S. has thousands of SWAT teams. A team prepares to enter a house in Vallejo, Calif., on March 20, above.
.The Saturday Essay
Who Ruined the Humanities? (7/13/13)
The Middle-Class Revolution (6/29/13)
Why She Drinks: Women and Alcohol (6/22/13)
Think Inside the Box (6/15/13)
How America Lost Its Way (6/8/13)
A Message for the Class of 2013 (5/1/13)
Battle of the Beach (5/25/13)
.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 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.
Enlarge Image
CloseStandard-Examiner/Associated Press
When A strike force raided the home of Matthew David Stewart, one officer was killed.
.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.
Corrections & Amplifications
The Consumer Products Safety Commission does not have a SWAT team. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that it does.
Mr. Balko is the author of "Rise of the Warrior Cop," published this month by PublicAffairs.
248 out of 250 rounds missed?
Jeeze guys, I'm not even a gun nut but if our greatest freedom fighters can only hit less than 1% of the time aren't baseball bats better home defense?
I mean I figure with those odds and that level of expertise I really do need at least a 1000rnd belt and an mg42 to stop a single burgler
Grundz wrote: 248 out of 250 rounds missed?
Jeeze guys, I'm not even a gun nut but if our greatest freedom fighters can only hit less than 1% of the time aren't baseball bats better home defense?
I mean I figure with those odds and that level of expertise I really do need at least a 1000rnd belt and an mg42 to stop a single burgler
A bow and arrow maybe? A pile of rocks?
That's not really all that unusual. In a firefight, most of the shots fired will be fired to keep the target pinned. So a shot through a window every couple seconds to keep him from trying to take a shot.
A real home invasion isn't usually going to be a firefight.
That's not really all that unusual. In a firefight, most of the shots fired will be fired to keep the target pinned. So a shot through a window every couple seconds to keep him from trying to take a shot.
A real home invasion isn't usually going to be a firefight.
But without the day in day out training of this countries best of the best in the war against veterans who smoke pot, I'm thinking they'll need at least 2,000 rounds to hit me once, plenty of time to get that baseball bat working, rite?
Great.....combat vets possibly going to be treated as more dangerous.........Stewart has obviously been under fire before. All that damage with a 9mm.....all I got with mine was a large...very large, mouth full of fang, able to bench press possibly 900lbs and twirl it like a baton, mean, darn right ugly, sprint like a Greek Olympian Camel Spider...
I kind of feel sad for Mr. Stewart and his family.
I wonder what that "ex" had described what he was doing as i.e. scale and production and if she was dishonest in her description. If so they should charge her with wasting Police time, and causing the death of a Police Officer.
I wonder what that "ex" had described what he was doing as i.e. scale and production and if she was dishonest in her description. If so they should charge her with wasting Police time, and causing the death of a Police Officer.
What about causing his death? He probably would still be alive if she hadn't called the cops..
Medium of Death wrote: I guess because there is a more tangible connection to the death of the officer as it happened at the site she reported.
That would set a dangerous precedent. If anyone who calls the cops is potentially liable for their injuries it means less people will report crime.
What if it had been a neighbor instead of his Ex that called it in? they could just as easily have thought he was selling if they found out he was growing.
Yeah, I have to wonder what she told the cops. Were they expecting some large scale Mexican cartel operation run by Los Zetas or something? That is a problem law enforcement faces these days when they go to a drug house: is it full of people with lots of guns, or will it just be some random guys too stoned to even stand up?
The Problem is using SWAT teams to execute any kind of search warrant. I mean, does a guy with no known record, and only the word of his ex saying he is selling pot, justify a SWAT team? And honestly, I really wouldn't be surprised if they made minimal effort to knock and announce themselves before barging in guns blazing.
The mindset might be that LE agencies have to use their SWAT teams to justify their existence. So then you get cases like this where it doesn't seem warrented or the case a while back wherea whole block was shut down and an abandoned house cordoned off for hours by a swat team and no-one was even was even in the target house.
The Problem is using SWAT teams to execute any kind of search warrant. I mean, does a guy with no known record, and only the word of his ex saying he is selling pot, justify a SWAT team? And honestly, I really wouldn't be surprised if they made minimal effort to knock and announce themselves before barging in guns blazing.
The mindset might be that LE agencies have to use their SWAT teams to justify their existence. So then you get cases like this where it doesn't seem warrented or the case a while back wherea whole block was shut down and an abandoned house cordoned off for hours by a swat team and no-one was even was even in the target house.
Frazzled wrote: This is a real question, not a comment: how often do they run into a house full of people with guns?
I don't know, but the scary part about drug houses, particularly meth labs, is their tendency to have highly explosive chemicals lying around all over the place. I know that most raids on marijuana grow houses require protective breathing gear because the atmosphere is often poisoned with molds and such. I think a lot of cops hear the scary stories out of Mexico, and are just afraid that the next house they go to will be like that.
Nothing more "do or die" then a apartment/house clearing fire fight....but then the chances of the "culprit" on the US having automatic's really slim.....unless we're hitting a drag cartel gang....especially one drug cartel gang made up of former SF members of the Mexican gov't....who's been trained by our SF guys....
SWAT needs retraining...serious retraining...like the last one we had on here....where the pudgy one fell at the door entrance that commenced a fire fight
Another tragic example of why using military tactics and equipments to serve warrants and arrest petty criminals is wrong. You blind and deafen a person with a flashbang and then try to justify in front of the judge that they were not following your orders and that you had to open fire.
I've been following this trend in the US police forces with an increasing sense of dread and worry. As the old joke goes when you only have a hammer...
Unless heavily contested in front of the courts at every "horrible mistake" as the police PRs later say, the use of SWAT teams for common police work and the resulting divide between those that are supposed to protect and serve and the rest of the country can only increase.
IMO only by making commanding officers and judges that allow that kind of heavy handed tactics personnaly responsible in the following Civil suits for their grave mistakes can the use of SWAT teams for everything be curtailed. Perhaps if their personal assets are on the line instead of the city/county/state's, will they think twice if the use of a SWAT team is needed.
Jihadin wrote: Nothing more "do or die" then a apartment/house clearing fire fight....but then the chances of the "culprit" on the US having automatic's really slim.....unless we're hitting a drag cartel gang....especially one drug cartel gang made up of former SF members of the Mexican gov't....who's been trained by our SF guys....
SWAT needs retraining...serious retraining...like the last one we had on here....where the pudgy one fell at the door entrance that commenced a fire fight
Nothing like getting grenades bouncing down the stairwell from above, eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: Hearts and minds rather than bullets and mines.
You win far more with the community on your side than you do when they are against you.
This incident, over a child custody dispute, could have gone horribly wrong. I don't know how many here remember it, but whoever decided to send in SWAT had their head firmly encased up their butt. Then again, it was Reno, the genius behind Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The picture says a lot:
When I was still crewing blackhawks......back in the days.....Young Uncle Specialist Wilki...we had a smoke grenade go off inside our aircraft from one of the grunts we picked up to do a air assault raid....last thing you want to hear...
"Redhawk 3...you have smoke coming out your aircraft" from a tailing aircraft behind you. Grunt got it off his vest and they tried to kick it out the door but slide behind the last row of seats.....up against the wall....the wall that has a fuel bladder behind it......
Dont tell the rest of that story unless it involves you jumping out of a flaming helicoptor just in time for the explosion..... id like for me to keep that image of you in my mind whenever i see you post
I guess the answer is that there is a heck of alot of stuff at NASA that you wouldn't be too happy if a terrorist (or forign agent) got their hands on.
Somedude593 wrote: Dont tell the rest of that story unless it involves you jumping out of a flaming helicoptor just in time for the explosion..... id like for me to keep that image of you in my mind whenever i see you post
d-usa wrote: Tread the police like military and they will start to think that they don't work for the people but that the people are the enemy.
Commander William Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
Grundz wrote: 248 out of 250 rounds missed?
Jeeze guys, I'm not even a gun nut but if our greatest freedom fighters can only hit less than 1% of the time aren't baseball bats better home defense?
I mean I figure with those odds and that level of expertise I really do need at least a 1000rnd belt and an mg42 to stop a single burgler
A bow and arrow maybe? A pile of rocks?
The home owner did OK though - he hit 7/31 while being hosed.
Frazzled wrote: Vets coming home are not the problem. We've had that for over 200 years.
Police being equipped and taught to act like an occupation force is the problem.
Where do you think they learned how to act that way??
Not there. It defies logic. We've had plenty of cops from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc. etc.
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan was significantly different from any of those. First, there wasn't much of an occupation after WW1. After WW2 the occupation was much more "friendly", in Korea, we never occupied the North, only the South which owed us one for saving their asses (and thus were pretty friendly). Vietnam is where things started to change in terms of occupation, and wouldn't you know it thats where things started to change in the police force too (moreso slightly afterwards once the vets came back and took their "civilian" jobs. It also doesn't help that in Iraq and Afghanistan, ACTUAL police officers from American towns and cities volunteered to go over there to both augment American forces who were short on MPs, etc. and to help train Afghan and Iraqi forces. They clearly picked something up and brought it back with them....
All I can add to this conversation is that I'm quite good friends with a guy who happens to be on the SRT (Special Response Team, like the Idaho Sheriff Dpt's version of a SWAT) and he seems to be as professional and competent of a guy as I've ever met. Regular patron of the arms range (I can outshoot him but only with a .45 1911, rifles or any other pistol he walks all over me) and from all accounts he gives me their training is reasonably comparable with Army infantry in scope, if not in consistency (they do use the Army physical assessment test, not that that really proves anything particular about job performance).
When people ask about how much force is necessary and how careful people need to be I'm just reminded of a police dashboard camera I saw once. An officer pulls a guy over for speeding, walks up to the car, and the driver just sticks a TEC-9 out the window and empties the magazine into the guy. I know it's an extreme example, but so is a lot of what people quote when they make claims of police brutality/police state.
Also, I just want to draw mention to the stupidest thing I have ever seen. It's not necessarily on topic but I think some people will get a kick out of it. It's called the "occupy vest". it's a padded vest (to cushion against beanbag rounds) that comes with a respirator to filter tear gas and a built in wire weave to short out tasers and stop them from stunning you. What exactly do you plan on doing with that equipment? You realize that means the only thing the police can do to stop you is a fire hose or lethal force right?
2. Yes, police occasionally get in shootouts with guys in cars. That doesn't pertain to SWAT assault entries for routine arrests or disturbances.
Sure it does.
If someone is going to pull a gun and shoot a cop for a moving violation, how unbelievable is it that someone would pull a gun and fire at police during an arrest? Or when police arrive at a domestic disturbance?
I'll address #2 in particular. The police officer in my example who got shot probably expected he was showing up for a "routine arrest" as well, right about the time that the driver stuck a submachine gun out the window at him. This wasn't a shootout, it was a seemingly completely normal speeding ticket that turned into the death of a police officer.
Obviously there has to be a balance between excessive force and proper preparation for the worst things can be (which can get very very bad indeed, very quickly). I guess I'd be a dictator's dream citizen, because when it comes to things like this I generally prefer excessive force over unnecessary risk to law enforcement.
2. Yes, police occasionally get in shootouts with guys in cars. That doesn't pertain to SWAT assault entries for routine arrests or disturbances.
Sure it does.
If someone is going to pull a gun and shoot a cop for a moving violation, how unbelievable is it that someone would pull a gun and fire at police during an arrest? Or when police arrive at a domestic disturbance?
And? Thats been a potential issue since 1903. SWAT didn't get the major kickstart until the War on Drugs. No knock raids were started to try to prevent people from flushing drugs down the toilet, not a need for safety.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dementedwombat wrote: I'll address #2 in particular. The police officer in my example who got shot probably expected he was showing up for a "routine arrest" as well, right about the time that the driver stuck a submachine gun out the window at him. This wasn't a shootout, it was a seemingly completely normal speeding ticket that turned into the death of a police officer.
Obviously there has to be a balance between excessive force and proper preparation for the worst things can be (which can get very very bad indeed, very quickly). I guess I'd be a dictator's dream citizen, because when it comes to things like this I generally prefer excessive force over unnecessary risk to law enforcement.
Agreed, you would be a dictator's dream citizen. Of course that breeds resentment and people viewing police as occupiers and acting accordingly. I've seen that game show already in East LA. no thanks.
dementedwombat wrote: I'll address #2 in particular. The police officer in my example who got shot probably expected he was showing up for a "routine arrest" as well, right about the time that the driver stuck a submachine gun out the window at him. This wasn't a shootout, it was a seemingly completely normal speeding ticket that turned into the death of a police officer.
Obviously there has to be a balance between excessive force and proper preparation for the worst things can be (which can get very very bad indeed, very quickly). I guess I'd be a dictator's dream citizen, because when it comes to things like this I generally prefer excessive force over unnecessary risk to law enforcement.
Then again, you have examples like Ruby Ridge where a woman holding a baby is shot at range by a sniper who had a clear view and knowledge of what he was shooting.
The LEO that goes over to train their LEO's do not go out on operations. Nor conduct typical LEO functions over there in public. No idea what they might have picked up besides what they hear in the DFAC....
Relapse wrote: Then again, you have examples like Ruby Ridge where a woman holding a baby is shot at range by a sniper who had a clear view and knowledge of what he was shooting.
I'd disagree with this retelling of the events of that morning (specifically my bolding), while agreeing in principle that Lon Horiuchi is a murderer who escaped justice on a manslaughter charge.
Relapse wrote: Then again, you have examples like Ruby Ridge where a woman holding a baby is shot at range by a sniper who had a clear view and knowledge of what he was shooting.
I'd disagree with this retelling of the events of that morning (specifically my bolding), while agreeing in principle that Lon Horiuchi is a murderer who escaped justice on a manslaughter charge.
That whole deal was jacked from the word go when they started shooting dogs.
Janet Reno had a couple or more of these events where innocent people got killed. The whole Gonzolaz affair was a poorly handled, needless use of special units and could have easily been another Ruby Ridge or Waco.
Something like what Ouze and Relapse mention happens in the military. Those individual(s) will either be charged or go through grinder of an investigation.
Personally I've never found actual military veterans to be bad LEOs.
I have found however a whole metric crap ton of civilians who try and overcompensate by pretending they were in the military by attempting to imitate what they think being in the military was like.
That usually ends in making real vets look bad. Just like when some crazy person goes nuts, and the press finds out he was ex-mil. OMG!?!?! It must have been the military that made him like that.
Janet Reno had a couple or more of these events where innocent people got killed. The whole Gonzolaz affair was a poorly handled, needless use of special units and could have easily been another Ruby Ridge or Waco.
[emphasis mine]
You mean where SWAT equivalents from the ATF attempted a raid and were repulsed by military grade automatic weapons leading to the needless deaths of 4 agents? I don't think that's the example you want to be using (since in my mind that incident was the result of insufficient force, rather than inappropriate use of overwhelming force). I won't argue about the other incident though.
Janet Reno had a couple or more of these events where innocent people got killed. The whole Gonzolaz affair was a poorly handled, needless use of special units and could have easily been another Ruby Ridge or Waco.
[emphasis mine]
You mean where SWAT equivalents from the ATF attempted a raid and were repulsed by military grade automatic weapons leading to the needless deaths of 4 agents? I don't think that's the example you want to be using (since in my mind that incident was
the result of insufficient force, rather than inappropriate use of overwhelming force). I won't argue about the other incident though.
Don't forget all the kids at Waco that got burned to death and suffocated as a result of ATF activity there. The kicker there whas that some in the government was proposing a memorial statue of an ATF agent hand in hand with a couple of kids. Needless to say, that idea didn't go far.
There is a story I wanted to link here but wound up not. It was a few days before this one got posted, and in fact excerpts the same book. If you're intertested in the premise of thise thread, you might like to read the article. You can find it here. I found it to be a fascinating read, but a very long one.
If anyone believes that any one human being needs 18 plants to self-medicate, they're kidding themselves. He was obviously selling it, one mature plant can yield several _pounds_ of weed, which would take one person years to consume on their own if it were for medicinal use. If it were a single plant, or even two, I'd believe it.
I'm sure the authorities will know this though and raise it in court, it's just writing attempting to make THE EVIL DUMB UNEDUCATED OVERPOWERED COPS LOOK BAD. Keep in mind these same idiot writers and editors would dial 9-1-1 so fast they'd get fething phone burn if they ever ran into trouble.
Dang....I just google fu "How many SWAT raids are conducted on vets.....I seriously think I need to put a sign on my door saying I am Vet. Please yell loudly announcing who you are since I'm a bit death due to combat actions......seriously though....they trying to justify SWAT existence by having them serve on misdeameaner(sp) and other enforcement of Law not concerning them.....what a waste of money....
Seems a good organization forming to get a handle of the to motivated and dedicated LEO's from screwing the Hell up
Ouze wrote: Well, we're getting pretty afield of the OP now.
There is a story I wanted to link here but wound up not. It was a few days before this one got posted, and in fact excerpts the same book. If you're intertested in the premise of thise thread, you might like to read the article. You can find it here. I found it to be a fascinating read, but a very long one.
Wow, just wow. I'm going to explore this a bit more, thanks, Ouze.
Ouze wrote:Well, we're getting pretty afield of the OP now.
There is a story I wanted to link here but wound up not. It was a few days before this one got posted, and in fact excerpts the same book. If you're intertested in the premise of thise thread, you might like to read the article. You can find it here. I found it to be a fascinating read, but a very long one.
Yeah, I caught that a few days back, too. I honestly lament for the rare individuals who seem to appreciate the idea that crimes are solved with one's mind, and not with one's firearms.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: If anyone believes that any one human being needs 18 plants to self-medicate, they're kidding themselves. He was obviously selling it, one mature plant can yield several _pounds_ of weed, which would take one person years to consume on their own if it were for medicinal use. If it were a single plant, or even two, I'd believe it.
I'm sure the authorities will know this though and raise it in court, it's just writing attempting to make THE EVIL DUMB UNEDUCATED OVERPOWERED COPS LOOK BAD. Keep in mind these same idiot writers and editors would dial 9-1-1 so fast they'd get fething phone burn if they ever ran into trouble.
Yup, thats a major problem. People having not enough plants to be arrested right then and there for intent to sell, but far far too many for personal use.
Then there's the fethers that get all their friends medical licenses and then grow a hundred or so plants "together".
If we are going to legalize weed, it should be no more than one or 2 plants per household. And anyone caught with more than that number of plants gets sacked for the whole 9 yards, and has their medical license suspended.
Plus we need to stop handing out medical licenses like they're candy. No, a little arthritic pain or headaches are not good reasons. You need to have had other painkillers prove ineffective and be in a massive amount of pain.
Ouze wrote:Well, we're getting pretty afield of the OP now.
There is a story I wanted to link here but wound up not. It was a few days before this one got posted, and in fact excerpts the same book. If you're intertested in the premise of thise thread, you might like to read the article. You can find it here. I found it to be a fascinating read, but a very long one.
Yeah, I caught that a few days back, too. I honestly lament for the rare individuals who seem to appreciate the idea that crimes are solved with one's mind, and not with one's firearms.
Blame the fact that the populace at large presents agencies do not want justice, but rather vengeance.
Blame the fact that police departments are by and large underfunded, or with departmental priorities being funneled towards 'show of force' methods like decking out SWAT teams in full digital camo and nonsense policies like cracking down on marijuana sales.
Blame the fact that most police departments now are operating on the same kind of basis that sales reps at department stores are, where numbers of 'customers served' are the means by which the department judges their officers.
Actually.... I blame the federal government, although there are many villains. In this particular case after 9/11 the feds were throwing money at local law enforcement left and right which led, of course, to nonsense like sheriff's offices buying APC's; as if they were touring Afghanistan instead of Phoenix.
You all be safer if they let the Marines and Army conducted SWAT operation.....better ingrained training, less expenditure of bulltets, 110% positive we will announce ourselves...we do love to hear the sound of our voice. We have better body armor because we actually trust our battle armor....gives the chucklehead more time to recognize and crap his pants when he see's us.....besides we also throw flashbangs through the windows to. We want info not a body...incapacitate and alive perp yields better intell
LEO "Hey we have a APC you can use."
NCOIC "Pfftt keep that PoS. We got this and we're adverse to screwing the pooch"
Mind you if its a value target...the first three trigger pullers has Mossberg's loaded with beanbags.
I read these articles about the "militarization of police" "paramilitary police force" and now the new catch phrase "Warrior Cop" and I wonder where have the authors been for the past 25ish years.
I think it was back in 89 that Nancy Reagan was on site at a raid on a crack house, complete with SWAT (and APC if memory serves correct, think they had to ram the gate). There was the former first lady of the United States on the frontlines watching about a dozen or so addicts get raided and manhandled over a gram of cocaine. Media was called in ahead of time, then delayed when the addicts dealer was a no show, then the op was handled with Nancy Reagan in a mobile command center near the crack house. Addicts arrested...
Basically a staged show of force for 'Just Say No' Nancy to stay relevant after Ronald finished off his terms and for the police commisioner who oversaw the op to score points politically. These needless and overwhelmingly forceful raids on the victims of the "Drug War" and other non threatening perps have been going on for decades. They are used to justify budgets (use the training/equipment/funding or lose it) as political tools (I need voters to see I'm tough on crime, call the Comish and get me a photo op) and as poor substitutes to real police work.
Not to take away from any of the tragedies of the SWAT raids that are linked or being discussed in this thread, but the first time I personally saw any mention in the media of "police militarization" was when that iconic photo during those Occupy movements started. That one where the fat cop in full on riot control armor was nonchalantly pepper spraying those student protesters. He became a meme, I think. Once pictures of white kids being the victims of "excessive force" (pepper spray!?) by a dude in SWAT regalia did these op-eds and "investigative reports" about police militarization start to show up.
Fact is, that although its good that this discussion is taking place, and reforms need to happen, it didn't start until middle class America got just a small slice of the policing thats been going on in low income, high crime areas for decades.
Edit: Sorry for the rant and I'm not sure what my point was, I just get annoyed when people think this is a new phenomena in modern American policing.
NELS1031 wrote: Fact is, that although its good that this discussion is taking place, and reforms need to happen, it didn't start until middle class America got just a small slice of the policing thats been going on in low income, high crime areas for decades.
Well, of course. Ultimately policing, and how it's run, is a political concern, and low income people simply don't matter politically, outside of token lip service.
And although you moved the bar back to the Reagan era, I think it might more accurately be moved back a few notches to the Nixon era, when the "war on drugs" started. It's certainly escalated more swiftly under certain administrations, but I think that's where it probably has it's strongest roots.
But by either definition I'd say this is indeed a recent trend, depending on how flexible you are with "recent".
Hopefully we can push back on this as a society before it starts to merge more tightly with it's natural allly - the for-profit prison industry - and becomes a full blown complex. Once you get one of those, they don't really go away.
Its funny you mention going back to Nixon, as I ranted about that the last time we had a thread about this same subject a few months back.
I thought about just copy pasting what I said last time.
It really shouldn't be too complicated to understand this. In a society that's awash with guns, the police are going to become increasingly nervous about executing warrants. You can make all the noise you want about cops having combat envy or whatever, but you can't get away from the fact that policeman are people, and like everyone else they try to avoid dying. And that means taking as much force and protection with them as possible when enteriny a potentially dangerous situation.
And yeah, when the cops entering with force and brandishing guns, and the people in the house might have guns of their own... well you're going to get more deaths.
You want to fix that problem... well complaining about the cops having more guns makes little sense, and any momentum you get towards that end will crap out the next time a couple of beat cops are shot entering a house.
You want to actually solve it? Well reduce the amount of guns out there, or just accept this is the price you pay for them.
Frazzled wrote: Not there. It defies logic. We've had plenty of cops from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc. etc.
If you don't understand the impact of vets coming home from war and joining the police force, you should read about LA in the 40s and 50s. The effect there was generally positive, by the way - some undesirables got their civil rights good and properly trampled, but for a long time LA avoided the organised crime that plagued other cities like Chicago or New York. But it's basically an unavoidable reality that blokes used to acting in the pragmatic, direct way of the army enter the police and do it quite differently to folk entering the profession from a civilian background.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: And? Thats been a potential issue since 1903. SWAT didn't get the major kickstart until the War on Drugs. No knock raids were started to try to prevent people from flushing drugs down the toilet, not a need for safety.
When thompson machine guns became somewhat common among criminals, the response of the FBI and police units in high crime cities was to get thompsons of their own, and ensure their officers knew how to use them. The arms race between police and the general population is not a new thing.
And you seem unaware that there was a long term trend up in police deaths on the job. It pretty massively changed how policing operated over the course of a few decades, until that casualty rate leveled off and finally declined. And the legacy of that is that police just don't put themselves in anywhere near as many potentially vulnerable positions as they used to, including using SWAT tactics when executing warrants that have just a small chance of going ugly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: You all be safer if they let the Marines and Army conducted SWAT operation.....better ingrained training, less expenditure of bulltets, 110% positive we will announce ourselves...we do love to hear the sound of our voice. We have better body armor because we actually trust our battle armor....gives the chucklehead more time to recognize and crap his pants when he see's us.....besides we also throw flashbangs through the windows to. We want info not a body...incapacitate and alive perp yields better intell
Is that why the Marines and Army never, ever kill innocent people accidentally?
The puppycide aspect of the article I think is what hits home for me that full tacticool geared LEOs are treating this stuff like it's a battlefield. Particularly the lack of training being done by officers.
I mean the local leos in my town seem nice, they hang out at their community locations. We've divided my city into 4 areas in which there are 2 cops in these storefronts in an effort to increase trust between officers and residents. One is a bike officer and the other in a cruiser. And they seem like chill people and I have interacted with them before (they pulled my mom's car over while we were house hunting several years ago, as someone thought we were casing places to rob ).
Jihadin wrote: 500lbs laser guided missile doesn't leave much evidence...we pretty much set back and watch the A10 have fun
Well I guess as long as the A-10 pilot shouts 'we're serving a warrant on behalf of the police' and the first cannon round hits the house's door and therefore counts and knocking it should be all good
Actually we just laser tag the door and the bomb/missile can go right through...as long as we announce ourselves through the bull horn.....lets not forget....I will have my water cannon nearby....fire and irate home owner
rubiksnoob wrote: I don't know about warrior cops, but I do know about Axe Cop!
I could never get into Axe Cop because I felt that it was written by an 8 yr old, and then someone told me it in fact was partially written by an 8 yr old*.
* - For those that don't know, Axe Cop's ideas and stores are hashed out by 8 yr old Malachai Nicolle, and are then translated into comic form by his older brother Ethan (who is already in the comic industry).
The 12 officers were acting on a tip from Mr. Stewart's former girlfriend, who said that he was growing marijuana in his basement.
Women
Police,
specifically gun nut trigger happy American police.
Those idiot police were so proud of themselves of their shooting spree and the 300 ish rounds they let off they spilled the source of the bust..... of drug dealers... who get involved in shoot outs
First thing I noticed in this thread, But Frazzies happy with new improved 'warrior cops' so, all its OK then.
The above was after reading page one.
Reading on we come to this gem:
d-usa wrote: It's nice when the cops even advertise that they are becoming your friendly neighborhood Warriors:
to nonsense like sheriff's offices buying APC's; as if they were touring Afghanistan instead of Phoenix
Scary stuff, we've seen a lot of crazy over here in Ireland with regards to the North etc but (no offense to the US), from a general viewpoint that is another level.
Post 9/11 fear/reactions have gotten (imho) absolutely disproportionate to the US homeland real threats or "what might happen!".
The US has a lot to offer but this does not constitute it :(
Comrade
Post Wed, 24/Jul/2013 03:08:25 AM Subject: Rise of the Warrior Cop
Personally I've never found actual military veterans to be bad LEOs.
I have found however a whole metric crap ton of civilians who try and overcompensate by pretending they were in the military by attempting to imitate what they think being in the military was like.
d-usa wrote: It's nice when the cops even advertise that they are becoming your friendly neighborhood Warriors:
Damn. That kinda shows how they see themselves, huh? Or at least how whoever OK'ed that advertising campaign sees the police.
Don't they know that police and troops that hide their faces in movies always end up as bad guys getting shot?
If it hasn't been pointed out yet, the above advertisement may have been created as a way to reassure people that the state is more powerful, and thus more likely to be able to protect you from those who believe the "snitches get stitches" and "don't be witnessing" lines.
Because the involvement of the community, even as witnesses, is integral to LEOs. LEOs cannot hope to have any effect on crime in a court of law if nobody talks (hence the drive behind the aforementioned phrases).
So while the advertisement may be misguided in that it assumes everyone views that sight as a friendly and reassuring scene, there is a chance that the intention is to comfort those who perceive themselves to be on the 'right' side of the law; hence the show of force and the tagline "we've got your back".
I attribute it to the same cultural forces that brought on the rise of tacticool. I suspect it's a combination of 'combat envy' and the glorification of snake-eating secret squirrels in pop culture over the past decade.
As much as I want to really comment on the advertisement on the side of the bus....want to point out that on military combat ops we do not wear masks for a reason. Just want to point that out. but I will admit depend on the situation on dealing with insurgents we do don Kevlar sleeves and mask along with ballistic Oakly's. because being blinding by wood chips....or mud chips along with frag grenades....I've enough scars on my body....better then tat's lol
Oh where to start. This whole article borders on the ridiculous. The news media hates cops. Period. The guy grabbed a gun and opened fire on the cops. Cops are the bad guys. This is the story this article is trying to sell? Seriously? If they get information of some sort of drug growing operation, they aren't going to send a patrol out. SWAT is activated because it is above what a patrol officer is expected to handle. This could be suicide threats with hostages to drug busts.
Next is the fantastic anti-equipment brigade argument. What defines military hardware? The article claims that cops have been gearing up since the 60s, but...
These are late 1920s cops with tommy guns. This was considered top of the line of the time. This was to keep up with the growing gang element of the time. Does the presence of submachine guns make these cops military? The article makes common poorly conceived arguments such as equipment level and the desire to go home alive as a bad thing. You want to officers to be able to do their job as safe as possible, you're going to have to give them equipment. If you want to blame officers getting assault rifles, blame these guys:
Police need a way to quickly and effectively deal with these threats. They can't wait for the swat team to assemble. To ask the police to go in with inferior equipment and tell them that it's their job to do so, is near asking them to go get themselves killed. We don't ask soldiers to fight with pistols and clubs because we want them to come home, why are we asking police to deal with threats like these with a "What's all this then?"
And seriously the article says, "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." Does this author want the officers to get the crap beaten out of them by every drunk, tweaker and idiot? Or does he just want them to die for their community? I honestly can't tell. He believes that swat teams shouldn't be part of vice because obviously the guys dealing drugs don't carry guns and hang out with other guys with guns amirite? This man has no idea what he is talking about and has bought into or is rabidly selling the bs the news media driven idea that cops are bad and are trying to kill you.
Anyway, being heavily armed goes all the way back to the 20s and the Tompson.
The US has a lot of organized crime. Now its different from what it was back then, but no less of a threat.
And if anything, going from Tommy guns to AR-15s is a bit of a downgrade. You want to totally destroy something very quickly, get a Tommy. It shoots big rounds and lots of em.
Frazzled wrote: Vets coming home are not the problem. We've had that for over 200 years.
Police being equipped and taught to act like an occupation force is the problem.
Where do you think they learned how to act that way??
Not there. It defies logic. We've had plenty of cops from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc. etc.
There was a documentary 5-6 years ago that correlated returning Vietnam vets joining up with a distinct shift in the way US police departments acted and perceived their role, referring to the public as "civilians" instead of "citizens" etc.
Frazzled wrote: If you think this started because of North Hollywood I have a bridge to sell you.
SWAT teams were storming houses for drugs in the early 80s.
That has now spread to storming houses for a whole slew of minor potential offenses.
And as I already explained to you, and Surtur also pointed out, with a picture and everything, the arms race between cops and criminals has been going on since bank robbers got their hands on tommy guns, and police realised that unless they wanted to operate at a disavantage they'd better get some tommy guns of their own.
This idea you keep insisting on, that this all some new thing that started in the 80s just makes no sense at all.
And really, this shouldn't be that hard a thing to understand. When they are faced with potentially life threatening situations, police are going to ensure they have the numbers and the hardware to control whatever may eventuate. And its a point that is made even more clear by the rising trend in police deaths on duty through much of the 20th century. Now, we can add that cultural factors, and the legacy of that now declining rate of police deaths on duty cause police units to overestimate the risks, leading to the use of more SWAT style entries than is needed, but that's arguing on the margins, not with the policy as a whole.
But instead we get all this nonsense about cops being envious of soldiers and all this other junk. Because it's easier to just type a sentence and write off a whole profession than it is to actually think about the issue.
Frazzled wrote: but hey they had dress wearing Hoover. Much safer.
Clearly the answer is to give SWAT teams dresses and tommy guns. This will have the double effect of police being reluctant to use SWAT because they don't want to have to put on woman's dresses, while ensuring SWAT still remains a powerful deterrent, because no-one wants to be shot by a guy in a woman's dress. Well, most people don't, anyway.
For me the problem is not that police departments have military-level hardware and tactics available for them to use. They should have all the tools available to them that they need to do their job safely and efficiently.
My problem with the "militarization" of the police has to do with the everyday tactics.
Officers doing community policing (patrols, traffic, community events) while looking like soldiers that are occupying a country instead of looking like police officers in their community.
The use of SWAT teams for minor warrants and use of no-knock entries and subsequent use-of-force when homeowners think they are being robbed.
Using equipment because you have it instead of because you need it.
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.
Huge difference between what LEO do everyday on their "tactics" compare what the US Army/Marines do on their "tactics". We train constantly to avoid a "Goat Rope" situation but we do have the facilities and budget to conduct those training operations every quarter (four months) At least a four days constant training before we do a "Live Fire" training operation. Unlike LEO who meet do similar training once every six month or less. More time on the gun range then on a training facility. Since we're a bit focus on SWAT with the US military with the most training and "combat" experience in clearing a building they need to fund SWAT to go either a Marine or US army installation and get current. Vast majority of us will take a bullet (trusty body armor) then shoot a non combatant. For fear of UCMJ and Battalion and Brigade SMAJ getting a hold of you. Always put the inexperience to rear of the "stack"....also make sure which way the damn door opens (hinges) to. One time...just that one time....didn't notice the hinges outside of the door...and I'm trying to kick it in...
edit 2
Mainly what we can call upon....
Do not watch if your faint hearted...weak will....love puppies and kittens.....do not like hard rock n roll....or just don't plain like the the US military Real life combat footage of air strikes....some fire fights...Gen Mattis not kidding when he says its fun to shoot people......its a challenge
d-usa wrote: For me the problem is not that police departments have military-level hardware and tactics available for them to use. They should have all the tools available to them that they need to do their job safely and efficiently.
My problem with the "militarization" of the police has to do with the everyday tactics.
Yeah, and I think that's a fair complaint, and one I did mention in my own posts (my comment on culture and the legacy of the now in decline rate of deaths of police on duty), leading to excessive use of SWAT style tactics. But that's an issue of agency risk - the policeman doing what he can to minimise his own risk, while accepting that someone else pays for the cost of all those extra resources, and the extra risk of a SWAT raid gone wrong is mostly suffered by the home owner.
Exactly how to counter-act that is an intersting question. Oversight of police use of resources, a judicial panel or some other that reviews police use of SWAT resources or something like that?
I'm not sure. But I do know that all the talk of police having army envy and other such nonsense just gets in the way of sensible discussion of the issue.
sebster wrote: I'm not sure. But I do know that all the talk of police having army envy and other such nonsense just gets in the way of sensible discussion of the issue.
Lots of things are real, but entirely useless, and even counter-productive to sensible conversation.
I mean, sure, there's probably a few guys out there who just love getting in to their SWAT gear and looking all tacticool, but as an explanation of the rise of SWAT style police operations it's a fething stupid answer, and its constant repitition makes proper discussion of the causes harder, which in turn makes discussion of actual, sensible conclusions near impossible.
sebster wrote: Lots of things are real, but entirely useless, and even counter-productive to sensible conversation.
I mean, sure, there's probably a few guys out there who just love getting in to their SWAT gear and looking all tacticool, but as an explanation of the rise of SWAT style police operations it's a fething stupid answer, and its constant repitition makes proper discussion of the causes harder, which in turn makes discussion of actual, sensible conclusions near impossible.
Quite a few.
Nobody's talking about the rise of SWAT-style police operations, because that began decades ago. We're discussing why SWAT teams are springing up in places they have no business being, and being utilized for tasks they have no business doing.
Seaward wrote: Not in the ones attributing the current over/misuse to combat envy.
Nope, not even a little true.
“Combat envy...just combat envy”
“A bunch of walts who have played too much CoD.”
“I have found however a whole metric crap ton of civilians who try and overcompensate by pretending they were in the military by attempting to imitate what they think being in the military was like.”
You can go and find each of those quotes in this thread. And if you read them, and read the conversation surrounding them you'll find exactly zero conversation about SWAT teams popping up in unnecessary places.
d-usa wrote: For me the problem is not that police departments have military-level hardware and tactics available for them to use. They should have all the tools available to them that they need to do their job safely and efficiently.
My problem with the "militarization" of the police has to do with the everyday tactics.
Officers doing community policing (patrols, traffic, community events) while looking like soldiers that are occupying a country instead of looking like police officers in their community.
The use of SWAT teams for minor warrants and use of no-knock entries and subsequent use-of-force when homeowners think they are being robbed.
Using equipment because you have it instead of because you need it.
Things like that.
Exactly that. I don't mind SWAT team stuff for dangerous situations. But you don't do kickins/bezerko to serve student loan arrest documents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
I'm not sure. But I do know that all the talk of police having army envy and other such nonsense just gets in the way of sensible discussion of the issue.
Why? What knowledge do you actually have of police in the US again? how many interactions do you have with them on a daily basis?
Two weeks ago, Schulze was working in the barn at the Society of St. Francis on the Kenosha-Illinois border when a swarm of squad cars arrived and officers unloaded with a search warrant.
"(There were) nine DNR agents and four deputy sheriffs, and they were all armed to the teeth," Schulze said.
Could you have made a phone call before showing up, I mean, that's a lot of resources," WISN 12 News investigative reporter Colleen Henry asked.
"If a sheriff's department is going in to do a search warrant on a drug bust, they don't call them and ask them to voluntarily surrender their marijuana or whatever drug that they have before they show up," Niemeyer said,
Frazzled wrote: Mmm...wife worked for PD. I have friends in PD. You have...
Actual fething knowledge of the history of how this came to be. Which is what actually matters.
Now, I'm not dismissing the value of knowing someone with direct experience, but when you're oblivious to the history of policing as you appear to be given your comments in this thread, then there really can't be too much stock put in your ability to place those insights given to you in their proper context.
Which is why you've missed entirely the importance of rising police deaths on duty in driving much of this.
But hey, you live there, and that's way more important.
I found it odd the other day when the local SWAT team showed up at the apartment building down the road. My town has 25K people in it, do we really need our own SWAT team? I guess that extra Homeland Security Money had to be used somehow.
The local paper referred to the incident in the Police Blotter. Possible Drug Activity, 1 suspect arrested.
... 
