Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
I fail to see

Yes, again and again.

It remains simple. How one identifies a problem affects how one deals with it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The things SWAT does, or at least should be doing, seem like military operations to me. It therefore seems to me that the military could do them.

Here we run into the problem of posse comitatus, not to mention the differences in focus and operating under very different laws

Those are really the easiest, least problematic issues. The real issues of turning the military onto the populace are not abstract.

 Manchu wrote:
Those are really the easiest, least problematic issues. The real issues of turning the military onto the populace are not abstract.

I am aware that the army, in theory, could be set against the population. I would hope that it remains an academic rather than actual scenario

 Manchu wrote:
It remains simple. How one identifies a problem affects how one deals with it.

Something is illegal so the police pursue law enforcement, as is their charge. You can twist that any number of ways, but it's still what it is. No one can expect a police force to just drop an issue at a hat (and really they shouldn't). Until the laws change this is how things are going to go, at least to the extent that the police with equip themselves to enforce drug laws.

And even if we were to change our drug laws, I suspect we'll still have a problem with police and police officials being as close to human teflon as is possible in public office. Maybe in the case of the OP, someone will get a stern talking to, or maybe on the off chance the officer who threw the flashbang will be seriously punished, but the police tend to respond to these incidents with 'gak happens' which is true but it's not really an acceptable response. If the police bust down 1000 doors a year, sooner or later, they'll bust down the wrong one. That's law of probability. But doing nothing about it when it happens isn't the way things should be done. And they tend to range between doing nothing and doing next to nothing.

 LordofHats wrote:
the police pursue law enforcement

They can do it many different ways under many different assumptions. It's not just one thing always and everywhere under any conditions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I would hope that it remains an academic rather than actual scenario

I agree. One only needs to read the OP to see why paramilitary police are bad enough.

 Manchu wrote:
It's not just one thing always and everywhere under any conditions.

Given the broad nature of this discussion, yeah. if you're complaint is tantamount to "the police (were attempting to, rather) enforce a law" you're just barking up at thin air because the tree is all the way over there *points*

You can't really expect the police to just stop enforcing drug laws because its become a political mess. And again, this is how the police should operate as they themselves should not make those kinds of decisions. That's the point at which you've transitioned from a state with an (excessively) strong police force to a full police state.

 LordofHats wrote:
if you're complaint is tantamount to "the police enforced a law"

There is no way you, in good will, can read what I've been posting here and believe I am saying that.

 Manchu wrote:
There is no way you, in good will, can read what I've been posting here and believe I am saying that.

I'm speaking specifically to the war on drugs issue (broadly) in that statement. So long as drug laws and polices are as they are now, the police will continue to equip themselves to enforce those laws.

 LordofHats wrote:
So long as drug laws and polices are as they are now, the police will continue to equip themselves to enforce those laws.

Sure, I agree. The mindset comes out of the policies, along with the equipment and the training. As I have said from the beginning of this thread, when you are fighting a war, you become a soldier, and the people you are after become enemy combatants.

 Manchu wrote:
The mindset comes out of the policies, along with the equipment and the training. As I have said from the beginning of this thread, when you are fighting a war, you become a soldier, and the people you are after become enemy combatants.

This is pretty much the same nonsense argument moral guardians have been using against TV, video games, movies, music, etc. for decades (that arguement being that people are too stupid to distinguish anything remotely close to reality from obvious fiction). Of course, seeing this argument actually being used to try and argue reality, maybe the moral guardians were right all along...

Moral guardians? You are a bit off the rails. We aren't talking about fiction.

Anyway ...

The whole point of a uniform is to affect the way a person sees themselves and how others see them.

That is why any police officer wears a uniform. And if you want them to see themselves differently and see others differently then put them in some other uniform. That would be an example of how policy matters.

 Manchu wrote:
Moral guardians? You are a bit off the rails. We aren't talking about fiction.

Yeah it's surprising to me too. We both agreed the war on crime isn't a real war, and that the phrase is just symbolic, yet you go on to base an entire argument that hinges on the police being incapable of recognizing what you or I both see. That they somehow take that symbolic phrase seriously and just dressing up in body armor and carrying M4's makes them think they're real soldiers in a real war (and that this is a policy decision that really matters compared to the number of others involved that should be the real point of inquiry, inquiries you yourself have raised in this thread). It's quite off the rails.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree. One only needs to read the OP to see why paramilitary police are bad enough.

I'm from Northern Ireland. I lived those lessons and that reality

Brasil is also a good example of what military police used in civic roles can get up to. They have to be some of the most savage police I have seen used in a democracy.

Give a man immunity from the consequences of his actions then you give a man immunity to the morality of situations.

I wonder how many people need to be killed via no-knock warrants before the rest of us make it stop.

Apparently it'll have to be catastrophic because an infant getting blown up didn't do it.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be killed via no-knock warrants before the rest of us make it stop.

Perhaps if enough of the wrong people start getting killed.

EEssshhhh

I'm in no way shape or form advocating violence towards LEO Now if the LEO takes my coffee. We might have a disagreement

It seems in the US, criminals are actually nicer than the government.
No offense, but when hearing stories like this I sometimes am glad there is an ocean between us.
Why do you Americans accept this kind of government brutality?
Why do they send such heavily armed special units just to search for some drugs? Aren't those guys supposed to be just for hunting terrorists and other extremely dangerous criminals? And why does the police need so many heavily armoured vehicles? Isn't that what the National Guard would be for?
Maybe the Dutch should send some police trainers to the US
Dutch police can actually be nice. Sometimes.

Such police units and equipment, as well as SWAT raids often are isolated to specific areas, thus the majority of the population never sees them. In San Diego, in large swathes of the northern part of the city, the police can sometimes can be overzealous, but it's usually by sending two police cars to investigate a noise complaint because the Sheriff's deputies have literally nothing else to do or they just need to meet their ticket quota. You'll basically never see heavily armed police there in Suburbs and millions of middle class citizens never see these things, or if they do, it's a once-every-few-years major news story. Meanwhile, if you're further south, particularly if you're south and/or east of Downtown, you may see SWAT raids once a month. A lot of these things very much depend on where you live.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
It's a cliche, but it's true that when you have a hammer, all of your problems start looking like nails.

I believe that this is a good analogy. In some situations I would agree that the police response should be SWAT based (e.g. an active shooter), but in cases like this which concern a small amount of drugs and a no-knock warrant I don't see the need for such tactics

 Manchu wrote:
B-b-but druuuuugs!

Legalize, regulate, and tax them

Hahahahaha Sorry the Politicial side to me is laughing so bloody hard, no that would only increase crime

 Manchu wrote:
The things SWAT does, or at least should be doing, seem like military operations to me. It therefore seems to me that the military could do them.

Here we run into the problem of posse comitatus, not to mention the differences in focus and operating under very different laws

Personally the Police should be given laws they have to abide by, they have to follow the rules and serve their number role in society.
To be an Exemplary to Society,
To be pinnacle Citizen,
To Uphold the Law,
To Protect and Serve


This also goes to getting the right information.

You do not go to a house filled with children and start shooting up the place, you are two steps away from being a professional hit squad, you just happen to be wearing the uniform.
Lets say this was a delta operation, A Delta Squad was deployed and attacked a house because they believed they had possession of tactical information, even if they targets are childern of al queda members. Are they in the right? No they aren't, you can't go shooting up a place based on a whim.

Plus I think it is also the difference between trained military forces and the police, who are trained that fighting takes discipline, and that it is a duty.

Police are not trained to act be soldiers, they are meant to be peacekeepers, if they want to shoot guns and kill people (They are in the wrong [profession), this means keeping the peace, by being an exemplary citizen. Often times they fail at that. Most cops in the sururbs are known for being trigger happy, always pulling out big guns for small problems. There was a water gun fight next door, the police come because a senior citizen mistook the kids guns for real guns, to be safe, they brought automatic weapons. If the police dispatcher was smart they would of checked out the back ground and saw its an area not known for crime. She said children, not adults. I highly doubt that there are trained 10 year old with assault rifles living in the suburbs of Chicago.

Military units before they move in on a location they know is full of weapons is usually spied upon, usually the best time to attack someone is when they least expect it, but first you need to find out about the target. You know before you break in a throw a flash bang in.

All you have to do is do the following in this instance:
Knock on the Door
Say "We think someone on the premise is in possession of drugs or narcotics."
Because by this time after you have monitored the house, you would of seen they pose no threat. You don't go in and shoot first and ask questions later.

But anyway thats my two cents on the matter.

The situation is horrifying and stupid.

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's pretty simple. If we talk of war on crime, the implication is police are soldiers. And that makes civilians (including babies) enemy combatants.

And things like this aren't hard to fix. If states passed laws that required a warrant for violent entry, then police would be protected when they knew they were in genuine danger.

But allowing children to be injured to make things safer for police is putting the cart before the horse.

They have to geta special no knock warrant now. However, these are now notoriously easy to get.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Hahahahaha Sorry the Politicial side to me is laughing so bloody hard, no that would only increase crime

You mean like when Prohibition ended?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Hahahahaha Sorry the Politicial side to me is laughing so bloody hard, no that would only increase crime

You mean like when Prohibition ended?

No you cannot compare a substance that is made for narcotics compared to alcohol. Its own thing, its not as easy as just regulating it, taxing it and controlling it.

Because you will still have drug lords in mexico.
You will still have people who will avoid it.
If you put up a price even if it was cheap. People would avoid it.

Its not so simple. If it was we would of done it by now.

If we allow it to be legalized it will lead to more crime. Not less.

As this would only act as an incentive for the drug lords. The primary contributors. It will only add to the bloodshed in mexico.


But anyway on topic:

The police are stupid.

 Asherian Command wrote:


No you cannot compare a substance that is made for narcotics compared to alcohol. Its own thing, its not as easy as just regulating it, taxing it and controlling it.


Its not so simple. If it was we would of done it by now.

There are lots of vested interests in keeping the situations as is. law enforcement agencies and private prisons make gobs of money hand over fist in pursuit of the drug war and lobby very hard to keep it.

If we allow it to be legalized it will lead to more crime. Not less.

And yet such hasn't appeared to have happened in places where they've made them legal or cease enforcing the drug laws.

As this would only act as an incentive for the drug lords. The primary contributors. It will only add to the bloodshed in mexico.

if you legalized drugs in the US, the Cartels would be out of business in a week. It'd be the worst possible thing to happen to them. Los Zetas are fearsome indeed, but if they're having to compete with Phillip Morris? Forget it

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Hahahahaha Sorry the Politicial side to me is laughing so bloody hard, no that would only increase crime

You mean like when Prohibition ended?

No you cannot compare a substance that is made for narcotics compared to alcohol. Its own thing, its not as easy as just regulating it, taxing it and controlling it.

I'm unsure of what "substance that is made for narcotics" you're referring to. Alcohol and opiates have some surprising similarities. For one, there's not a lot of things you can actually die of withdrawal from, but Alcohol and opiates are both those.

Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/

As part of the American Civil Liberties Union’s recent report on police militarization, the Massachusetts chapter of the organization sent open records requests to SWAT teams across that state. It received an interesting response.

As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists.

Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests. Let’s be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state’s residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against.

Stop fear mongering us Whitey

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/

As part of the American Civil Liberties Union’s recent report on police militarization, the Massachusetts chapter of the organization sent open records requests to SWAT teams across that state. It received an interesting response.

As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. In 2012, for example, the Tewksbury Police Department paid about $4,600 in annual membership dues to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, or NEMLEC. (See page 36 of linked PDF.) That LEC has about 50 member agencies. In addition to operating a regional SWAT team, the LECs also facilitate technology and information sharing and oversee other specialized units, such as crime scene investigators and computer crime specialists.

Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests. Let’s be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state’s residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against.

That's actually an interesting stance to take.

Less you know what would draw attention for SWAT activation the more likely they (SWAT) succeed

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests.

Like the privatization of the prison system wasn't bad enough. Who wants to take bets on how long it'll be before we find some scandal where LEC's and prison contractors are shown to be conspiring to create criminals with the US Marshall's lying to judges about police investigations to ensure that the criminals end up convicts @_@

Sounds like "contracts"