This was the result of a no-knock warrant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant, which allows police to enter a home without prior warning, on the theory that giving notice will allow people inside to destroy evidence. They are almost uniquely a product of the drug war. One can imagine very few situations outside of drugs were evidence could be so easily destroyed as to justify a no-knock warrant.
It's a really stupid theory. Destroying evidence is just another charge to throw on and doesn't really suggest any risk of violence. Though sure, if they flush in time maybe the police lose out. But it hardly seems worth it. It ought to be possible to serve warrant without instigating a violent encounter. And it's not like the risk of destruction of evidence is anything new. You could easily destroy evidence well before the US was even founded. Might have been even easier, historically. Burn it, throw it in a river, etc. No-knock aggression should be reserved for situations where there's a very very strong expectation of violent resistance and that's it.
The risk of some evidence being destroyed versus potentially killing a kid (and in this case 'luckily' only wounding that kid) seems to be an easy choice. To protect and serve and all that.
Not to mention you'd have to be a pretty low-level drug offender to be able to destroy enough/all of the evidence in the time "not knocking" saves the police.
(ie. You can't exactly flush a kilogram of cocaine and a triple-beam down the average toilet in a matter of minutes)
Knocking down the door, okay fine. But did they really need to throw in a flashbang? Maybe they could have used some kind of thermal vision to see through the wall for children.
The issue really is the proliferation of paramilitary in western society expanded under whatever pretext was valid at the time: war on drugs, war on terror, etc.
> They are almost uniquely a product of the drug war.
I see no evidence of this.
In addition to preserving evidence, they are also issue when it's believe there could be an issue of officer safety. (E.g., someone armed & dangerous.)
We need a new policy for instances of excessive use of force by police: if any such is suspected, all officers involved must be immediately suspended, without pay, while an impartial judge, not a police "Internal Affairs Division" (since police officers too often try to "protect their own"), investigates to see whether the claim is justified. If it's not, the officer(s) can be reinstated and given back pay.
If, however, the police did use excessive force:
(1) The officer(s) involved must be criminally indicted and prosecuted for any applicable charges. In this case, it would likely be "premeditated assault with a deadly weapon," and, if, God forbid, that child dies, the charge becomes first-degree murder. If convicted, the officer(s) must then be fired, losing all pension and benefits.
(2) The officer(s) must lose any and all immunity to lawsuit and/or damages under state law, including any "homestead exemption," making it possible for the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them and their families living under a bridge if necessary.
Perhaps knowing that there might be consequences like this will make some of these officers think and double-check their facts before deciding to play G.I. Joe. If they think these rules are too tough, well, they always have an option: They can resign and go work for a living. To paraphrase Super Chicken, "They knew the job was dangerous when they took it."
> "making it possible for the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them and their families living under a bridge if necessary."
General question: could the spouse of somebody being sued for every penny they have insulate their risk by divorcing the person being sued and winning some of their assets before the lawsuit was complete?
I'm thinking that if I was being sued, was almost certainly going to lose, and would lose everything, I would want to try divorcing my spouse to ensure that they were able to retain enough of our formerly joint assets to take care of themselves.
1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong.
2) It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime.
3) Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had died, it would most likely be negligent homicide.
4) Removing legal protections for police sounds lovely when you only consider situations like this one, but you forget that for every one instance of something like this, there are dozens of instances of actual bad guys filing meritless lawsuits.
I gave up hope after the same local cops who have long been notorious for shooting everybody [1](2001) got off scot-free for contriving a raid of a local mayor, intimidating his mother in-law, shooting his dogs and unapologetically quipping about it [2](2008).
"By any measure, Prince George's County police have shot and killed people at rates that exceed those of nearly any other large police force in the nation."
"The event gained national and international media attention. While the Calvos were cleared of wrongdoing, the police were accused by the Calvos and civil rights groups of lacking a proper search warrant, excessive force, and failure to conduct a proper background investigation of the home being raided. Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated that "we'd do it again. Tonight."[1]"
The increasing militarization of police in the USA has seemingly had a significant (and hopefully unintended) side-effect: Police tend to treat suspects (and those around them) not as law-breaking citizens, but as enemy combatants.
Hate to be so basic but when you've decided to be a hammer, everything eventually looks like a nail.
All of this military surplus gear thats been avalanching into local PDs nationwide isn't going to just collect dust. The good ol' boys in blue will eventually find a reason to use their toys, whether its on you, me, or the family in the OP.
Since 'Protect and Serve' has been officially declared false by our wonderful Supreme Court, everyone in this country should disabuse themselves of the notion that the police are here to help us and keep the peace.
Is this enough to be able to challenge the constitutionality out of SWAT team usage and no-knock warrants, based on the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty. For example, in this case, the police were looking for one individual and found a family inside. Shouldn't the police treat them all as innocent instead of enemy combatants until they've positively identified the suspect?
If we have to err between the safety of the public and the safety of police officers, that's an easy decision to make since hazards are part of the job they have chosen to perform. Using SWAT teams externalizes the risk and danger of the job.
IMHO, it should be a high bar to meet to justify the use of SWAT teams in any situation. A judge should have to sign off on the use based on extraordinary evidence justifying why such excessive force is need. Once a warrant is acquired, do police have carte blanche to exercise it as they see fit?
>Police tend to treat suspects (and those around them) not as law-breaking citizens, but as enemy combatants. //
Isn't that at least partly because they arm themselves as if they were enemy combatants and treat the police as such. As in this case where apparently there was an AK47 in the house.
I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or, for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.
When I read stuff like this, I'm really happy that I am not living in the US. It sounds so crazy to a European person, I can't really imagine how Americans manage to normally live their lives.
Caveat: I don't support frequent use of no-knock warrants.
That said, this is another article on the story: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-stu...
According to CNN, the offender had sold meth to an informant "a few hours earlier" at the house and had a previous felony weapons charge. Their target is a meth dealer who brings a gun to the table.
Given that information, it seems less crazy to think that a law enforcement team would feel that weapons and aggressive entry were the safest option to prevent a gunfight.
They got it wrong. They entered a civilian home in the same way a US military operative would enter a war zone. They focused on the one target, the one objective, the one outcome and forgot about children. They forgot this is America and we believe in protecting the rule of law and we also believe in protecting innocent children.
But put yourself in their position. If your job is to protect against the propagation of methamphetamine and you have a target who they believe has a weapon, would you knock?
No, but I wouldn't raid a house either. I'm no police tactician, but it can't possibly be true that raiding a house is less dangerous than waiting for the suspect to leave his house and arresting him then. For anyone, including the cops. SWAT teams raiding homes should be reserved for active dangers, like hostage situations or shootouts. There's no need for this sort of urgency for apprehending a drug dealer especially given the collateral damage it's so likely to cause.
Their job is fundamentally to protect and serve the public. If they and, more appropriately, the organizations they are a part of myopically equate that to preventing meth dealing while avoiding even the slightest chance of police harm, even at the cost of innocent lives, that's a problem and can and should be held against them.
I'm surprised by the huge difference between those articles. Somehow i do find your article more believable. News outlets prefer to spin the story the other way because that kind of story is much more popular. It sheds light on a whole other side of what happened and i'm shocked to see how the posted article just lies about half of it.
Of course this is a sad story, no one should ever get hurt by drug violence, let alone a defenseless baby. But i think we should not rush our opinions on these things.
It's easy to get all emotional and be all upset when we read these things.
But we are supposed to be intellectuals right? We should not make judgements based on one sensationalist article. We can do better than that.
I think we should all just act a bit more rational. Don't make snap judgements. Read more about a subject before you condemn people.
In the end, i don't care what YOU think is the truth. Just make sure you know what you're talking about before you shout out your opinions.
PS: iambateman, this is not really meant for you of course ;)
People will probably misinterpret my post. In no way i mean to say that police and government don't share any blame. I'm definitely against the militarization of police. But i won't be sending money to that family either.
I'm of the opinion that just because someone is a drug dealer and has been known to carry a weapon, doesn't mean that person is going to get in a shoot out with the police. I'd be willing to bet (note: I've not seen any hard statistics on this matter) that 9 times out of 10 the criminal decides that it's in his/her better interest to just be arrested and fight it later, than it is to get in a gun battle with heavily armed cops. It's an interesting thing that typical police line of thinking goes something like:
1: person MAY be a criminal of some form
2: person MAY have a weapon
3: person MAY use said weapon in a futile attempt to avoid arrest or injury
4: let's get 10 cops, arm them to the teeth, storm their house in a disorienting and scary middle of the night raid, during which we will throw explosives, brandish military type weapons, and yell and act aggressively
5: there is less of a chance that during the raid a criminal will react violently than if the police do not break in in the middle of the night screaming and waving guns
I'm not trying to be "that condescending dick" and I sympathize with what you're saying, I'm just saying I disagree with "put yourself in their position".
It wasn't "we have to go in, better arm up." They could have watched the house and gathered more information. Since they have a warrant, are cops allowed to thermally image a house to get a headcount? Technical question: would that work or am I imagining something from TV?
Your question is why we have laws for how police can operate.
Yes, if I were in their shoes, I would not want to knock. Which is why we need to make it a legal requirement to. Don't give them a choice.
The police are playing an inherently rigged game. They operate with one hand tied behind their back, giving criminals an inherent advantage because criminals, by definition, don't worry about following the law. The only reason this works is because the police can bring to bear vastly greater resources and numbers, but their possible actions are much more limited.
And that's how it should be. The term for a place where the police have no limits on what they can do to bring in the bad guys is called a "police state".
I don't doubt that police really really want to handle situations like this with quick and decisive action. Which is exactly why they must not be allowed to.
America is a scary country to live in. I am not sure if it is just the fact that this sort of thing gets reported more often of late ...only for America, or just that I've been paying more attention of late.
The number of places and the absurdity of the manner in which you can get killed, hurt, jailed, or have your entire life irrecoverably change is just frightening.
Now, I don't intend to be Anti-American, I already accepted that there is a possibility that this sort of thing gets reported more for the US. Also, I know that one can claim that I am generalizing and this doesn't happen all the time, all over the place.
However, I've read so many news reports[1] of simple things like frivolous lawsuits that completely damage a persons life to completely avoidable instances of serious life altering events like this news story which makes me wonder why would a professional making a decent living (like say a software engineer) would want to move to America. I personally, am not too inclined.
[1] I have often thought about creating a site that aggregates such horror stories to serve as a warning -- a mirror, lets say ...or if you really want me to spell it out -- a reminder, that, 'No, American is not the greatest country in the world'. Before you decide to downvote and retort, read the article (again) and empathize with me, if you can, how this sort of thing would invoke such a reaction.
This is a side-effect of police militarization that doesn't get much attention from its critics: using advanced military equipment should also require advanced military training. Local police agencies that receive all this new military-spec equipment don't always get (or more likely, never get) the funding for necessary training on how to use it. Much less does such training really exist since this stuff was all designed for use in actual war zones. The extant training materials would inherently be oriented around that type of usage.
Even the worst part of the worst city in the USA could not be more different than a war-stricken area of Iraq or any other region where military action is a common occurrence (other than that they probably contain more friendlies than enemies).
Aside: It is truly sickening that they used a flashbang on a residential house where they hoped to apprehend a single, low-value suspect that could not possibly have been that well armed. Again, lack of proper training.
Lack of proper military training is not the problem here. The problem is the militarization in the first place. In war, collateral damage is considered unavoidable and ultimately acceptable in pursuit of victory, which is why drug warriors accept that the occasional baby will be maimed by a flashbang. That sort of approach is unacceptable for domestic law-enforcement. The solution is to roll back the militarization, not double down by giving police more military training.
Like many of the commenters here, this article fills me with outrage. Even given the possibility/probability (as mentioned by iambateman) that the target of the SWAT team was guilty of meth pushing, armed, and dangerous.
What can an individual do to effect change? The executive branch seem to be nigh-invulnerable these days. Checks and balances don't work when it's the enforcement arm who need to be kept in check.
Is there something productive I and others can do rather than sitting here powerless in anger?
Legalize all drugs, and fill each one with literature about how damaging it is to you (similar to what some countries do on cigarette packs). If you can get heroin at CVS, you wouldn't need to go to your local drug dealer and help finance his shady/violent activities. I know it sounds crazy but we already knowingly sell stuff that can kill you (cigarettes, alcohol). The gangs/drug dealers would simply not survive if drugs were sold legally and conveniently.
1. Understand the structure of the system. SWAT teams and local police are a local problem, not a national one. Cases like this will happen all around the country, but there really isn't anything you can do about it. It is up to the local population to elect their police chiefs (or... elect mayors / governors who choose good police chiefs).
2. The "Executive Branch" of Obama honestly has nothing to do with this. Understanding where you place your efforts is important. You can try and make this a national issue, but it isn't one.
3. Recognize that state departments and local police are going to do things you don't like, especially when you're far away and hold no control over them.
The US has a federal system. Its the power we've given to local officials to run localities the way they like. Now, if we are to make this a national issue, we'll have to pass something in Congress as a nation... something that seems very unlikely given the gridlock on the national law system at the moment.
Long term? Make these sorts of stories public, demand change, write to your representatives, write to the media. Takes about 40 to 80 years.
Short term? 1/2 meter thick concrete walls and doors, barred windows. Though that might set off alarms for the police, so a better solution would be a bunker space under your house where you sleep and spend your time indoors. Of course also have a bedroom above ground so you can claim you slept in your bunker because you were working late on a project that day and they just caught. When they knock, put on riot gear. I mean, your welder suit.
Or maybe it would be safest to get sent to prison for life, at least there the most danger you have to look out for is getting stabbed by someone doing it for fun, rather than blown up by a guy doing it for the good of society.
First, stop to speak about 'war' on insert-bad-thing-here.
With that terminology comes the behavior. And this behavior is 'self-improving'. The Police already has access to that gear of the military, which is left over from the real wars. That gear is more likely being used along with war tactics. Self protection and the appliance of gear and tactics became more important than to protect the civilians and even to protect the criminals from them self.
Good grief. SWAT teams in the US are utterly out of control. It's one thing to have resources for the relatively rare armed robbery/hostage/mass shooter situation, to respond to an outbreak of violence; it's quite another to be using them for drug raids and other contexts where they initiate or are the sole cause of violence. This goes hand in hand with the confrontation-obsessed gun culture we have, in which a subset of gun owners dwell constantly on the omnipresent risks of crime and the need for elephant-grade stopping power, despite the clear long-term trend of falling crime.
The Cato institute has worked with journalist Radley Balko (who is the expert in this area) to produce a map of botched SWAT raids: http://www.cato.org/raidmap
I really see no other course for citizens other than to start attending public meetings and speaking up whenever public figures spout truisms about the safety of law enforcement officers being top priority. It's not top priority, that's why they get paid the big bucks - to put the safety of law-abiding citizens above their own.
These stories seem fake to me. I know they are real but I have trouble believing that people, human beings would actually act like this. Why do we have people acting as police that wouldn't let a mother comfort her crying, very injured child. They weren't after her, she wasn't the criminal.
Then there's the case where the police found drugs in the mail, but let it be delivered anyway. When the homeowner (the mayor of the town, incidentally) came home and brought the package in, they attacked, killing his two labradors (one while it was trying to run away).
After, even though the police had the drugs in their hands when they found it in the mail, the chief said, "We′ve apologized for the incident, but we will never apologize for taking drugs off our streets....Quite frankly, we′d do it again."
If stories like this are new to anyone reading this, there is a great book worth checking out. "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko, ISBN-13: 9781610392112
We didn't learn our lesson from Prohibition, and now it's happening all over again, only worse.
I'm starting to think we need a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the outlawing of drugs. Something like --
The right of access to drugs of all kinds shall not be infringed.
Congress shall have the power to regulate and tax drugs, but may not
ban a drug outright.
This obviously needs work, but I think it's headed in the right direction.
The intent of the phrase "right of access" is that people should have the right to obtain a drug if they can afford it; my intent is not to create any obligation on the part of the government to make it affordable, and certainly not to provide it for free.
The intent of the phrase "drugs of all kinds" is to include any substance someone may wish to ingest, inhale, or inject, for any purpose, medical, recreational, or otherwise.
The intent of "Congress shall have the power to regulate" is that I think the FDA should continue to enforce purity and labelling requirements.
It would be nice to find wording to clarify that intoxication does not relieve one of responsibility for any act committed while intoxicated.
I know, it's hard to imagine such a thing passing anytime in the next 50 years. But it's not too soon to start talking about it :-)
And yet if you suggest that police are anything less than complete heroes in every way your neighbors and relatives will shun you. Defending yourself against a corrupt, ignorant, and vindictive police force is one of the best uses I can think of for the second amendment.
Police militarization has many causes and many bad effects. The pointless and faintly racist "drug war" is one that has been noted in many comments here. There's another that deserves mention, not because I believe it's most significant but because it seems strangely absent from those same comments.
>>> Police go in armed to the teeth in part because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that there's a high probability of the people inside being similarly armed. <<<
It's a classic arms race. Yes, the police should stop encouraging further escalation. So should others.
This is what comes from the aggressive militarization of our local police forces. Tell me again why our hometown of 7,000 (at the time) felt the need to develop a full-fledged SWAT unit. It has become even worse since 9/11. Shoddy police work, an itchy trigger finger, and officers who seem to view local neighborhoods as insurgent-ridden Iraqi streets, has led to inexcusable collateral damage. The need for a responsive, well-funded police force is undeniable. But, clear leadership and strong, judicious restraint must balance that power.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Glyptodon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opendais|11 years ago|reply
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/30/robbery-ring-disguis...
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] metacorrector|11 years ago|reply
You could have no-knock raids to capture evidence without needing to stun everybody.
[+] [-] thathonkey|11 years ago|reply
(ie. You can't exactly flush a kilogram of cocaine and a triple-beam down the average toilet in a matter of minutes)
[+] [-] rwmj|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angersock|11 years ago|reply
It's not like they're feeding a body into a wood-chipper or anything.
[+] [-] henryw|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwd|11 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
The list of examples (while possibly biased) gives a clear idea of where, having these kinds of miitarised civilian forces, can lead a society.
[+] [-] abritishguy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wdr1|11 years ago|reply
I see no evidence of this.
In addition to preserving evidence, they are also issue when it's believe there could be an issue of officer safety. (E.g., someone armed & dangerous.)
[+] [-] erbo|11 years ago|reply
We need a new policy for instances of excessive use of force by police: if any such is suspected, all officers involved must be immediately suspended, without pay, while an impartial judge, not a police "Internal Affairs Division" (since police officers too often try to "protect their own"), investigates to see whether the claim is justified. If it's not, the officer(s) can be reinstated and given back pay.
If, however, the police did use excessive force:
(1) The officer(s) involved must be criminally indicted and prosecuted for any applicable charges. In this case, it would likely be "premeditated assault with a deadly weapon," and, if, God forbid, that child dies, the charge becomes first-degree murder. If convicted, the officer(s) must then be fired, losing all pension and benefits.
(2) The officer(s) must lose any and all immunity to lawsuit and/or damages under state law, including any "homestead exemption," making it possible for the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them and their families living under a bridge if necessary.
Perhaps knowing that there might be consequences like this will make some of these officers think and double-check their facts before deciding to play G.I. Joe. If they think these rules are too tough, well, they always have an option: They can resign and go work for a living. To paraphrase Super Chicken, "They knew the job was dangerous when they took it."
[+] [-] Crito|11 years ago|reply
General question: could the spouse of somebody being sued for every penny they have insulate their risk by divorcing the person being sued and winning some of their assets before the lawsuit was complete?
I'm thinking that if I was being sued, was almost certainly going to lose, and would lose everything, I would want to try divorcing my spouse to ensure that they were able to retain enough of our formerly joint assets to take care of themselves.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong.
2) It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime.
3) Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had died, it would most likely be negligent homicide.
4) Removing legal protections for police sounds lovely when you only consider situations like this one, but you forget that for every one instance of something like this, there are dozens of instances of actual bad guys filing meritless lawsuits.
[+] [-] incision|11 years ago|reply
I gave up hope after the same local cops who have long been notorious for shooting everybody [1](2001) got off scot-free for contriving a raid of a local mayor, intimidating his mother in-law, shooting his dogs and unapologetically quipping about it [2](2008).
1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/nation/investig...
"By any measure, Prince George's County police have shot and killed people at rates that exceed those of nearly any other large police force in the nation."
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...
"The event gained national and international media attention. While the Calvos were cleared of wrongdoing, the police were accused by the Calvos and civil rights groups of lacking a proper search warrant, excessive force, and failure to conduct a proper background investigation of the home being raided. Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated that "we'd do it again. Tonight."[1]"
[+] [-] jordan0day|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simplemath|11 years ago|reply
All of this military surplus gear thats been avalanching into local PDs nationwide isn't going to just collect dust. The good ol' boys in blue will eventually find a reason to use their toys, whether its on you, me, or the family in the OP.
Since 'Protect and Serve' has been officially declared false by our wonderful Supreme Court, everyone in this country should disabuse themselves of the notion that the police are here to help us and keep the peace.
BRB blasting NWA
[+] [-] malandrew|11 years ago|reply
If we have to err between the safety of the public and the safety of police officers, that's an easy decision to make since hazards are part of the job they have chosen to perform. Using SWAT teams externalizes the risk and danger of the job.
IMHO, it should be a high bar to meet to justify the use of SWAT teams in any situation. A judge should have to sign off on the use based on extraordinary evidence justifying why such excessive force is need. Once a warrant is acquired, do police have carte blanche to exercise it as they see fit?
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|11 years ago|reply
Isn't that at least partly because they arm themselves as if they were enemy combatants and treat the police as such. As in this case where apparently there was an AK47 in the house.
[+] [-] aestra|11 years ago|reply
http://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/police-state/th...
[+] [-] peterkelly|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iagooar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iambateman|11 years ago|reply
That said, this is another article on the story: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-stu... According to CNN, the offender had sold meth to an informant "a few hours earlier" at the house and had a previous felony weapons charge. Their target is a meth dealer who brings a gun to the table.
Given that information, it seems less crazy to think that a law enforcement team would feel that weapons and aggressive entry were the safest option to prevent a gunfight.
They got it wrong. They entered a civilian home in the same way a US military operative would enter a war zone. They focused on the one target, the one objective, the one outcome and forgot about children. They forgot this is America and we believe in protecting the rule of law and we also believe in protecting innocent children.
But put yourself in their position. If your job is to protect against the propagation of methamphetamine and you have a target who they believe has a weapon, would you knock?
[+] [-] icambron|11 years ago|reply
Edit: wording
[+] [-] scarmig|11 years ago|reply
Their job is fundamentally to protect and serve the public. If they and, more appropriately, the organizations they are a part of myopically equate that to preventing meth dealing while avoiding even the slightest chance of police harm, even at the cost of innocent lives, that's a problem and can and should be held against them.
[+] [-] bumeye|11 years ago|reply
Of course this is a sad story, no one should ever get hurt by drug violence, let alone a defenseless baby. But i think we should not rush our opinions on these things.
It's easy to get all emotional and be all upset when we read these things.
But we are supposed to be intellectuals right? We should not make judgements based on one sensationalist article. We can do better than that.
I think we should all just act a bit more rational. Don't make snap judgements. Read more about a subject before you condemn people.
In the end, i don't care what YOU think is the truth. Just make sure you know what you're talking about before you shout out your opinions.
PS: iambateman, this is not really meant for you of course ;)
People will probably misinterpret my post. In no way i mean to say that police and government don't share any blame. I'm definitely against the militarization of police. But i won't be sending money to that family either.
[+] [-] scurvyscott|11 years ago|reply
I'm not trying to be "that condescending dick" and I sympathize with what you're saying, I'm just saying I disagree with "put yourself in their position".
[+] [-] danielweber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
Yes, if I were in their shoes, I would not want to knock. Which is why we need to make it a legal requirement to. Don't give them a choice.
The police are playing an inherently rigged game. They operate with one hand tied behind their back, giving criminals an inherent advantage because criminals, by definition, don't worry about following the law. The only reason this works is because the police can bring to bear vastly greater resources and numbers, but their possible actions are much more limited.
And that's how it should be. The term for a place where the police have no limits on what they can do to bring in the bad guys is called a "police state".
I don't doubt that police really really want to handle situations like this with quick and decisive action. Which is exactly why they must not be allowed to.
[+] [-] devnonymous|11 years ago|reply
The number of places and the absurdity of the manner in which you can get killed, hurt, jailed, or have your entire life irrecoverably change is just frightening.
Now, I don't intend to be Anti-American, I already accepted that there is a possibility that this sort of thing gets reported more for the US. Also, I know that one can claim that I am generalizing and this doesn't happen all the time, all over the place.
However, I've read so many news reports[1] of simple things like frivolous lawsuits that completely damage a persons life to completely avoidable instances of serious life altering events like this news story which makes me wonder why would a professional making a decent living (like say a software engineer) would want to move to America. I personally, am not too inclined.
[1] I have often thought about creating a site that aggregates such horror stories to serve as a warning -- a mirror, lets say ...or if you really want me to spell it out -- a reminder, that, 'No, American is not the greatest country in the world'. Before you decide to downvote and retort, read the article (again) and empathize with me, if you can, how this sort of thing would invoke such a reaction.
[+] [-] hyperliner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thathonkey|11 years ago|reply
Even the worst part of the worst city in the USA could not be more different than a war-stricken area of Iraq or any other region where military action is a common occurrence (other than that they probably contain more friendlies than enemies).
Aside: It is truly sickening that they used a flashbang on a residential house where they hoped to apprehend a single, low-value suspect that could not possibly have been that well armed. Again, lack of proper training.
[+] [-] agwa|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathanb|11 years ago|reply
Like many of the commenters here, this article fills me with outrage. Even given the possibility/probability (as mentioned by iambateman) that the target of the SWAT team was guilty of meth pushing, armed, and dangerous.
What can an individual do to effect change? The executive branch seem to be nigh-invulnerable these days. Checks and balances don't work when it's the enforcement arm who need to be kept in check.
Is there something productive I and others can do rather than sitting here powerless in anger?
[+] [-] jliptzin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragontamer|11 years ago|reply
2. The "Executive Branch" of Obama honestly has nothing to do with this. Understanding where you place your efforts is important. You can try and make this a national issue, but it isn't one.
3. Recognize that state departments and local police are going to do things you don't like, especially when you're far away and hold no control over them.
The US has a federal system. Its the power we've given to local officials to run localities the way they like. Now, if we are to make this a national issue, we'll have to pass something in Congress as a nation... something that seems very unlikely given the gridlock on the national law system at the moment.
[+] [-] anon4|11 years ago|reply
Short term? 1/2 meter thick concrete walls and doors, barred windows. Though that might set off alarms for the police, so a better solution would be a bunker space under your house where you sleep and spend your time indoors. Of course also have a bedroom above ground so you can claim you slept in your bunker because you were working late on a project that day and they just caught. When they knock, put on riot gear. I mean, your welder suit.
Or maybe it would be safest to get sent to prison for life, at least there the most danger you have to look out for is getting stabbed by someone doing it for fun, rather than blown up by a guy doing it for the good of society.
[+] [-] einrealist|11 years ago|reply
With that terminology comes the behavior. And this behavior is 'self-improving'. The Police already has access to that gear of the military, which is left over from the real wars. That gear is more likely being used along with war tactics. Self protection and the appliance of gear and tactics became more important than to protect the civilians and even to protect the criminals from them self.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
The Cato institute has worked with journalist Radley Balko (who is the expert in this area) to produce a map of botched SWAT raids: http://www.cato.org/raidmap
I really see no other course for citizens other than to start attending public meetings and speaking up whenever public figures spout truisms about the safety of law enforcement officers being top priority. It's not top priority, that's why they get paid the big bucks - to put the safety of law-abiding citizens above their own.
[+] [-] opendais|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giarc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeevans|11 years ago|reply
After, even though the police had the drugs in their hands when they found it in the mail, the chief said, "We′ve apologized for the incident, but we will never apologize for taking drugs off our streets....Quite frankly, we′d do it again."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...
[+] [-] ser_ocelot|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ScottBurson|11 years ago|reply
I'm starting to think we need a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the outlawing of drugs. Something like --
This obviously needs work, but I think it's headed in the right direction.The intent of the phrase "right of access" is that people should have the right to obtain a drug if they can afford it; my intent is not to create any obligation on the part of the government to make it affordable, and certainly not to provide it for free.
The intent of the phrase "drugs of all kinds" is to include any substance someone may wish to ingest, inhale, or inject, for any purpose, medical, recreational, or otherwise.
The intent of "Congress shall have the power to regulate" is that I think the FDA should continue to enforce purity and labelling requirements.
It would be nice to find wording to clarify that intoxication does not relieve one of responsibility for any act committed while intoxicated.
I know, it's hard to imagine such a thing passing anytime in the next 50 years. But it's not too soon to start talking about it :-)
[+] [-] CalRobert|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notacoward|11 years ago|reply
>>> Police go in armed to the teeth in part because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that there's a high probability of the people inside being similarly armed. <<<
It's a classic arms race. Yes, the police should stop encouraging further escalation. So should others.
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
What's the incidence of things like this in the rest of the world?
[+] [-] jscheel|11 years ago|reply