Tex (and Capt. Charlie) -
My response, and I think Crosshair's, were not meant as a "cop bash"
, but more of a bash of the policy that puts good cops at risk, tarnishes their reputation and goodwill with the American public, and puts the innocent gun owner being awoken in the middle of the night to their door being kicked down in the awful predicament of having to make a split second life or death decision while confused, startled and still groggy from sleep.
The war drugs is a big part of it, but merits, or lack thereof, of that collossal failure and waste of taxpayer money is a seperate issue.
The forfeiture laws are also a big part of it in my view, and as Tex has said, I absolutely agree it provides a strong incentive to law enforcement to really push the envelope of acceptability. That too, however, is a seperate issue that should probably be discussed in another thread.
I think the federal government's policy of giving tons of weapons and military equipment away to every police department in this country to pursue the drug war also plays a part. IIRC the Cato whitepaper cites one example where a small town police department in landlocked Kansas got amphibious assault vehicles. I may still be a little off track here, but I think we're getting closer to the heart of the matter. Because of the federal giveaways, many police departments who never had or saw a reason for a SWAT team, decided to take the equipment and set one up for the usual high risk situations - armed robbery, hostage situations etc. The training that went with the giveaways was either non-existant or training from the military. Civilian law enforcement is a far different mission, with much less lattitude for error than a military operation. We are, afterall, talking about US citizens on US soil who are, by virture of our criminal justice system, innocent until adjudicated guilty in a court of law. Once those SWAT teams were set up, their mission was expanded into relatively low level warrant service, thus drastically increasing the number of times these types of raids and tactices are used. With that increase comes an increasein the number of bad or botched raids.
In one such example, 11 year old Alberto Sepulveda was shot in the back - while laying face down on the ground, fully complying with the orders of police. According to the officer, the gun just went off. I think most of us would call that a "negligent discharge". And thats just one example, there are unfortunately more.
My response, and I think Crosshair's, were not meant as a "cop bash"
, but more of a bash of the policy that puts good cops at risk, tarnishes their reputation and goodwill with the American public, and puts the innocent gun owner being awoken in the middle of the night to their door being kicked down in the awful predicament of having to make a split second life or death decision while confused, startled and still groggy from sleep.
The war drugs is a big part of it, but merits, or lack thereof, of that collossal failure and waste of taxpayer money is a seperate issue.
The forfeiture laws are also a big part of it in my view, and as Tex has said, I absolutely agree it provides a strong incentive to law enforcement to really push the envelope of acceptability. That too, however, is a seperate issue that should probably be discussed in another thread.
I think the federal government's policy of giving tons of weapons and military equipment away to every police department in this country to pursue the drug war also plays a part. IIRC the Cato whitepaper cites one example where a small town police department in landlocked Kansas got amphibious assault vehicles. I may still be a little off track here, but I think we're getting closer to the heart of the matter. Because of the federal giveaways, many police departments who never had or saw a reason for a SWAT team, decided to take the equipment and set one up for the usual high risk situations - armed robbery, hostage situations etc. The training that went with the giveaways was either non-existant or training from the military. Civilian law enforcement is a far different mission, with much less lattitude for error than a military operation. We are, afterall, talking about US citizens on US soil who are, by virture of our criminal justice system, innocent until adjudicated guilty in a court of law. Once those SWAT teams were set up, their mission was expanded into relatively low level warrant service, thus drastically increasing the number of times these types of raids and tactices are used. With that increase comes an increasein the number of bad or botched raids.
In one such example, 11 year old Alberto Sepulveda was shot in the back - while laying face down on the ground, fully complying with the orders of police. According to the officer, the gun just went off. I think most of us would call that a "negligent discharge". And thats just one example, there are unfortunately more.
