Militarization of police (no-knocks, etc.) Part 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter RH
  • Start date Start date
R

RH

New member
OK Coinneach, since I was the last off-topic poster, I'll bite.

Preamble: I am very pro-cop, very pro-military. however, the most disturbing part of the whole article, which flew under the radar of most bright-eyed 'news' reporters when it broke, follows:

"Janet Reno's initial justification for using a SWAT team (instead of normal immigration agents) to snatch Elian Gonzalez was that somebody in the house or in the crowd outside might have been armed. (She had in mind a security guard who had a handgun-carry permit issued by the state of Florida.) Her theory offers a rationale for SWAT-team invasion of any home in the U.S., any time there is a search warrant to be served: About half of all households contain firearms, and the police do not know which ones."

The implications are:
1) Any gunowner is considered a dangerous waarrant, so we will flashbang and batter his door down as SOP.

2) Since we don't know which 50% of citizens own guns, we will flashbang and batter down every door, as SOP.

3) If the sheep don't like SOP, then we'd better get a database together so we know which house to flashbang & batter and which to knock politely.

This should trouble everyone here. To apply a common 2nd Amnmt. cliche to the 4th - "What part of 'unreasonable' don't they understand ?"
 
Personally, I'm discouraged that we can't discuss the so-called 'War on Drugs' and the 'benefits' / burdens of no-knock raids without it being called 'cop bashing'.

If LEO's are so sensitive that these topics are verboten, then I really wonder how bad things are already.

Some people clearly think that the scourge of drugs must be wiped out even if we have to damage / destroy the Bill of Rights to do it. I don't follow that logic.

And, as far as violence not being increased by the 'War on Drugs', to be frank, it seems pretty obvious to me. Just as with alcohol Prohibition, drugs are now a huge business, albeit an illegal enterprise. So, it attracts scumbags, and they solve their business disputes with guns. And, therefore (just as in 1934), guns get blamed for the problem of violence. Honestly ... do these factors seem unrelated to some of you?

The militarization of LEO's is a direct result of the 'War on Drugs' IMHO, and I agree that all of this is damaging their relationships with their communities. One question - hasn't this been surveyed? I would assume there is available data on how communities feel about their LEO's. And, if there isn't much data, perhaps the LEO community should begin to survey such attitudes ... we're your customers.

C'mon ... let's quit the 'cop bashing' excuse. Let's have an honest conversation about this stuff.

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited June 01, 2000).]
 
(someone review all my posts and see how many times I have used the phrase "cop bashing" (not counting this one ;))

Jeff,

Poling is poling, and to survey the public would lead us nowhere except with less money to buy training ammo. Responses would all depend (as always) on who was asking and how the questions were phrased.

(1) Should your local police officers have machines guns, masks and routinely burst into homes at night unannounced?

(2) Should your local police officers be well equipped and take all necessary precautions not to get hurt on the job?

I guarentee if you had taken a survey last November, within days of one of our cities most respeted and beloved officers being shot in the face, the overwhelming majority of people would even have answered "Yes" to question number (1).

Asking people BS questions is not the answer.

What is? I'm not sure. Complacency plays a big role in this. Sure, most people are going to generally opt for a less intrusive and less powerful Law Enforcement presence...until they are the ones who need powerful LE help. Since it is a very low percentage of the population that ever really need that help... the numbers will always reflect those wanting us to carry whistles instead of rifles.

I think that the average person walking down the street should be prepared for the worst case scenario. I've always said that. I think they should have a CCW permit and carry a good weapon with plenty of firepower.
Why shouldn't I also believe that LEOs should be prepared for the worst case scenario?
And, as I've pointed out many times, Citizens have one huge option that LEOs dont', To quote Monty Python: "Run Away!"
If we have to be prepared to stand toe-to-toe with the "worst case scenario", I think we are justified in having the right tools and training to do it effectively.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Rob I will agree with most of what you say.
However therre are a lot of people out here that do not have the option of running.I have a bad ticker and very bad back.Some days I don't walk very well much less run.What I would like to see is something in place that would decrease the bull after a good shoot by a private citizen.I don't have thausands of dollars for lawyer fees and know very few people that have.All it takes is a anti county attorney or one that wants make a name.I could end up between a rock and a hard place just by trying to defend myself.Any answers?I don't know.Anyone have anything concrete or just vage statements?

------------------
beemerb
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men
every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-Mark Twain
 
Rob, one of the few, very few downsides of a format such as TFL is the 'shotgun' conversation format .... I agree, you are not one of those who falls back on the 'cop bashing' defense, and I apologize if you took my comments in that way. However, we do have other members who seem to fall back on that argument at the first whiff of any LEO, Drug War or no-knock criticism.

I hear you regarding polls, but I also know that business people regularly survey their customers. Sure, the LEO situation is different, but a poll can be designed to give insights. I recognize your concern, since we're so used to seeing bogus polls re: the RKBA. I'll simply rest my case that the Drug War and no-knocks damage the LEO / community relationship unnecessarily, IMHO.

I don't know what else we can say here. I suppose if we were sitting together, this would be the moment when we agree to disagree, shake hands, have a drink and discuss your new rifle ... ;)

You do have a new rifle, don't you? ;)

Regards from AZ
 
I have a suggestion to those who don't like the way your, ours or my police agency is run or staffed.

Get into the front lines and actully see what its like... Apply to become a reserve officer, if you city or county agency has one established. What gets to me is folks here [and elsewhere] on the I-net seem to know all there is to know about police work without ever wearing the uniform and actually performing the day to day tasks police officers are required to do.

Is this to much to ask of the nah sayers?? I'm sure there are tons of excuses that can be reasoned out for not providing a simple; civil service for your community.

Never know... you will get some valuble training, meet alot of decent folks, learn what it actually takes to perform law enforcement work. what have you got to lose except the pre concieved notions of what police officers do??
 
Yes, I do, Jeff. Nothing left to do but transfer some funds and sign a few papers :)!

For those of you interested in seeing things from the other side of htebadge, most departments allow citizens to ride-along for a shift. That is a much less commitment requiring way to get a glimpse of what goes on. Be sure to ask for a Fri or Saturday evening... the later the better.
 
12-34hom, yes, that is too much to ask. Being a reserve officer is not in the cards for me, and to be frank, I couldn't agree to enforce some of these laws.

Rob's suggestion is a good one. I've been on at least half a dozen ride-a-longs, and they are interesting. None of this has changed my opinion re: the War on Drugs and no-knocks.

I wish our LEO members could realize how sensitive you appear regarding these issues ... we're not debating you ... we're debating dismal laws and poor policy. Your performance and these issues are not the same thing.

Regards from AZ
 
You mean I could get to throw the flash bags at a no-knock? I'll pass on that one. 30 years ago I rode with an old military buddy in his Califonia Highway patrol car. Nothing happened, but he regailed me with some of his past exploits. Some of the Patrol Officers had shortned bayonets in boot sheaths, that got my attention. This was north of LA in the grapevine mts. But they never busted nobodys door down as far as I know.

Jim

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob:
Yes, I do, Jeff. Nothing left to do but transfer some funds and sign a few papers :)!

For those of you interested in seeing things from the other side of htebadge, most departments allow citizens to ride-along for a shift. That is a much less commitment requiring way to get a glimpse of what goes on. Be sure to ask for a Fri or Saturday evening... the later the better.[/quote]
 
12-34hom,
Your suggestion to get out on the front lines may sound good, but it isn't practical.I think many of us are generally aware of the dangers and problems the average LEO faces.In my own case I have three cousins who are commissioned officers. One is on the LA PD and could have retired several years ago. In fact until just recently, when he had to have major surgery, he was the oldest motorcycle officer in the dept (60 plus). I am personally involved with law enforcement and am a member of a citizens advisory council and have had a fair amount of training in the use of force, etc. I am very much pro law enforcement. However, there is no doubt that many (probably most) of the "no knock" entries are not necessary and are not the type of actions that should be accepted in this US. I recognize that it may be safer for the LEO, but that is only a part of the "equation" and does not take priority over the constitutional rights of the citizen. You "buy" into the danger and the stress when you put on the badge. It is a mistake to try to defend the indefensible. I think there was no excuse for the way the Feds handled the Gonzales affair. Regards,
Jerry
 
Sensitive? Yes.

But look through some other threads and see how sensitive "we" are about the gun issue. A local news anchor calls a Glock an "automatic" weapon and people will piss-moan-rant-and-rave about it.. STILL!
As a gun culture, we should be over that by now.. we should expect it and take it in stride... but every chance we get we rush to make mountains out of Not-Pro-Gun Mole hills.


People are sensitive about things they care very deeply about. I care very deeply about having a strong Law Enforcement Community. I also care very deeply about an individual citizens right to keep and bear arms. Why is it that "these threads" always make me feel like some people think those two things are mutually exclusive?

One of the problems with ride alongs is that they have to be very anti-septic. You can imagine the liability issues. The telling and re-telling of War Stories doesn't help either, because they are admittedly very much like fishing and hunting stories.

Someone objected to the idea of citizens having the run-away option.... that may be true in some circumstances.... BUT those citizens are not likely to be called on a radio and sent to a situation that they cannot run-awy from. To say that every citizen should have access to what the police have is 100% correct, but to say that the level of need is the same is absolutely not.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Jeff Thomas,
I assume you are refering to my post when you say some LEOs on TFL fallback on the "cop bashing" excuse.

I think you missed the point of my post. I am not so sensitive that these topics are verboten. I specifically said lets debate the issue and not start making inflammatory comments about LEOs or cop bashing.

There are some members on TFL that take every opportunity they can to take a shot at LEOs in general. What I was trying to say was knock off the childish behavior and band together to fight the antis. We cannot accomplish this "togetherness" when we are trading potshots at each other.
 
We agree cops must be able to meet successfully every threat. Nobody
wants LEOs to "go to war" with .38Sp revolvers. To suggest that is to divert
attention away from the problem.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is similar to Maslow's comment,
"If your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail."

Having spent the time and money on SWAT-style equipment and training, it
now gets used:
- to justify the expense of time and money, or
- to justify future budgets, or
- "just to be safe" (ie, "Gee, somebody might have a gun!), or
- if some dope addict tries to win leniency from the law by fingering
somebody, anybody, for SWAT to attack.

Part of the problem (to me) seems to be the excuse "just to be safe" means
to create the most dangerous situation possible for "subjects" who, all too
often, do not warrant the violent injury and deaths they are subjected to.

The individual LEO who is doing the killing is only a symptom of a bigger
problem. Who determines policy and tactics? Who decides a potential or
rumored suspect must be treated with a level of violence more appropriate to
a battlefield. Too often (no, not always), there seems to be a "kill 'em all, let
God sort 'em out!" attitude.

"All they have to do is what we tell them."
That's a line more appropriate to Clinton than to our police.

Bust in while the "subjects" are asleep, flash-bang 'em, purposefully do
everything possible to terrorize and disorient them, have 12 ninjas screaming
incomprehensible commands all at once, slam 'em down and stomp 'em if
they don’t resist and if anyone resists empty your magazine into 'em.

That may be appropriate for Delta Force.
That may even be appropriate for some drug raids.
It is not appropriate so often as used.
-----

The ole "walk a mile in my shoes" argument has merit but it is not a 100%
requirement to question authority:

- I don't need to be a medical doctor to know that killing over 100,000
patients a year is not a good thing.

- I don't have to be a British subject to know that giving up all our firearms
to our government oligarchy is not a good thing.

- I don't have to be a commissioned police officer to know that Waco, Ruby
Ridge, the Elian incident, the killing of a ranch owner in CA, etc. are not good
things either. (And yes, we better remember those incidents. That’s our
government at work, folks! And it’s wrong!)

Too many decision-makers above the level of the LEO on the street are
making policy decisions that are turning American people into scared subjects
of the government.

And I don't have to be a former resident of the USSR to know that is not a
good thing.
-----

Nobody is asking LEOs to go to war with a slingshot. But too many innocent
people are being killed by the organizations which are supposed "to serve and
protect".

Too many honest, hard-working people consider the police to be the enemy.
Too many good police officers consider "civilians" to be the enemy.

Something is wrong and when we try to discuss it all we decide is that I am
wrong for mentioning Waco, etc. and I don't know what I'm talking about
because I no longer "ride along". That’s a bogus argument.

We need to figure out what’s broke. Why are so many homes being raided
and people injured and killed with the final outcome being, “Ooops, wrong
house!” or “well, no, we didn’t find any dope, but they had GUNS! So we
confiscated all the guns, ammunition, gun magazines, and his computer!”

Personally, I truly believe the problem starts at the top - with the President of
the United States and those who support him behind the scenes.

Our government is rotten - through and through. And the rot comes down
through the so-called Justice Department all the way to the street.

We need a bunch of cops, people who ARE on the “inside”, to define the
problem of unnecessary violence by law enforcement, determine the cause of
that violence, and tell us how we can resolve it.

We need a bunch of civilians willing to address the problem of our rotten
government. We on TFL are a few of them. But too many Americans are
voting for the death of our republic. The government v. the people problem
is going to get worse, not better.

Unwarranted police violence is a symptom of a worsening problem.
-----

As always, I must add that police violence is not a problem in my county.
Many arrest warrants are served by telephone!!!

“Mr. Jones! Deputy Orr here. You didn’t pay that speeding ticket you got last
March and now they sent me a warrant for your arrest. You better come in
here tomorrow and take care of that, okay? Now don’t make me come and
get you, understand?”

(Yes, I’m glad I don’t, and won’t, live in the big city... ;) )

------------------

Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

TFL End of Summer Meet, August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
Quote:

We need a bunch of civilians willing to address the problem of our rotten
government. We on TFL are a few of them. But too many Americans are
voting for the death of our republic. The government v. the people problem
is going to get worse, not better.

Unwarranted police violence is a symptom of a worsening problem.
-----

Bravo Dennis:

Thank God their are those who can express themselves so well. Dennis is right on target, bullseye. This shouldn't be about police and civilian relationships, its about the limits of authority the PDs have to work under. Yeah, I'm an old fart, who's seen this sorry ass Government slipping and slipping until the 2 party system is a G.D. crooked mess. If we are able to throw out these despots who are gutting our Constitutional rights then it might trickle down to the PDs that love to flash and bang the unsuspecting houses. Why don't the law demand their leaders stop such attack policies, oh, you'd be thrown out of the force, or they would stick you on some rotten job you would hate? Its really tough to buck authority, we've got career politicians that can't be shaken out of their authority positions. No one has the power to challenge this system, and it stinks. When the barking dogs of society start to get too close to them, they just hire more animal control specialist with plenty of muzzles.
Well, here's old dog breath, come and drop the net over me. I'm an old dog and easy to net.

Disgusted with the 2 party system. Stop the world I want to get off, this planet sucks.

Jim
 
I am an LEO and I don't perceive most of the comments in threads like this, with rare exceptions, to be unsolicited "cop bashing" at all. There are several things that one must accept when taking on the responsibility of being an LEO. One very big issue that must be accepted and understood by the prospective LEO is the fact that they will be charged with exercising the absolute highest power that any human being can be authorized to use. That power is the power to restrict another human being's freedom.

As an LEO I am charged with the duty of apprehending people who violate the laws that I enforce. When I take a person into custody I am literally taking away their right to freedom. As long as it is a lawful arrest I am allowed to use whatever level of force is necessary, up to and including deadly force, to effect the arrest.

To expect to possess, much less exercise this level of authority over other human beings without encountering an emotional response on their part would be absolutely ludicrous(<~sp?) of me or any other LEO. Restricting a person's rights is essentially treading on their soul and is no doubt serious business.

Consider this analogy. Government gun control laws and restrictions tread on what we pro-gun, law abiding citizens feel is our birth right, the right to a means to protect our life. Even laws as trivial and non-detrimental as "feeding device capacity" restrictions solicit a resentment at the very least on our part.

Now consider the LE that, in effect, actually has more power than the people making these laws. He has the actual power to actually restrict your freedom by using any force necessary, and can even take your life legally depending on the nature and extent of your resistance.

Although most of us don't resent any and all government authority or laws, we do hold some resentment for the authority that has the ability to infringe on our rights and or freedom.

Granted, if I looked only at the verbal wording of some responses and comments I could draw the conclusion that I am being bashed and resented just for being a cop and that it is totally uncalled for. On the same token, if one were to look at the wording or tone of some of the LE replies, they could draw the conclusion that LE was unwaveringly defending any and all actions of the police. However, I don't think that these possible conclusions are the actual intent of either side of this issue.

I believe the real issue here is that people rightfully feel that LE has an obligation to operate under guidelines based on "what is actually *NECESSARY* to handle the situation at hand" rather than merely basing their tactics on "what they can justify in court". I don't think it is cop bashing in any form.

Just my .02, FWIW...

------------------
The Glock freak formerly known as Chris...
 
QUOTE...

I believe the real issue here is that people rightfully feel that LE has an obligation to operate under guidelines based on "what is actually *NECESSARY* to handle the situation at hand" rather than merely basing their tactics on "what they can justify in court". I don't think it is cop bashing in any form.

Just my .02, FWIW...
[/B][/QUOTE]

--------------------------------------------
Thank you Rainbowsix. :) You are one savy policeman. Such expressive insight is very refreshing to us civilians who indeed have to rely on your good judgement and tollerance towards us in the populist. If all PDs were this forthright, there wouldn't be any bickering on this thread. Sorry for the ranting I've been doing but no one seems to really care about this issue in our Federal Government, this of course reflects a great deal on how we the lowly underlings of those gods in DC put us in such a bind with such bad law enforcement. If I saw a cop in trouble on the road or in town, I would give the best assistance an old fart like me could give. Here in Wisconsin we cannot get concealed weapons permits, the political gods in Madison don't want us packing guns and drinking it up in the taverns. That is an actual quote from one of the government biggies here. And all I got to say to that is...we have the Constitutional right to keep and bare arms...RKBA.

Jim
 
Dennis,
You have hit on something with your post that has bothered most LEOs for a longtime. The people at the top that make the rules do not listen to the people that are ACTUALLY DOING the job. Most LEO administrators are too politcally to make an appropriate policy. The LEOs administrators that try to do the right thing get spanked. A shining example is gun control. Most line LEOs are against control but most administrators are for it.

Part of the "bigger problem" I see is our country collapsing from a lack of morality. I point to trends such as kids shooting up schools, adults shooting up work places, rampant drug use, teen pregencies, etc. When we see problems in LEOs such as corruption, unwarranted violence, etc. we need to answer the question where do LEOs come from? The ranks of our citizens. So if we are having problems in society we are going to have the same problems in law enforcement (and the military).

So my theory is instead of just focusing on law enforcement we need to try and fix our entire country. Focusing on law enforcement agencies is just a bandaide approach. So the question is why is this happening in our country and how do we fix it? Do you guys think fixing our country is too much to hope for?
 
Jim,

My opinion on why things are the way they are goes like this. LE, like almost every other profession or business these days (big tobacco, gun manufacturers, car manufacturers, etc...) operates in constant fear of lawsuits and liability.

A perfect example here. I got a recall on my 2000 GMC truck this week. The "issue"? They need to put warning labels on the front brakes that say not to let the calipers hang loose while performing brake maintainance or brake line damage might occur!! Well no sh*t!!!

No doubt people have tried to sue GM because Goober down at the fillin' station let the calipers hang loose instead of securing them up with a piece of wire or something like every other mechanic in the world knows to do and damaged the brake lines on Thelma Lou's GMC and caused her to have a few drops of brake fluid on her carport floor!! You know, I almost called the dealership to tell them to come get it with a rollback because I was afraid to drive it without the warning stickers!! I wonder how much GM had to spend to recall all these trucks and put "Hey Idiot" stickers on them?!? :mad:

Big fat Standard Operating Procedure books have taken the place of common sense in too many areas of life and everyone is allowed to launch a law suit for *ANYTHING*! Heh, and we're worried about gun control!!! :o

Man, I gotta stop. I'm so aggravated I can't feel my legs!! :D

Thanks for the kind words, Jim. :)



------------------
The Glock freak formerly known as Chris...
 
mrat,

My point exactly. :)

People, LE included, often learn what they can do and get away with in court and then set the rules accordingly. No individual responsibility at all.

------------------
The Glock freak formerly known as Chris...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top