Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

If I wanted to be a soldier, I would have been a soldier. Fact is, I joined the Navy, blew out my ACL, and my short career as a non-civilian ended. The minute I pinned a badge on, I became an employee of the citizenry, not a ruler thereof.

2nd Ammendment, there are several issues you and I disagree on, but this one is not one of them. I do feel that the use of SWAT type teams has become far too common, and for the betterment of no one. It seems that the beat cop is no longer capable of anything but simple traffic stops, and anyhting else requires an APC and a four man stack to accomplish.

Thankfully, in my semi-rural setting the SWAT team exists only on TV. We seem to be able to handle everything from warrant services to barricaded subjects without the use of one.

Hopefully the public will see things for whatthey are, and pitch a fit. I fear, however, that this will not be the case. With television shows such as Dallas SWAT and Texas SWAT on TV, there seems to be a movement to devillify the tactical team.

It really irks me when they use the phrase "when you are in trouble, you call the cops, when the cops are in trouble they call us." My ass. When I get in trouble, I call a few more just like me, and we handle it.
 
It seems we are being conditioned to gradually accept a police state. OTOH that implies some level of Conspiracy. So maybe, instead, we are simply becoming a frightened society that demands more control and will sacrifice more for a sense of security and "safety"? But that implies we ourselves as a society are deteriorating which is...bizarre...

Chicken or egg?

Side note: I've mentioned this before but, in my little burg of 6,000 or so we had a half dozen cops in the early 80's Same number in the 50's. Same number in the 20's when this was a rough-ass mining town with twice the population. As far as I know the murder rate and violent crime rates have remained relatively unchanged, yet we now have around 20 cops, a dozen cars, M-16's in every unit, 4x4's, dogs, body armor... Seems the excess is present in more than just the abusive examples provided by Balko, it just hasn't manifested itself...yet. Whatever, the local civvies like it so I am not holding my breath for any great public outcry.
 
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Civilian \Ci*vil"ian\, n. [From Civil]
1. One skilled in the civil law.

Ancient civilians and writers upon government.
--Swift.

2. A student of the civil law at a university or college.
--R. Graves.

3. One whose pursuits are those of civil life, not military
or clerical.
 
Exactly. Better that ten innocent persons suffer than one guilty escape...or something like that...
Click to expand...

Ah, but there lies the rub. You see, we are all guilty of something; the "innocent" are just criminals that haven't been caught yet. At least, that's the attitude expressed by some (such as those who use the term "innocent" "loosely.")
 
I fear that overuse of tactical teams is likely caused by budget politics and a need to "keep the edge". I imagine a SWAT team or other tactical unit is expensive to equip and train, and there's a desire to use them as much as possible to justify the unit's existance so that their budget doesn't get cut. Also using them to serve the more routine warrants is almost like free training and field experience to prepare them for the more dangerous situations.

My opinion is that many such units are likely a neccessary evil in this day and age. However I believe that they should be held fully accountable for their actions, not just on a civil level, but on a criminal level as well. "Oops... we didn't mean to kick in your door and kill your family. We wanted the guy with the unpaid parking tickets across the street," shouldn't cut it. These people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when they screw up.
 
The simple explanation for this activity is federal money has been given to local police agencies to form these "paramilitary" units - and once they've got them, it's natural that they want to use them, leading to the increase referenced in the article.
 
I'm sure that Daryl Gates would be (is?) proud that his original concept (what was it he wanted to call it originally? Special Weapons Attack Teams? overruled by his boss and a modified moniker ensued) which originated in the days of six-shot revolvers and a dump pouch for Joe Cop, has evolved nation-world wide into a must-have force to police today's ner-do-wells in our ever more violent criminal type society. Todays LEO's almost all have semiautomatic handguns with at least two spare magazines, maybe a shotgun or an AR type carbine at hand, yet there are still moments when issuance of warrants dictate dynamic entry... no?

Whether it should be a majority of the time or not... not my place to say.

There are certainly angry people out there who are armed and dangerous (are you? of course you are... or could be should you so choose... well maybe not angry), maybe not late 60's Black Panther angry or SLA 70's dangerous; it may be that todays version is better armed, with no central organization, prone to shoot first, fast and a lot should anyone come to and bust in their front door (would you?) to protect whatever nefarious pursuits they've chosen to undertake.

The unfortunate and scary part is incorrect targeting. Friendly Fire, Collateral Damage, Wasting Innocent Lives (as Buzz noted, they're probably guilty of something... sadly), depending on informants who know how to play the game ("gee whiz Officer Jones, too bad you guys killed a bunch of singing nuns, I really thought they had a crack house in there. bad break for you huh?"), Prosecutors and Judges all too willing to affix their names to a warrant, (quickly now, musn't lose any, you know, momentum) who seem to have no oversight or pay penance for their sins of occasional stupidity.

Easy to blame the Cops. Sharp end of the spear and all.

Who wrote the legislation?

Who signed it into law?

Who signed off on the warrant?

As for the paramilitary thing... I tend to think more concern should be directed at our Federal Gov't Policing Agencies, even tho' the King's Men don't seem to be as active in our local communities, but they all seem to feel the need for HRT/SWAT like teams to enforce their programs as well. Sign of the times... I guess. Either you're Government Issue (G.I.) or you're a Civilian. Some of these Civilians are employed by our various Governments' Police Agencies, wear badges, carry guns and enforce the crystallized prejudices of that particular community with force. More and more force. Typically immune (not always) from prosecution for their foul ups. Sometimes, that which they enforce is not really a law, but one of their own home-made regulations or Bureaucratic policies. Hmmmm. Hard to fight a ghost.

And we get to pay for it. Boy, do we pay for it.

Sometimes it comes out well. Sometimes it doesn't.

Would this country be a better, safer place if that all disappeared overnight?

Maybe... (who am I kidding here? Certainly no one on this board.)

There's a lot of armed, violent bad guys out there. But I bet there's a lot more good guys.

It'll get worse.
Never better.

But I've become a cynic it seems, and the world... a little more crowded each day, a little less civilized (was it ever?).

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. (Who watches the watchers?) You, Me and Cato too, it would seem. But will anything positive result?
 
I’ll opine here because a point was made that hits on a long standing view I’ve mentioned here on TFL before, even though I think every LEO on this board disagrees with me. I don’t anticipate the poster that made that point will respond, but I’ll bring it up anyway because I think it gets to the heart of the reason we (U.S.A.) find ourself in the situation CATO has illustrated.

Bottom line - police go home at the end of the shift.
Click to expand...
This, I think, is the heart of the matter. A law enforcement officers job is not to go home every night. Of course that’s a top priority, and I support efforts on their part to help ensure they do go home to the wife and kids...to a point. However, an LEO’s “bottom line” is to effectively protect his community from the damage caused by “badguy’s”. When the actions of the police, no matter how well intentioned, cause the community to suffer in the same way the "badguy" makes the community suffer, by sometimes causing death and destruction to innocents, law enforcement as a whole needs to rethink their priorities. I think that the attitude that “no matter what, I’m going home a the end of my shift” has led to the massive rise in SWAT teams. This attitude is hammered into cops from day one of the academy, to use of force continuing education throughout their career, to simple conversations with other cops. The entire focus of departments changes from doing their job, to finding new ways to ensure everybody goes home at end of the shift.

As I said, I don’t fault an LEO for doing what he can to stack the deck in his favor, as long as he doesn’t take it too far. Even though the point of this article is how the “war on drugs” has led to a militarization of police work, I think they misdiagnose what has happened. The focus of ensuring no LEO gets hurt is a main reason SWAT is used. People may try to fool themselves into believing it’s to ensure that evidence isn’t destroyed, but let’s be realistic here. The vast majority of the time SWAT is used to arrest somebody, they’re serving a warrant. By definition then, they already have at least some evidence. SWAT’s purpose isn’t to gather evidence (although that might be a useful side effect), it is to help ensure everybody goes home at the end of the day. In fact, it even means that more often than not, the badguy gets to go home too (well to jail). As CATO has illustrated however, hindsight is able to show us that innocents have had to pay the price of this officer safety. When innocent people have to pay the ultimate price to ensure that LEO’s go home to their families, law enforcement needs to step back and rethink the whole purpose of their existence.
 
Just speculating here, but how much as the publicity of paramilitary style police raids influenced criminals to become better armed?
 
My job is not to go home at the end of the shift, as much as I want to. My job is to make sure that YOU go home, or stay home, safely at the end of my shift. That is is the very definition of "Protect and Serve." If I wanted a gurantee for my safety, I would not have signed on the dotted line. I knew the risks and the responsibility that come part and parcel with the authority.

I do this job not for the adrenaline rush, or to feel the heavy weight of the badge upon my chest. I sure don't do it for the low pay, and poor hours. I am not a peae officer because I enjoy spending my days off in a court room, and my holidays with feuding families instead of my own.

I took this job because someone has to do it. Someone has to be 10-8 to protect my family, why not me? While I am at it, I will protect any other family with the same fervor and commitment, whether I like them or not. They pay my salary, they are my employers. An old hand once told me that no matter the crime committed, no matter the attitude displayed by those I arrest or deal with, I am their servant to the end. Itis just as much my job to protect the bad guys as it is the good guys. Increasingly, that line is blurred.

I feel that we, as a profession, could stand to learn a little bit of humility.
 
ahenry,

I'm ok with that. I do want to go home, and while that is a high priority, it is not my top priority.

Lillysdad put it very well. For most of us, it's not he glory, the power, the thrill, etc. It's the deep desire to stand up against the bad guys. A "righteous" indignation to the idea that some people will prey on others. We stand up and say "that's not right, and I'm here to make sure you don't do it (again)." There is something inside that says "I want to go out and try to do something." Since you can't do it legally without a badge, we pick one up.

Those who feel this way know that it's hard to describe. Those who don't come up with reasons like "glory, power, thrillseeker" because they don't understand.
 
I have just read three pages of this topic, and in my opinion there's a lot of truth here and a lot of unecessary animosity, When we sign on to a forum and deside to reply to a topic, we must remember that we should reply to the subject not the individual, as that creates hostilities that get nothing accomplished, a cool head unlike a drafty Toilet will prevail in the end.

It is an unfortunate fact that errors have and will again be made and the best we can hope for is to try in the future to minimize them to the point that they will not be common place.

As to the swat teams If I remember correctly they were brought into being to deal with the severe cases that the beat cop was not well equipted to handel, like a Hostage situation, a baracaded person armed and threatning to do great harm, and dealing with Terroist.

The first thing we have to remember about the Police is a very simple one, they are there to "Protect and Serve", and most people misunderstand the First word, we some how believe that the Police are supposed to prevent us from getting hurt or Killed, That simply is not true, and for this reason, the Police can only act after a crime has been commited not before, or to enforce a Court rulling such as a restrainning order ETC..

As to the Police not being civilians, that is BS, they are in fact Civilians, just as much as we are but when on duty they are Law Enforcement People, off duty they are just like us no different, except they see things differently than we do, such as we do not see a criminal act in process as quickly as they, because we are not trained to see things the way they do. They do a thankless job, they are HERO'S when they do good in our eyes, and a bunch of BUMS when they don't do what we expect them to do, no matter if they could have done anything or not, that don't enter into our way of thinking, They are the COPS, RIGHT!

You take just for an example, the famous or infamous Bank Robery in Calif., that was all over the news a few years ago, would anyone of us step into that situation, with out all the fire power we could muster, I think not. But we can stand back and say "WHY DON'T THEY DO SOMETHING", being part of a sideline "Command and Control Center" is no different than being an armchair Quarterback, we aren't in the fight or the game so we can say and do anything that we think is the best thing to do.

To sumorize we need to give credit where credit is due and place blame where it really applies, and that in both cases in my mind is directed in the leadership and the Comand and Control, they need to be sure that what is said to be, is in fact what it is, if so then, do what must be done.

Hope I haven't bored any of you and if I have steped on any toes, excuse me I was not trying to.

I salute all Law Enforcement People, Just as I salute all our Military People, and the Fire Fighters, it takes a large bunch or good people to protect us the UNGRATEFUL PUBLIC.
 
Last edited:
My job is not to go home at the end of the shift, as much as I want to. My job is to make sure that YOU go home, or stay home, safely at the end of my shift. That is is the very definition of "Protect and Serve."
Click to expand...

Hats off to you sir! Well said.
 
Yes, hats off to lilysdad and jcoiii.

Just two of the truly "good guys" who have their priorities straight and understand what it's supposed to be all about.

God protect you both!
 
Not to be insensitive or take this thread off where it's gone... but wait, you mean to tell me our SWAT teams are shooting nonviolent, small-time drug offenders? :confused:


Awesome. I can't stand druggies, regardless of how "recreational" or "harmless" their "soft" their drugs are. It's against the law, they should go to jail, except I don't want to pay for their meals. At least they can't get federal loan money if they're honest, paying for their horticulture degree would be further insult to the decent taxpayers out there.

I know this perspective's probably a little radical and unpopular. And no, I'm not saying our drug policy has been a rousing success or anything. But I don't think complacency and ultimately resigning to the fact that there's nothin we can do is the correct route, either. I am just so tired of having to deal with people whose character shortcomings lead them to illegal chemicals.

I also think police should go in with the force they feel comfortable with. They are to "protect and serve," not "risk getting killed." There are inherent risks, but if them wearing serious battle armor saves one of their lives, and going in the subs and ARs discourages one offender from shooting in the first place, so be it. Mistakes happen and it's unfortunate, but you were doing something wrong if you were in a house where law enforcement was so tense entering that something happened. Far more police are hurt and killed every year doing routine parts of the job that should have relatively little risk, and I think we should have an attitude that reciprocates the protection officers afford us by allowing them to protect themselves.
 
Mistakes happen and it's unfortunate, but you were doing something wrong if you were in a house where law enforcement was so tense entering that something happened.
Click to expand...

Though I can sympathize with not caring much about what happens to a bunch of druggies, the problem is that they sometimes aren't even raiding the right house. Would you be saying "mistakes happen" when they kick in your door and shoot you or a family member because the mistook your house for the home of the guy down the street who's cooking meth in his kitchen?
 
Not to be insensitive or take this thread off where it's gone... but wait, you mean to tell me our SWAT teams are shooting nonviolent, small-time drug offenders?


Awesome. I can't stand druggies, regardless of how "recreational" or "harmless" their "soft" their drugs are. It's against the law, they should go to jail, except I don't want to pay for their meals. At least they can't get federal loan money if they're honest, paying for their horticulture degree would be further insult to the decent taxpayers out there.

I know this perspective's probably a little radical and unpopular. And no, I'm not saying our drug policy has been a rousing success or anything. But I don't think complacency and ultimately resigning to the fact that there's nothin we can do is the correct route, either. I am just so tired of having to deal with people whose character shortcomings lead them to illegal chemicals.

I also think police should go in with the force they feel comfortable with. They are to "protect and serve," not "risk getting killed." There are inherent risks, but if them wearing serious battle armor saves one of their lives, and going in the subs and ARs discourages one offender from shooting in the first place, so be it. Mistakes happen and it's unfortunate, but you were doing something wrong if you were in a house where law enforcement was so tense entering that something happened. Far more police are hurt and killed every year doing routine parts of the job that should have relatively little risk, and I think we should have an attitude that reciprocates the protection officers afford us by allowing them to protect themselves.
Click to expand...


You, sir, disgust me. I am an officer of the law, I amnot Judge, jury, nor executiioner. I do not, and will not, decide guilt nor a criminal's fate. Its not my place, and it damn sure aint your place.

There are not many crimes that warrant the immediate death by death squad, on the spot. Illlicit drug use isn't one of them, in my opinion. A mistake by officers SURE doesn't warrant being killed.
 
Not to be insensitive or take this thread off where it's gone... but wait, you mean to tell me our SWAT teams are shooting nonviolent, small-time drug offenders?


Awesome. I can't stand druggies, regardless of how "recreational" or "harmless" their "soft" their drugs are. It's against the law, they should go to jail, except I don't want to pay for their meals.
Click to expand...

You logically extend this line of reasoning to alcoholics, correct? Or do you find Alcohol to be a "good" thing and a plant product to be a "bad" thing? I'm really interested in understanding your point of view, here. I've had relatives killed by drunk drivers. I've had relatives die from quitting alcohol. I've never known of anyone killed by someone was exclusively indulging in a plant or by just indulging in it period. Oooh! What about TOBACCO? Our insurance premiums and tax dollars take more punishment from dumbasses who insist on killing themselves with it than some guy toking up on his couch. I should slow down. Too much exposure to reality can be harmful to some people.

[this space reserved for my reply explaining how I don't even drink when someone accuses me of being a drug addict, because we all know that only drug addicts have a problem with the war on some drugs]

Suppose a certain class of weaponry is heavily restricted or banned in the next few years. Will you applaud the deaths of unauthorized owners of .50s or >10 round magazines? It would, after all, be against the law. Perhaps under Shillary Snopes Clinton, dissent and free speech against the administration will be curtailed. You will, of course, be cheering on the deaths of those people who defy such legislation since they will be commiting, according to big mother government, 'illegal acts'?

Please do not propogate your genetic material, ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top